The paradox of television media

The term ‘development of media’ has in itself an intricate puzzle. In spite of the obscurity in the literal meaning of the word ‘development’, would the word mean the same in the abstract? Does ‘development’ mean the increase in the number of people it had reached? If so, with what one would measure it if not with the minds of the viewers?
There was a wonderful philosophy taught in this southern state, during the 60s and 70s, that politics alone amongst the infinite professions doesn’t require any middlemen to reach the people. And no other profession gets degraded as do politics if such middlemen are led to dance. Journalism, today, had announced itself in the place of the middlemen and hence acting as a separator of the people from the politics, and eventually it more frequently than ever started proclaiming that the respective news company had always tried to do the opposite.
What has happened with the implementations of the TRP systems, let us say it be for the purpose of business and hence it deals with businesses like advertisements and cinema, is that it had led us question with what strong philosophy Media lends a hand towards politics, and whether it is trying to prove that politics is a business too?
Let me explain why a separation is now required between a television media and politics in spite of its impossibility. I wouldn’t be the first to say that politics is in everything. The political philosophy which a nation claims as its identity must have seeped inside every civilian of that country. It must be simple to understand and at the same time must be vigorous to encompass people who know about it with a typical confidence.
Whether ‘Ahimsa’, a philosophy that meets the conditions mentioned above, is such a phenomenon being still alive at every state, city and every corner of a slum, remains obscure. ‘Ahimsa’ was an ideology that even Gandhi suffered so much to keep intact, let alone normal survivors who are expected in perfecting it. In every corner people, without any inhibition, exhibit only violent aggression. As this aggression now appears as a collective quality of the Indian population, there arises a doubt whether we are in need of a new political philosophy that includes the aggression of the lower-classes, that whether ‘Ahimsa’ is beginning to be outdated in the recent times.
As already these confusions prevail within political philosophies, the usual method of dealing by the politicians directly with the people, even if daily like clock-work, it is a humungous task in itself for unifying like-minded people.
The television media, owing to its competition, is forced to balance reality and money-making components, such that on screen it appears as an illusory collection of facts which people, though they believe it is true, after sometime, divide the things shown on television from what happen to them personally into two different entities. The minds of the people push them to differentiate the happenings on ground and on screen, though the event is the same. Naturally, the news onscreen in its rawness gets least recorded in the people’s minds; only a blunt useless gist and the flavor of the incident is what they get familiar with.
News always thrills only the first time. The same news when repeated loses its purpose, for then it also loses its thrill and transforms into a corpse. If all importance of a news item is lost, people use it for no other purpose than for their sarcasm. Even the truest news is risked to be misled through the business structure of media; think what would happen of the first case-the communication between the politician and the people.
The first case discrepancy is destined to remain as long as there are people and a ruler. But the illusions of the media could be broken down. This could be achieved by moving one step backward by attending public meetings and discussions organized by the respective political parties people like. This leads to risking the basic substantiation for any television-finding no need to watch it when everyone goes to watch it live. To achieve any kind of morality and bring something back to order, a slight chaos is always admissible. If the meeting you take part is an activist propaganda, it is even more better. Nothing teaches you more about the government than these, which sharply criticize the government as well as geo-politics.
Attachment with the politics of the nation is impossible without on-ground participation with the politicians, and it will only be either fallible or misdirected whilst watching television politics with a coke and pop-corn.
No sooner would the media understands that it is degrading itself, as searching for ideas to increase the TRP is itself a symptom for its lack of orthodox political philosophy. With the current familiarity of television media the number of people watching them is surely at a rise. But if asked what each and every individual think about it, the honest notions and opinions about a certain political move or a certain political leader, no person is qualified to give a standard statement of what they feel. This keeps on increasing as much as the television moves on its current path. As a result of it there develops a sense of insecurity for the citizens of their nations because of this lack of raw truth. Well then! Is today’s path of the television media directed towards development?