When two views are very strongly held and even more strongly voiced, not a few times but repeatedly and with pious unction, that too in a short space of relevant time, the fragrance of fish eventually wafts in. Why, you ask yourself, are these fellows getting so passionate over something as trivial as this?
The most current example, of course, is the froth that is being generated over opinion and exit polls. The media, of which I am partly a part, is on one side. The politicians are on the other. Of the two, it is the politicians who are less right. Even so, they have a point.
If you want to prove it, I told one of them the other day, your party should organise an exit poll on exit polls. This could be done by asking viewers what they thought of the programme as soon as it ended.
He was thrilled and said he would check with the party bosses. Lest the fellow claim credit for the idea, I am applying for IPR protection right here.
I also asked him if there was a danger of the political parties banding together in the next parliament and legislating a ban on such polls. It could happen, he said, but the Supreme Court will strike it down, especially after what Soli Sorabjee has said about Article 19.
There is a better way, I told him. You can pass a law that either bans advertising on such programmes or limits it to public awareness ads -- family planning, environmental conservation, polio, AIDS, you know the sort of thing. That would quickly separate the humbugs from the genuine. (Once again, let me for apply IPR protection right here).
Consider the first idea of an exit poll on exit polls. The politicians have two main grievances. One is that these polls don't tell you like it is; the other is that they influence voters because in India elections, instead of being held on the same day for everyone, are staggered over a few weeks. This could, they say, in people changing their minds as result of the polls.
Everyone knows that opinion and exit polls can't be right on every time. But everyone also knows that they are right enough times to have some credibility. But simply griping about it is not going to damage this credibility, which relies as much on fact as perception.
If you can't do very much about the facts, you can have a go at credibility. And what better way than to ask viewers two simple questions: did you watch the whole show and do you believe what you just saw? Just SMS us, with a copy to the channel in question.
Or even better ask A C Nielsen. If I am not wrong, it made its name through the famous Nielsen TV Ratings in the United States. So it should be able to handle this quite easily.
It will be a little expensive but, surely if all parties are agreed on the need to ban such polls, they can agree on spending a few lakhs of rupees on carrying out an exit poll on exit polls? No? Then they should shut up and put up.
There could be, as it happens, a third way of getting to the same result: permit legal betting on the exit polls of the different channels. Ladbrokes or someone equally big can be asked to run the book.
Think about it. On which channel would you be willing to wager the largest sum? What questions would you ask about the channel and the presenters, not to mention the methodology of the polls before plunking your money down?
As a long time inhabitant of the press, I know exactly where each of these channels and presenters is coming from. Perhaps I could run a tipping service, like those investors' newsletters.
I am not being facetious. Nothing concentrates the mind as the prospect of gaining or losing money. There seems no reason why only the TV channels should rake it in. Your small voter, as it were, too needs to be given a chance. Betting volumes on different channels will be a surer indicator of their credibility than anything else.
And talking of money brings up the main driving force behind these polls. If there was no money to be made from opinion and exit polls via advertising on the shows, how many channels would still go for them? Fewer than now, I am sure, if any at all.
Much would depend on the advertising rates. Public awareness campaigns would not, in all probability, be able to afford the volumes required to make it profitable for the channels.
But their profits should not, I imagine, be a matter of public concern. But one way out would be to keep phone lines open and seek pledges to the cause in question. Some of the cost could be defrayed that way, especially if there is an 80G exemption.
However there are two relevant considerations. Both arise from Article 19. Would a restriction on the type of advertising abridge the right to freedom of expression and the right to carry on a business (19-g)?
If so, there could be a problem. Commercial advertisers could well argue that a limitation on advertising infringes their rights in both respects.
To which I would say come on, chaps, promote a good cause for a change, not just your dodgy product. You can do that as much as you want during the cricket matches. But during opinion and exit polls, spread the good word about family planning, environmental conservation, polio, AIDS, etc. Social responsibility is not such a bad thing.
Since elections are held only now and then, the advertisers should not feel aggrieved at being forced to sponsor awareness ads. And I can't see the channels complaining, either as long as they get paid what they would otherwise have earned.
Implicit in the arguments above is the idea that I disapprove of opinion polls and exit polls. Far from it. Like most others, I think they are very jolly entertainment. Of course they suffer from flaws. Of course they go wrong. But by and large they are damned good fun in a country that loves politics like a pig loves a pool of mud.
So what's my problem? I will be honest. I don't like some of the presenters.
Contrary to what they think they don't, actually, know it all.