Hindustan Times
Sim-sat on Indian TV
I don’t know if you watch Cyrus Broacha’s weekly satirical show on CNN-IBN. Cyrus is a very funny guy but for me the highlight of the show is often the mock interview with a celebrity. The way it works is this. Cyrus (or his producers) take clips from a genuine interview with a celebrity and then splice in bogus questions that Cyrus asks.
For instance, if a celebrity cricketer is asked why there is such a fuss over the IPL and responds, “It is all a question of money”, Cyrus’s producers delete the question but keep the answer. Then, Cyrus asks a bogus question, say, something like “Why is Sharad Pawar so fascinated by cricket?” The cricketer is then shown answering, “It’s all a question of money”. (This is a hypothetical example to illustrate the point. As far as I know, no such question and answer session has taken place on Cyrus’s show.)
For me, the most frightening aspect of the mock interview is how well it works. Only rarely does there seem to be a disconnect between the made-up questions and the answers.
There is a reason for this and it is one of the dirty secrets of Indian television.
The term ‘sim-sat’ probably means nothing to most viewers but everybody in TV knows exactly what it involves. An anchor interviews a guest off camera, perhaps on a satellite link. But when it is time to go on air, the anchor will not show the interview as it was recorded. Instead, he or she will pretend that the guest is actually live on air. The questions will be asked again live and the old answers will be replayed. Often, there will be a super saying Live, which I guess, is half-true because the anchor is live even if the guest is not.
These days, anchors have got more ambitious. They splice in these pre-recorded interviews when live discussions are taking place. Assume that an anchor has interviewed, say, Shankar Menon before the show went on air. Menon has been asked whether talking to Pakistan is a good idea. He has responded that we have no choice but to talk, that we will focus on terror, etc.
A skillful anchor will steer the live discussion on to the subject of talks and will then say something like, “Let me bring in the National Security Advisor here. Mr Menon, you have heard our guests say that talking to Pakistan could be a mistake. Why do you think that we should talk?”
And then, they will play Menon’s pre-recorded answer.
Once you understand how the sim-sat works, many of TV’s mysteries will be cleared up. How, for instance, do the same people manage to turn up on different channels simultaneously? Why is it that even when panelists ask pointed questions of each other, some of them are never answered? In our hypothetical example above, if a panelist were to say something like, “I know that the National Security Advisor is an American stooge who misleads the Prime Minister”, you would expect the anchor to turn to Shankar Menon and ask him to defend himself. But in the case of a sim-sat, this is not possible. So, the allegation would probably go unanswered.
I pass no value judgements about the sim-sat phenomenon. As far as I know, every single television channel does it. It is part of the everyday routine of news television. In some cases, I am pretty sure that the anchors phrase their questions much more aggressively when they repeat them live to make themselves look good. That, too, is par for the course.
My experience of international TV is limited but I doubt if the BBC would do this. Nor do I think that sim-sats are common on American television.
So, why do we do it in India? Is there no alternative? And shouldn’t there be a debate about the practice?
(22 votes, average: 4.68 out of 5)
Loading ...
ishwar Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I have nothing against ’sim-sat’ as you call it. The problem I have with the anchors on TV today is their hidden agenda. They proclaim being unbiased while the truth is completely something else. I’ll give you an example. During the recent SS-MNIK episode on one of the big TV channels, although they had somebody from Shiv Sena (not in the studio), the anchor was ridiculing him on his party’s stand on the issue. Let’s be fair. We are in a democracy and you are conducting a discussion on a so-called “Live TV”. As an anchor, you are right to ask any question but you can’t choose to ridicule a person only because his/her opinion doesn’t match with what you think is the only correct stand. The secular TV anchors can hate SS as much as they like-it makes my love for SS even more stronger.
[Reply]
shiven Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Dear Vir,
This is about your clarification (in brackets and reproduced below for you to read). Have things really come to such a pass? Did you even think before you put that clarification? Or does it now come without naturally and without a thought? After all you did mention that Cyrus is asking a bogus question.
I am sure you will agree it makes bad writing style and it makes you seem on guard without reason.
I read your stuff regularly and this is the first time i noticed you looking in the rear view mirror. Seemed fair I pointed it out. Now its up to you as to how you wish to treat this feedback.
THE CLARIFICATION IN BRACKETS I AM REFERRING TO PRODUCED BELOW:
Then, Cyrus asks a bogus question, say, something like “Why is Sharad Pawar so fascinated by cricket?” The cricketer is then shown answering, “It’s all a question of money”. (This is a hypothetical example to illustrate the point. As far as I know, no such question and answer session has taken place on Cyrus’s show.)
[Reply]