Ever since the proclamation of 21st November as the World Television Day by the United Nations in December 1996, the status of the sarcastically called idiot box has plummeted. One of the reasons for the gradual decline is, of course, the operation of TV centres or channels round the clock. Notwithstanding the advantage of an effective visual medium, television had to go for cheap entertainment to cover 12 hours a day and seven days a week. It is a daunting challenge, no doubt. Maintaining high standard of programmes is simply impossible, particularly when producers of average or below average talent are at the helm of affairs. In developing countries like Bangladesh, even the viewers are the mix of a small segment of high intellectuals with refined cultural taste and the majority falling far behind in appreciating subtle nuances and opprobria. Gone are the days when TV enjoyed a monopoly role in moulding life and lifestyle for many all across the world.
This does not however make TV a redundant gadget as yet. The UN had no intention of celebrating TV as an electronic tool; rather the world body wanted to see it develop as a universal spokesperson for democracy, peace, human rights and values. If TV viewers are glued to the technically orchestrated stunt scenes and soap operas with no substance in those, the electronic medium may have exerted a sedative or intoxicating influence on viewers but fails in its mission to guide them intellectually and culturally. TV serials of these days are mostly so unrealistic that viewers addicted to those have lost the capacity to critically look at the contents. This makes brain idle so much so that some are convinced of the truth of the make-believe world. Such viewers can only be pitied.
In capable hands, though, TV programmes can still be a social change-maker. But it has to be admitted that social sites have usurped much of the power TV once boasted. If a little known young senator from Massachusetts John F. Kennedy defined the TV role by his arguments in presidential debate on the electronic medium against Republican Vice-President, Richard Nixon, the time will never be the same again for a similar feat. With all his blemishes Donald Trump made extensive use of social websites to get over his constraints and beat his opponents in his party and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The weakness of social sites is the hollowness in their contents but as a disseminator of message or information, it has no equal.
Television now has to work against this mini television in the form of smartphones. Unless its contents are much superior and presented in the most desirable formats, TV cannot beat the personal source of information or news. Potentially, each smartphone possessor or wielder is a rival of TV reporters. On that count, television somewhat lags behind. But its strength lies in the piecing a programme with background materials and prediction for the future by experts on a particular subject. More importantly, television should represent the nation's finest achievements, allude to the aspirations of the people and suggest how to make the nation proud through collective contributions.