Too little information on local TV

As we stay glued to our TV set from day to day, we realize with increasing disappointment that quite a number of our local programs are too lazily produced, and thus end up providing too little real information.

This is especially true of some daily public affairs and interview shows, which usually feature just two or even one guest for their full-hour running time.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the guest were a top VIP or powerful newsmaker who could fill up the entire program with a series of breaking-news revelations.

Quite often, however, the guest for the day is a public official or civic leader who doesn’t have much that’s new to share, and could easily have said his piece in 10 minutes—or less!

However, since the show doesn’t have much else lined up, the host stretches the interview, asking too many basic or predictable “motherhood” questions, the “fatherhood” answers to which viewers already know from reading the daily papers!

Why don’t the daily shows invite more and better guests? Because it takes more work and initiative, and some regular shows have fallen into a comfortable and even downright lazy pattern that enables them to “get by” on minimal effort and elbow grease.

The ironic thing is that some of these programs top-bill acclaimed hosts who keep winning awards for their “exceptional” interviews. Yes, a few of their telecasts may be praiseworthy, but viewers deserve more consistently superior service.

TV hosts and production people should remind themselves that TV time is very valuable, because many thousands of viewers are watching and can potentially benefit from what  they impart—if the broadcast people who have vowed to serve them work  as  hard as they should, instead of just resting on their laurels—and awards.

If a daily show features more and better guests in shorter and more focused portions, viewers would be more genuinely grateful.

A particularly disappointing show we recently watched had a panel of three interviewing a lone foreign expert on a host of topics related to the economy.

The program was a letdown because the three panelists were contented to just ask one question after another, which the expert answered just as “efficiently.”

Terse, dull

Due to this dryly Q&A format, the show covered a lot of ground—but it didn’t really connect with and enlighten viewers because it was so terse and dull.

Whatever happened to follow-up queries to get explanatory and clarifying details? It was like watching three efficient machines talking to another similarly efficient technical repository of information and opinion!

We suspect that the featured expert had a lot to share in more clarifyingly personal terms, but the panel’s overly efficient questions boxed him in and prevented him from communicating with viewers in a truly helpful way.

Can we try to be more human, connected and inclusive, please?