When TV leads the charge

Social activists, networks and advertisers around the world should take note of a radical new TV format creating phenomenal waves of change in India

the way diat Sa(J•mmv }tl)'ate is.

More d 1an a few commentators have suggested that we are witnessing die bi.rd, of a new format of television, wh ich acts not just to raise awareness, b ut as a genuine social movement.

Somethi ng strange is happening in India. Every Sunday morning, millions of Indians haul themselves out of bed to be told about all di e things which are wrong in diei.r country Unpalatab le though die home truths may be, .ltJl)'ame11 Jqy,,te ('Trudi alone prevails') has nonedieless garnered a massive audience and has become o n e of the highest rating shows on lnd.ian television. The programme and die issues that .i t highlights, regularly become die highest trending topics on Twitter. Considered so important for the nation is SatytJme1')tfJ•ate d1at .it is simulcast die national broadcaster Doordashan, as well as the commercial channel Star Plus for which it was produced. A ldiough presented in Hindi, .i t is supplemented with English su btitles, and dubbed in eight regiona l roagues And although .it is only up to its sixth episode, it is being hailed a revo lution in television, not just for India, but for television as a concept. Te levision has, to date, witnessed many incarnations as a medium of entertai nm ent, education, promotion, information and inc reasingly, interaction with aucliences. However, most television markets are yet to capitalise on the political and socia l activ ism w hich has take n d,e social meclia world by storm. Attempts in the past have generally assumed one of two forms: first, as a comparatively shallow attempt to take advantage of Twitter, Facebook or YouTube's flavour of the month, but never to lead the cha rge. A special Kony 2012 edition of the Seven Network's .f11111ise may be viewed as a recent example - tbe programme, along w idi celebrity twitteratti, responded to the already growing awareness of die viral 'Stop Kot!JI' video. The seco nd form of televisual social activism can be seen in programmes which raise awareness, but w id1out the stated aim of promoting political engagement The Opmh 1Vi1:hY Sho111 can be categorised as a high ly s ucc essful example of this - whi le it gained political clout for raising social awareness in recent yea rs, it was never wholly a 'call to arms'

After almost six months of hype on tel evision, pcin t and social meclia, .ltJ(:}1a11m1 ]lfJ'tJte premiered May 6, 2012. The first 90- minute long programme, conceived and hosted by Bollywoocl star Aamir Khan was a mel an ge of faces, figures and heartbreaking inter views on th e topic of female foeticide

Subsequent top ics ha ve included child sein.ml abuse, the practice of dowry, forced marriages and die state of India's heal di car e system

To air a nation's dirty laundry at 11am on a Sunday morning was a huge cisk, especially in a country as proud and conservative as Inclia. Yet some how rl1e gamb le paid off, and commentato rs have been left wondering why it worked , and if it could be replicated elsewhere.

Analysts have pointed to the host's public p r ofil e as being key to die success of die show, odiers h ave cited savvy marketing. Some attrib u te its success co widespread support for die initiative, with political parties, celebrities and journalists alike agreei ng on t he progra.rnme's word, (fbe term 'Sc1rymmv jtrytJlf' is also lnclia's national motto, so it has a particular pertinence)

Howeve1:, none of diese can exp lain why millions of peop le continue co be confronted ·with these often sickening copies ove r their Sun day morning chai or can they explain the mass ive public engagemellt widi the programme and .its social media platforms - die Facebook page rece ived 233,000 'likes' on die day of the premiere episode alone Furdiermore, neid1er die choice of host nor marketing can explain the huge p o li tical impac t of the show, which each week successfully encourages viewers co send text messages to petition hotl.ines, and pledge money to charities, the amoun ts of which are dien matched by the show's sponsor s. N in e days after tbe seco nd episode aired, and in direct response to that episode's 'SMS petition', India's parliament passed a landmark bill to legally protect minors against sexual abuse. Perhaps peopl e actually care?

The programme bas n ot been with out its detractors, however, who hav e decried its melodramatic namre (the host has teared up in eve r y outing so far) and its 'infotainment' production, which sees an acoustic song reflective of die week's topic played at die end of die episode. Journalists who have bee n working for years to highlight these social issues claim it's sheer populism and have warned drnt it won't solve complex problems, while others have branded it anotber manifestation of Teju Co le's White Savior Industrial Complex, repackaged for midd leclass Indians. Some cynics have called it a sub-ge nre of alreadyexploirative reality television.

Regardless of what it represents, no-one disputes diat it is creating change where it is needed, and that the v ictim s of certain social ills are receiv ing more attention than ever before. And while d1ey d eny that they wer e motivated b y money, the ho st, networks and sponso rs are rallying up a tidy sum from it all.

So from outsider's point of v iew, all of this begs the question: can S,1t;1tJ111e11 Jqyate's success be replicated in odier counu-ies? To be su.re, p rogrammes li.ke this are not unprecedented awuod die world, even in Australia. Early incarnations of This Is ) our Llje tended to focus on unsung heroes, Al(Jfm/im1 .ft01y works to tell the stories which don't make the headlines, and even Seven's 2002 programme U11derco11er A ngels feanu:ing lan Thorpe and Nine's D0111estic Blitz were feel -good reality shows. However, nodung has quite matched the lllix of star power, social meclia, social engagemen t, political activism, widespread endorsement and genuine appeal that this lnclian format has. Modern Australian television has become rather segregated, forcing the masses to choose between what is important and what is entertaining. Crucially, any show would require that X factor which would make people choose cliscussion o f heavy soc ial issues over light entertainm ent like The Voice.

Every councry h as its social issues, even if they are nor as visible to the mainstream as India. Domestic vio lence remains a problem ia Australia, as does home less n ess, the mental healdi system and bullying. Mo reover they remain prob lems wluch have die potential to unite Australians, and i f give n the right creatment, could stir national consciousness i.n the way Sa!)·11111e11 ]lfJ'dlP has done. A cruly cli visive issue could make or break the show's fo rmat, and ought be better left to another programme. The divisive issue of asylum seekers was highlighted last year b y SBS's excellent mioisecies Go BtJck To IV'hm Yo11 Ct1111e Fro111, but ultimatel y it didn't affect government policy. It's questio n able whetber the core concept of StJt)•a111e11.{t!)1tJtc is negated when the result is debate, bur die government is able to ride out die stor m of public criticism occurring on the letters page of n ewspapers.

Finally, there exists the view tha t most Auscralians, in die.ir 111.iddJe-dass bulk, are simply roo politically and socially apathetic to take serious action on social iss u es un less they are directly being affected. It's in1portant to remember mat the same concern was held about lndia's newlycomfortab le nuddle class when this concept was being developed: would peop le reall y choose th.is over th e glut o f tab loid news cha nnels, game sh ows and soap o peras which m Je d t he roost? A U that was required was enough peop le to take the risk.

~-tick 01·iginally published 011 the website www.mediaspy.org