There was rare unanimity on this subject: news on private TV channels was worse than the big, bad wolf: it gobbled up complex, serious subjects and spewed out a few, undigested remarks. There was a great deal of (unnecessary) comment on the youthfulness of TV reporters, their age being held responsible for their perceived ineptitude. People complained that news coverage was poor, visuals seldom matched theaccompanying commentary and worse, the anchor's remarks, the reporter's report and the voice-over commentary during an item, were often identical.

The final damning criticism was that irrespective of channel, all the news bulletins were the same. Same stories, visuals, interviews.

Time to test out opinions against facts. Yes, TV employs twentysomethings.

So does print. Mostly, age is an advantage in TV because of the hours and the heavy load (equipment/deadlines). Nevertheless, foreign news channels have reporters and anchors who are the other side of grey, so....

Above, is a chart of three private news bulletins on Wednesday 15.7.1998: STAR News (9 pm), Aaj Tak (10 pm) and Zee News (11 pm). All carried the same major lead items (as did the next morning's newspapers) but not necessarily in the same order.

If they hadn't, we'd have been alarmed. Though news item were common, interviews were discrete: channels did not always interview the same people or carry the same visuals. In some cases (women'sreservation, the Muslim Women's story, the Pak. secretariat item), the stories and visuals were essentially identical, creating a confusing deja vu. And though you could question the selection, each channel did carry stories the others didn't. So no: TV news maybe the same but it is not always similar.

There were occasions when the anchor, reporter and the commentary were indeed word-for-word a great waste of time (theirs and ours). The visuals and words were not clearly related. For example, in stories on the Jain Commission Report, the channels ran visuals of I.K.Gujral (only Zee interviewed him) without clearly explaining why. A small omission but public memory is nasty, short and lazy: people need reminding that the Jain Commission Interim Report led to the Gujral government's downfall.

There was a discernible lack of depth: reports were a series of interviews or sound bytes from individuals, strung together with the briefest commentary. There is scope for more. But not much more. If it's depth you'dbe wanting please visit the ocean or (hopefully) next day's newspapers. TV news is like an FIR; it's the newspapers that provide the investigation. Still, there is a dilemma to be resolved: should TV news bulletins simply carry the maximum amount of news possible or should news bulletins give you extensive coverage on major and/or unusual stories, ignoring the rest? Perhaps the dilemma could be resolved in three ways: a few items receive dominant coverage, others just passing references; alternatively, it's time for news magazines which provide greater depth to the main stories of the day. Lastly, there could be different bulletins for national, regional, international/sports and economy/business. Obviously, the benchmark for news bulletins has risen; viewers are unsatisfied with what they're getting and want more. Obviously, the time has come for channels to respond.

What is sticking out of the table above like Pinnochio's nose, is the Delhi-centricity of the news. Since when are Delhi and India synonyms?Over 50 per cent of all items are from the capital. Nothing or little appears to be happening elsewhere. Doordarshan has regional news bulletins. But private channels have no regional bulletins; they need to right the imbalance.

Regrets: Last week there was an incorrect reference to P.K.Datta. It should have read P.K.Bannerjee.