What does it take to become a successful TV pundit? A bagful of assorted opinions, a wardrobe to match them and mild contempt for the medium, writes Vinod Mehta in his new book: 

I woke up one morning and found I was a mini TV celebrity. I had done nothing to deserve the honour. I had not sought the prize, I had done no homework, nobody gave me any tips. I had absolutely no idea of what I was getting into. It is a distinction which came to me by pure chance. In fact, I was slightly ashamed of being a mini TV celebrity because old-fashioned print journalists like me hold news television in mild contempt. We printwalas, so goes our script, do the serious stuff, the TVwalas do the sex and sensationalism. I will not waste much space detailing how and why I became a minor TV celebrity except to record the dubious fact.Be that as it may , for me to pretend that appearing on Arnab Goswami's Newshour is a big chore would be disingenuous. 

It is nice as long as you do it in small doses. And that is where I face my first hurdle. TV channels may employ rude and ignorant correspondents, but the hospitality girls who call up to `book' the guest for a particular programme are so unfailingly courteous, tactful and diplomatic (hinting sometimes that their job depends on the guest agreeing to accept the invite) that you do not have the heart to say no.On many occasions I have said `yes' when I wanted to say `no'... How do you define a mini TV celebrity who appears on news shows? If he is anything like me, he is a `feku', an intelligent `feku' perhaps, but a `feku' nevertheless.He or she has a full bag of assorted opinions and generalizations, most of them not fully thought out or deliberated. The trick is to make sure they sound plausible and spontaneous. By spontaneous I mean your words must sound as if you have framed them as you speak. In the discussion itself I make it a point to stay in the radical middle. Notwithstanding my numerous biases and preferences, I ensure these are always consistent with ground reality. In January 2014, for instance, it would have been virtually impossible to defend the Congress party, Manmohan Singh or Sonia Gandhi. I may have biases or blind spots but I have neither sold my soul to 10 Janpath, nor entered into any Faustian bargain. 

If you hold the medium in slight contempt, your whole approach, including your wardrobe, falls nicely into place. This may not work for all mini TV celebrities but it works for me. I begin every TV appearance with the intention of making at least one joke or quip. It helps to puncture the air of righteousness and solemnity most programmes cultivate in order to convey the impression that the future of the Indian republic depends on the outcome of the ongoing debate. `How can you take this matter so lightly?' asks the anchor when I attempt deliberate levity. Later, he thanks me for adding some gaiety to his programme. 

*** What is my contribution to news television? Assuming I have made any , it must be my reputation as a drunkard. I can claim to be the first person to carry a glass of wine or whisky as I sit on my chair in my Nizamuddin study facing the camera. Since the live programmes begin around 8.30 p.m. and can last for an hour and a half, with yours truly lucky if he can get two sentences in--`just coming to you, Mr Mehta'-sipping single malt while waiting for the anchor to free himself from the embrace of Ravi Shankar Prasad and Abhishek Manu Singhvi at each other's throats, is a necessary timepass. 

Good habits catch on. I would like to believe my example has inspired Manish Te wari, Chandan Mitra, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Swapan Dasgupta, Ram Jethmalani, Meghnad Desai to turn to the bottle at prime time. The list grows. Amen. 

*** Is news television a force for good? Or does it distort the national discourse, pushing public opinion and the political class towards chauvinism and populism? To some extent the distortion is plainly visible since Indian television (I stress the word Indian) has little time for nuance and does not recognize that most issues do not lend themselves to a black-and-white interpretation.Failure to present such clarity , then, is seen as a sign of weakness and cowardice, even crafty evasion. A television anchor's nightmare guest is one who takes `on the other hand' kind of positions. Complexity, subtlety, an effort to explore the grey areas is positively discouraged. If you raise your voice and recommend street hangings and public floggings you are likely to do well on news television. The Chinese and Pakistanis maintain the impediment to better relations with India is not the government but news television which magnifies minor incidents into major crises by hype and oversimplification. Doubtless, certain situations call for a straight yes or no answer. When UPA-II appeared desperate to downplay the Chinese incursion into Ladakh in April-May 2013 our TV channels did not allow the ploy to work. Their persistent reporting of the incursion highlighted what the government wanted to conceal. Moreover, they demanded swift corrective action. On the domestic front, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi would have preferred the dishonesty of the two Congress ministers -- Pawan Kumar Bansal and Ashwini Kumar -- to remain a manageable issue. Even after their shenanigans were exposed, it was television's relentless editorializing, urging the government to sack the ministers, which led to their removal... The political class and even some sections of the judiciary describe this as `trial by media'-- when the media takes on the self-appointed role of judge, jury and executioner. The president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), N Srinivasan, calls it `hounding'. When I began my career in journalism in 1974 we were taught that our mandate was to bring sunlight to wrongdoing. Once that was done, other democratic institutions would take over the baton. `Activism' was a dirty word in our lexicon. Now it is a virtue, indeed a necessity. Ironically, some of our TV anchors who hurl fire and brimstone Monday to Friday are the gentlest of creatures off the screen.They shed their pugnacity and become their normal selves immediately after the show is over. I have yet to meet an anchor who is fuming 24x7. The notion that TV studios are chock-a-block with angry young men and women who are perpetually incandescent with rage is rather romantic. 

I believe that despite all its shortcomings and shouting, all its hype and oversimplification, it has significantly changed the nature of the citizen-politician relationship and given the citizen a better glimpse of how Indian democracy , with all its byzantine complexity and maddening procedures, works. I would give our news channels six out of ten for helping the common man read between the lines of contemporary politics. Why? Firstly , it has made politicians and politics more accessible to the aam aadmi. Overall, the voting public today has a better insight into, if not grasp of, how the country is administered. Ten years ago, I suspect the average citizen did not know much about the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) or the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), perhaps did not even know if such bodies existed...Crucially , people receive every night an intimate portrait of their netas and the movers and shakers of the republic, in the privacy of their bedroom. This intimacy cuts both ways, but mostly , it is rewarding. It helps reveal to the viewer on a daily basis the real character, integrity and competence of our rulers, both at the state and central levels.... The second contribution news television has made is even more significant. It has brilliantly focused on the unobserved and unremarked daily cruelties, exploitation and indignity visited on the unempowered citizen. And in some measure liberated him by offering some protection.A child dying on the pavement because the government hospital refused admission.A woman gangraped, thrown out of a limousine and abandoned on the street, un able to get assistance...A policeman, perhaps several policemen, repeat edly slapping a woman who has come to lodge a complaint against a power ful local dada. A politician humiliat ing a small-time district official in full public view. A film star, driving in a state of inebriation, running over a dozen pavement-dwellers. 

To be fair, the print media also covers the stories of appalling injus tice but not with the enthusiasm and sense of outrage television does. You could even argue that such villainy, with its inherent drama and riveting action, is tailor-made for television and makes for compulsive viewing--thus giving some ammunition to critics of currentaffairs TV who maintain that the motive behind such coverage is not social concern but TRPs. However, this is no time for hairsplitting. The shameful incidents have been given full and better play on the small screen. 

*** Another half a cheer for current-affairs TV is due. Not so long ago, women journalists were confined to the ghetto of fashion shows, flower shows and filmi shows. In the last few decades things have improved and a few have managed to crawl out of the ghetto. However, the most spectacular rise and rise of the young woman journalist has occurred in the time of current-affairs television. A disproportionate amount of reporting, including the thankless chowkidar duty outside the minister's house where they wait for a sound bite from dawn to dusk, is done by young female reporters in the age group of twenty-five to thirty. They do the job with great patience and good humour. 

But it is not restricted to asking a neta after he has supplied the required sound bite, `Thank you sir, but who are you?' The serious reporting and analysis of major events is also the domain of their seniors. If you go to the offices of TV channels you will have difficulty finding a man. It is full of women of all ages busy with their work and clearly enjoying it. I once asked a young, bright, attractive reporter if she had a boyfriend. She replied she had just broken off a relationship because it was interfering with her work. She had her priorities right. TV 24x7, happily , is an unequal opportunity employer. And for once that inequality needs to be applauded. 

*** Despite current-affairs television's obvious and undeniable assets, I have been content to labour in the lonely field of print...TV anchors get quite hot under the collar when one talks about the magic of the written word. `How many thousand people read your magic word?' they mock. The feisty American author Mary McCarthy once observed that if she had to choose between writing a good sentence or having a good orgasm, she would choose the good sentence. 

I would like to choose both but if pushed I would give up the orgasm.