Trust Mamata to pull it off. No, not the surprise Manmohan-as-President thing, but her ability in one line to make mincemeat of the analysis-overload news channels have been indulging in. It would make a great show, if someone would take footage of analysis done before and after an event. You’d get an idea of just how way off, not even within touching distance of the “political game” our analysts are. But then, the 24-hour furnace of TV news has to be fed timber no matter how hollow. It’ll burn and keep us warm and cosy, crowded around the TV set – the fireplace for the information age. They say staring into a fire makes you reflect on things that matter, staring into the TV set does too. The quality of reflection, however…

The Presidential election analysis on news channels can very clearly be divided into the Pre Mamata-Mulayam Presser and the Post Mamata-Mulayam Presser – PMMP and PMMP. Wait. That’s the same! Ok, let’s say the Before Mamata-Mulayam Presser and the After Mamata-Mulayam Presser. That’s BMMP and AMMP. Better.

BMMP all channels, to a greater or lesser extent, were pretty much telling us Pranab is going to Raisina Hill. They didn’t say this in one line and move on. They elaborated in thousands of words spouted over hours. On CNN-IBN, Rajdeep Sardesai – with the authority of one in the know – gave a long analysis about how Mamata would have to support Pranab as President once suggested by Sonia Gandhi, because if she did not, the electorate would punish Didi in 2014 for not supporting a Bengali occupant of Raisina Hill. That this logic was preposterous was pointed out by an analyst, not on CNN-IBN but on News-24. Pradeep Singh said that people don’t remember or give a rat’s ass what happened 2 weeks ago, and you’d have a hope in hell they will – first, remember what happened 2 years ago, and second, even if they do it would influence their vote for that particular reason.

But the M&M presser made the whole analysis go phuss in one statement. Not one to be cowed down, even AMMP Rajdeep launched into even more analysis! He may usually be way off – mark or terribly obvious but Rajdeep lives news. It gets him excited and all that, which can be an eyeball magnet. Speaking of excited eyeball magnets, Arnab and Times Now, AMMP congratulated each other on their remarkable coverage. Arnab proudly acknowledged the team which he said was, “led by Navika Kumar, Sanket Upadhyaya…”, and went on to name the whole team. So the team is led by the team. Which is great for team-building. He was proud of the team. And he also congratulated them all, for since the beginning they have been saying this is more than a presidential race. What’s more, dunno but the Times Now team had the pulse all along…wait. What was the show about? Presidential elections, right? So coming to someone who stuck to just that – NDTV.

BMMP, Vishnu Som was anchoring, but AMMP the channel needed some analyst-type, informed, articulate and completely on-the-ball anchor but they settled for Sonia who was honest and candid and didn’t try to over analyse the situation and said no one anticipated this choice. She also saw this as an endorsement of Pranabda as PM and a rejection of Manmohan. She even interpreted this as a public humiliation for Manmohan Singh. I will say it takes courage to state that so categorically, especially when your hubby is a sitting minister of the Congress party. Sandeep Phukan’s insight was that this is either a carefully crafted drama in which Sonia Gandhi is involved (to get rid of Mannu Bhai) or she has been taken completely by surprise. Is there a third possibility?

Ravish wondered on his show, “chunav pradhanmantri ka ho raha hai ya rashtrapati ka?”. Fun.

So, because the Mulayam-Mamata Presser caused such panic everywhere especially TV studios, many scenarios have been thrown up by many. None of these is mine because on something of this sort I don’t think anyone has a clue WTF is happening.

Scenario 1: This is the only graceful exit that Sonia can provide to Manmohan. That was the analysis of the Times Now gang too. He’s a liability for all and has to be eased out.

Scenario 2: Mulayam-Mamata are spoiling for a mid-term poll and this is a step in that direction. Sonia didn’t know and this was a surprise for her too.

Scenario 3: Mulayam has “set the cat among the pigeons” (this phrase gets the Enough Already award for being used most), and after killing the relationship between an autocratic queen Sonia and a mercurial Mamata, will use this opportunity to do Congress favours and get his pound of flesh in return.

My personal view is that Mamata and Mulayam just wanted to mind-fuck the news analysts and commentators to add some zing to a boring news week. It may also be a clever ploy to get positive sentiment back in the economy and bust the “policy paralysis” myth. Welcome to Hysteria Central baby! Come on, did you see how many OB vans and other supporting paraphernalia would have led to increased consumption in Delhi region?

Finally, what is the point of analysis when it falls on its face so often? What’s the purpose? The same as rating agencies – Moodys, Fitch, Standarad & Poors (which you must have heard of last week too) all experts and credible voices that gave AAA ratings to what later turned to be junk bonds. They told and were told by the other geniuses on Wall Street that shit was caviar (which is also quite shitty). And the world believed – Lehman crash happened – the world disbelieved. Post the Lehman-triggered 2008 financial crash, rating agencies were hauled up and their role questioned aspart of the many hearings and enquiries that took place. They claimed their ratings are a one-line review. Like a film is reviewed by a critic. Except they don’t write a thousand words. They write three letters. They are in the financial market and their “view” is merely an opinion! The AAA, BBB etc ratings are similar to the two-star, four-star ratings you have for films. If the film sucks and you don’t like it or is a dud at the box office, the reviewer does not give you your money back. Since it’s pure opinion, rating agencies are as culpable for being held responsible for a role in a financial bubble as a film critic is in a film’s outcome. Surely TV commentators and analysts can say the same thing. Technically, they are right. So do you take Fitch, S&P-type rating agencies more seriously than Anupama Chopra, Shubhra Gupta-type film critics? And where do TV political analysts fall on that spectrum. It’s mere opinion. What’s yours?