Clicks over Credibility: YouTube anchors quest for virality
During an interaction with actor Kani, the anchor, perhaps taking a cue from the actor’s “progressive” image, commented that he was impressed by her decision to sit on a chair with her legs tucked up in a previous interview. He felt it was a “form of protest” rather than just about sitting comfortably. “Oh no, it was nothing of that sort. I was just trying to save myself from mosquito bites,” protested Kani, bursting into laughter. Though the anchor sheepishly tried to save face by falling back on her “politics” the damage was already done. This exchange exemplifies the perils of anchors and interviewers projecting their agendas onto celebrities' everyday actions. This time I have picked a few “popular” YouTube anchors and dissected their style or lack thereof.
The landscape of movie interviews has undergone a significant tonal shift. Gone are the days of traditional, straightforward Q&A sessions focused on an actor's filmography. With the rise of social media and YouTube, interviews now prioritize entertainment value over informative depth. And to achieve this, interviewers are increasingly selected from unconventional backgrounds, such as college students, VJs, and RJs, with a mandate to keep conversations light-hearted and playful. Interestingly, celebrities have adapted, willingly engaging in non-film-related discussions. Today there is an increased emphasis on viral-worthy moments, with more focus on personality over filmography.
Veena, who earlier hosted Behind Wood Ice perhaps revolutionized the YouTube interview landscape with her irreverent style. Her trademark has been her giggles and brazen approach which has made her a household name. From stereotyping female actors to asking embarrassingly personal questions as well as posting silly unrelated queries, Veena is relentless when it comes to pursuing cheeky content. There have been several instances when actors have openly mocked her, pronounced her silly, and expressed irritation at privacy intrusions. Yet her YouTube channel continues to thrive, solidifying her position as a trailblazer in the new wave of irreverent hosting.
Vishnu J Muraleedharan’s style cannot be outrightly categorized as irreverent. A constant fixture on several YouTube channels, Vishnu as a host is earnest and seems to be genuinely interested in his subjects, but his approach often falters due to overreliance on outdated film magazine trivia. He pieces together long-winded questions based on such rehashed stale information. Sure, this approach might delight his guests, but for average viewers, it feels like an unnecessary filmography lecture. Besides the fact that these fragments of nostalgia are strategically worded to glorify the guests. And there is a problem in the placement as well. When you have Mammootty, Prithviraj Sukumaran, or Urvashi as guests we don’t necessarily require a guided tour of their filmography as an introductory speech. In fact, Prithviraj Sukumaran’s amused reaction to his lengthy intro did highlight the issue but one isn’t sure he learned lessons from there. While one accepts his enthusiasm to flex his cinema trivia, he should perhaps update his research sources, balance enthusiasm with brevity, and prioritize insightful questions over trivia.
Rajaneesh VR’s interviews, particularly with musicians, are loaded with overwhelming trivia. From complicated ragas to revisiting old classics to expressing undiluted admiration for their work, Rajaneesh’s effusive admiration borders on ego stroking. But again, similar to Vishnu the overemphasis on trivia dampens the viewing experience. While we get the homework, the anchor seems to be on a self-indulgent trip, prioritizing personal fandom over engaging conversations. Also, his progressive image often serves as a pretext for intrusive personal questions, and some have backfired like it happened with actor Kani earlier. To start with he can perhaps try to separate fandom from journalism.
Considering she has been part of this business for a long time, Remya Nikhil’s interviewing style is concerning. Her conversation with television actor Meghna Vincent was particularly dreadful, bordering on invasive. Her condescending tone was apparent from the onset, praising Meghna for remaining calm despite the flak she got for sounding silly in interviews. It’s pitiable how condescendingly she worded the question, and Remya’s follow-up questions reflect her mocking attitude towards her guest. When Meghna shared her struggles with divorce and depression, Remya’s follow-ups were insensitive, almost voyeuristic. And she showed no qualms in probing for sensational details, exploiting Meghna’s vulnerability. Then she wanted to know how she made such a wrong choice (marriage). A similar scenario was repeated in singer Anju Joseph’s case in which Remya wondered if her “OCD” was one reason for her divorce. Though the anchor justified her line of questions in a video, Anju made a clever clapback by endorsing a troll video parodying their interview. The absolute lack of empathy and professionalism was disturbing, to say the least.
Today the celebrity interviewer on YouTube often has to walk a fine line between relevance and ridicule. They are looking for provocative, silly, or invasive questions that garner clicks and fuel trolls and meme pages. This blurred line between journalism and entertainment has created a job profile that demands sensationalism over substance. And if you are willing to make yourself the story, even better.