The deity at the place is Lord vEnkateswara, an incarnation of Lord VishNu, as per legends.
The temple has a TV channel by name SVBC full form: Sri Venkateswara Bhakti Channel.
SVBC very popular in India and abroad.
SVBC broadcast a part of the mAdhavi's story at prime time (approx. 8 p.m.) on the 19th April 2012.
We need not say that they have changed the dialogues.
The most disturbing thing in the episode is, they have added a lecture to Sage viSvAmtra.
Context: gAlava brought mAdhavi plus the 600 horses he could obtain by exchanging her, to his preceptor visvAmitra. He fell at his guru's feet, requesting to accept them, in lieu of the 800 horses asked by him.
At that time what should have been viSvAmitra's reply, as per vyAsa mahAbharata?
Ganguli's translation: Viswamitra then, beholding Galava in the company of the bird, and that highly beautiful maiden, said, Why, O Galava, didst thou not give me this maiden before? Four sons then, sanctifiers of my race, would all have been mine alone.
I accept this maiden of thine for begetting upon her one son.
As regards the steeds, let them graze in my asylum.
Saying this, Viswamitra of great effulgence began to pass his time happily with her.
Sanskrit verses: chapter 117 verse 014 to 016.
viSvAmitras tu tam drishTvA gAlavam saha pakshiNA-
kanyAm ca tAm varArohAm idam ity abravId vacah
kim iyam pUrvam EvEha na dattA mama gAlava-
putrA mamaiva catvAro bhavEyuh kulabhAvanAh
pratigrihNAmi tE kanyAm EkaputraphalAya vai-
aSvAS cASramam AsAdya tishThantu mama sarvaSah
Readers can see in part 9 of mAdhavi's story ybrem about viSvAmitra's reply.
Readers, can try to procure a video of the SVBC channel's serial, directed by Shri dharmavarapu SubrahmaNyam, and study viSvAmitra's preach to gAlava. I am unable to reproduce it verbatim as I do not have the video or the script.
Its gist as I heard and perceived on the TV: Critics in future generations will fault the story of mAdhavi as something undesirable. They do not know the subtle principles of ethics and morals imparted in mahAbharata. They will pass comments etc. etc.
(hence his hesitation to accept mAdhavi).
This lecture inserted by TTD is contrary to media ethics. As per the current media ethics and professional codes, (of course not practised by the commercial broadcasting and print media), they have to separate facts and their comments/opinions separate. In other words, if TTD wanted to defend the horse trading and women trafficking which had taken place in the mahAbharata story, they should have added a strip of an epilogue in the end, containing a speech/conversation/discussion by its director /scholars about the interpretation of the transactions which had taken place in mAdhavi's story. TTD is free to make any comments, but it cannot load them on people through the mouth of viSvAmitra.
Sanskrit vyAsa mahAbharata is a very lengthy epic, and people do not have the interest/skill/time to study it in depth by going through the original text. They, therefore, depend on TV serials for knowing anything. They cannot disbelieve what an official channel run by a Trust managed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the SVBC channel, the TTD, and the Govt. of A.P. have a duty to broadcast a corrective announcement that what viSvAmitra said in their serial was their own addition.
for mahAbharata related stories, TTD will have to confine itself to Sanskrit vyAsa mahAbharata only and no other purANA (other chronicles) which have their own narrations in tune with their own goals.
A simple regret by TTD/ or the director of the serial, for what had happened in mahAbharata would have been sufficient, as such things are not happening in Hinduism today. Or even silence would have been sufficient , after presenting the mahAbharata conversations verbatim.
Defending an undefendable thing, will only add more soot to the cause of Hinduism and its temples.
This 'defending undefendable things' may be happening in all the religions of the world, yet it can be a defence for any one particular religion. This is because two mistakes do not make a thing 'right'.