Opinion - News Analysis   

The proof is in good practice

K. Narayanan

In the ten days since the Readers' Editor began functioning, the inflow of messages, in various forms, has been heavy, averaging 50 to 60 a day. This is no doubt a tiny fraction of a total readership estimated to be upward of 3.5 million, but it is indicative of what readers expect. Most of these messages have been responded to, in one form or another.

What most readers say, in terms of tone and content, is heartening. That there are a few shrill and angry voices is only to be expected, and my hope is that these will subside in the days to come.

Immediately after the Editor-in-Chief named the first Readers' Editor (independent internal ombudsman) for

The Hindu, there were many who voiced their doubts about the independence and effectiveness in this post of an "insider" who had spent a lifetime in the paper. The scepticism is valid and needs an answer. Some basic questions have been raised, and I deal with a few of them, before I move on to substantive topics, the real purpose of this column — dealing with journalism-related issues, readers' concerns and problems in the intricate web of news gathering and presentation.

Without sounding repetitive, I must once again make clear the objectives of this post — to provide accountability, transparency and self-regulation in the working of this newspaper. Its willingness to spend, voluntarily, on such a mechanism, while production costs are soaring, reveals its commitment to standards and values.

How independent can or will that mechanism be?

The sceptics have many reasons to justify their stance. One who has spent fifty years or more in the institution would be soaked in its culture and institutional norms, and would only toe the paper's line, even if given a free hand. He would not be able to create a new, visible framework. The Terms of Reference would hamstring his functioning.

What is the utility of the concept, asked some. If it is a single window for grievances, it would be time consuming. It is a fifth wheel, added one reader, when the editor is expected to discharge the functions assigned to the Readers' Editor in the Terms of Reference. Another found it irrelevant, with The Hindu being a balanced paper.

The exclusion of editorials and articles from the ambit of the Readers' Editor was not liked by some.

Answers and clarifications for these points are in order, though these may not satisfy those whose minds are made up.

Newspaper production is a very complex process. It involves many channels and processes, which vary from paper to paper, and are more difficult to unravel when it is a multi-centre operation. When something goes wrong, an understanding of the nuts and bolts of the mechanism is needed to pinpoint the source. The culture, the ethos and the values of the institution also need to be taken into account. My long innings is not a fetter. It is an advantage. It enables me to spot the deviations — which upset me, as much as it does the reader; my colleagues know this only too well — and suggest correctives. The Terms of Reference are broad enough for me to do this.

Corrective steps may sometimes be time-consuming, because of the different levels involved. It will not be realistic to expect the editor to attend to this.

As for editorials and articles, these are opinion pieces. For those who differ, there are the channels of Letters to the Editor and rejoinders to express their dissent. Any errors in editorials or articles — these are rare — are corrected suo motu. And the daily "Corrections and Clarifications" column we now publish is proof that we are not afraid to pull ourselves up.

The Readers' Editor's role is correctional, not adversarial. He is not a disciplining authority, he is a watchdog who barks but does not bite. An "old insider" with nothing to gain personally has a better chance of being listened to. What guarantee is there that an outsider will be impartial, with no axe to grind? And an executive appointment is made not by a popularity poll but according to the requirements of the job.

The Organisation of News Ombudsmen, the international body, has over a hundred members, all senior journalists familiar with the way their paper works. They have guaranteed tenures, which ensure their independence.

And finally, the problem is not with the concept. Its value has to be proved by implementation, good practice. This is an innovation in Indian journalism. There are no precedents to go by. As we move along, I hope the Readers' Editor, with the participation and cooperation of readers, will evolve into an effective bridge between them and the editorial side of the newspaper.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Scaling a new peak
Working with a neighbour
Towards planned urban development
The proof is in good practice
For a glimpse of Suu Kyi
Mayhem in the menagerie
Add to Bush's mistakes destruction of nature
Playing with fire
Welcome verdict
On Bihar
Empowerment?
Customer care

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu