Opinion - News Analysis   

The problems of profusion

K. Narayanan

"I have so far sent over 500 letters. Only two or three have been published." "I wrote more than 50 letters. Nothing was published." "I find it sickening when my letters are rejected but I continue to write, sometimes two letters a day."

These are samples from readers' complaints I have received. These are plaintive in tone. Not all are. There are sharp ones throwing about charges — bias, discrimination, neglect, lack of judgment, and so on.

The persistence and perseverance of some letter writers is amazing and amusing. They comment on any and every issue. Some do it every day. They send their output to half a dozen papers. Persevering in their pursuit to see their name in print, they phone, write, or visit those handling the letters.

For newspapers, readers' letters are a valuable mode of feeling the pulse of the people. This paper has always given the voice of readers due importance. I recall two veterans, S.A. Govindarajan, and after him S. Rangarajan. They were busy leader writers but they did not let go the work of reading and selecting letters for publication. This, they said, gave them an insight into the public mood. They made the letters to the editor column stimulating, initiating and sustaining debates on major and interesting topics. Sometimes the exchange went on for so long that the editor had to call a halt to it. These were not instant e-mail reactions, but well-thought out, well-argued, well-worded pieces.

That practice reflected leisurely times. The snail mail has practically disappeared in this area. Readers react within hours to major developments. The swiftness of the reactions is reflected in the content, which often lacks profundity. On an average we receive 60-70 letters a day — a dozen of them by post. It can go up to 200 on days of major developments. Around 20 get published. That means usually selecting for publication a third to fourth of the daily inflow.

The result, inevitably, is a sense of hurt among the readers. Complaints and allegations flow in: of dissenting opinions ignored; of bias against some writers; of "blacklisting" some; of censoring of content. Even those whose names appear in print are never fully happy. The heavy editing — a necessary evil flowing from space constraints — is resented.

But not all reactions are aggressive. There are positive notes too, worthy of consideration. More than one reader feels that letters are no longer as interesting as they used to be. Instant reactions that come from all over the globe, and the urge to respond to sizzling news items — the Khushboo controversy and Sania Mirza's dress are cited as typical examples — lead to a lack of real content. Publishing repetitive letters on one subject for a number of days has also been criticised as an attempt to please as many readers as possible.

Some readers, especially senior citizens, feel handwritten letters do not get any attention, and emailed letters are preferred. Give some weightage to the old-fashioned post with something interesting to say, pleads one.

The grievances, at least some of them, need consideration; but answering and solving all of them will be impossible. I hope an understanding of the guidelines followed in choosing, editing, and publishing readers' letters, will lead to some appreciation of the difficulties the editorial staff face. Only about half the number of letters received every day is fit for consideration. Some are unintelligible, some libellous. Some make sweeping generalisations that cannot be verified, or are intemperate in tone, at times even inciting hatred. Sometimes the addresses appear fictitious.

The selected letters are edited for length and style. Repetitive ideas and inaccuracies are cut out. On occasion, plagiarism is detected. Exclusivity is insisted upon, and letters sent to or published in other papers are generally out.

When there are references that can cause legal complications, we steer clear of them. So also letters airing personal problems and grievances. But there is no bar on dissent, fairly expressed. A broad spectrum of views is presented. Such a process of rigorous selection — even from the shortlisted letters, a third do not get in for reasons of space — can only cause disappointment and sometimes anger, often vociferously expressed.

Provide more space, is a frequent demand. Even a full page is suggested! Competing demands on space rule this out. Regionalisation of letters was one reader's idea — all letters from Kerala in the Kerala pages, he said. Local and regional issues do get this treatment, being published in the relevant editions, but extending this to national issues is not a healthy proposition.

One possibility that merits consideration is providing space on the Op-Ed page for longer, weightier letters, as serious reader responses. This can lead to originality of ideas and good writing. Such letters now get short shrift, is one complaint.

The present treatment also contributes to a sameness of look and content in the letters column. One topic goes on for days; same ideas, in different words, in a straitjacket of say 15 lines (one letter was one line of eight words, a reader complains). Shortening the duration of debates and accommodating a couple of longer letters can provide variety — of ideas, names, and sizes.

Negotiating this mine-field is indeed a tricky business.

I am grateful to the readers who have provided inputs for this column. They are too many to be named. A few readers wanted credit given to the person who spots an error and so contributes to the Corrections and Clarifications column. But here too, there are often too many names to be acknowledged. readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Time-tested friendship
Digital networks to aid research
A new twist to the growth debate
The problems of profusion
Judged by higher standards
Concern in the earthquake zone
Eta now ready to give up the gun
Victims to sue Qadhafi over IRA bombs
Another turnaround
Jaya's disqualification
MPLADS scam
E.C.'s order
Heartening

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