Opinion - News Analysis   

Indefatigable and indignant

Frankly, I was not prepared for it. When I wrote on the problems the profusion of "Letters to the Editor" caused (March 20, 2006), the aim was to explain to readers how their contributions were processed and the general guidelines for selection, editing, and publication. The volume of reader response to this column took me by surprise. Most of them showed understanding. There were a couple of harsh ones too — that is one of the occupational hazards of this post, about which Ian Mayes, Readers' Editor of The Guardian, had cautioned me.

Well-argued, convincing, educative — were some of the heartening reactions compensating the charge made of "openly and publicly ridiculing readers." Another reader found the column full of sarcasm and taking a dig at readers.

There were many respondents who questioned my statement that letter writers were keen to see their name in print, and defended themselves. This however is a case of reducing a general statement to the particular because there was no attempt by me to place everyone in the same category. One reader said, I do not worry whether you publish or not; I keep writing to express my thoughts. Here is another: "I find sheer pleasure at the wrong side of 70 in writing letters to keep my grey cells ticking to keep Alzheimer's at arm's length." How can one take a dig at writers like these? One can only salute such indefatigable souls, and wish them success in their efforts.

Some had other approaches. A couple of samples: My letters fulfilled all the criteria you mentioned, yet were not published. None of my letters was unpublishable, but they did not find favour. To answer these readers, I have to return to what was said in the earlier column, about the process of rigorous selection from the voluminous inflow. We find about 50 per cent of the received mail publishable; of these we are able to publish half the number. In my opinion, that's substantial accommodation of what we get every day. It is possible that, on the way, worthwhile letters may get excluded.

One reader faces "the daunting prospect of being judged by my intention." This is something the editorial staff cannot do; they can judge content and style, but not intent.

The point about excluding anonymous writers brought in some interesting comments. Allowing anonymity will encourage more people to write, was one argument. The insistence on exclusivity had also objectors, as being unjust when there was no guarantee of publication. Indicative of the reader's angle was the comment: "Hindu Gods do not demand exclusivity. Christian and Islamic Gods do."

From religion to caste, as another quote shows: "Of the letters published, 80% are written by your own staff and 10% by the Editor himself under fictitious names and the balance 10% from the fanatic fans of The Hindu who are usually senior citizens from Tamil Nadu belonging to the Brahmin and upper caste communities — trying to defend narrow-minded editorial policy." Well, the regular letter writers can chew on that!

I now turn to some weighty contributions. More than one reader suggested an acknowledgement of letters received; it will take only 30 seconds for a computer click to do that, said one. Another went further — create a template of reasons why a letter cannot be used and tick the appropriate one. That will help educate writers and also "discipline the letter-reading staff." Interaction with the readers was also suggested. If it is unfeasible to acknowledge every letter, the ones selected for publication deserve that, argued another reader.

The spirit behind these suggestions is to be appreciated, but logistics makes them unfeasible. The inflow of letters is continuous; reading, selecting, and editing make heavy demands on the staff's time and skills. Fair readers will agree that publication of the letter is the acknowledgement.

Have a committee consisting of an assistant editor, columnist, reporter and sub-editor to scan letters and decide, is another piece of advice. There are now three experienced journalists (they do not, however, function as a committee!) involved in processing the letters, with the Editor-in-Chief being consulted when doubts arise about suitability.

It is my considered opinion as Readers' Editor that handling the daily flow is a professional job that must be left to journalists' judgment and discretion as long as there is respect for reader responses, including criticism and disagreement, and the selection is fair. I might have more to say in later columns on how to add value to this valuable and engaging part of a leading newspaper.

I found a response from Baltimore, U.S., most interesting. This cites the practice of some newspapers to post edited letters, which do not appear in the print editions, on their internet editions. Some others take contributions unedited giving full scope to the writers' opinions. He suggests that

The Hindu host "controlled, edited, manageable space" on its website so that a larger number of comments can be accommodated. But questions arise. A large number of letter writers are senior citizens who do not access the internet. How can they be satisfied? And how to provide the reader the psychological satisfaction of holding the paper and seeing his or her name in print? But the Baltimore reader's suggestions are helpful and The Hindu can consider acting on the basic idea.

To return to the reader who accused me of "ridiculing readers," he also charged me with "denigrating readers to a status of servility and favour-seekers." For good measure, he copied his mail to 98 other email ids, including various leading newspapers round the world.

Spreading my name, like that, is some reward!

Really gratifying were the emotional responses from the niece of S.A. Govindarajan and the daughter of S. Rangarajan to the reference made to these veteran journalists in the same column (March 20, 2006).

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Counselling mutual accommodation
A shot in the arm for food irradiation
Stranded in a place called impasse
Indefatigable and indignant
Africa's biggest slum
Capital account convertibility concerns
Ukraine — split by elections
The British should stop ignoring mainland Europe
EC vs. Government
Innumerable goodies
Frightening disconnect

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