Opinion - News Analysis   

Unfair omission: an author's protest

"India through her eyes", a profile of Homai Vyarawalla, India's first and most famous woman photo journalist, appeared in

The Hindu-Sunday Magazine on March 12, 2006 (page 5). What gave topicality to this very interesting resume of the 92-year-old Homai's achievements was the launch of a book, Camera Chronicles of Homai Vyarawalla, and a retrospective of over a hundred photographs relating to her at the Lalit Kala Akademi in New Delhi.

Neeta Lal, in her article, surveyed Homai's origins, struggles, accomplishments and persona, and included what Homai told her about the attributes of a good photographer.

That was the rub.

On March 30, I received an e-mail from Sabeena Gadihoke, author of the Camera Chronicles. She made these specific charges: 1. the article "scrupulously" avoided mentioning the book's author's name, while including the names of the publishers; 2. part of the article drew "almost verbatim from the inner jacket of the book with minor reworking of the sentences"; 3. Neeta Lal did not meet Homai but sought a phone interview, citing deadline pressures. Homai being hearing impaired, most of the information was provided by Ms. Gadihoke and this was presented as though it was a personal interview.

The main source of information for the article, Ms. Gadihoke said, was her book. She concluded by asking me to decide whether this was not unethical journalism.

Neeta Lal, responding to my request to clarify the position, made the following points:

1. The information about Homai was gathered from various sources, including the internet, talks with Lt. Gen. Adi Sethna (President of the Parzor Foundation, co-publishers of the book with Mapin) and a visit to the photo exhibition. 2. The interview sought with Homai was delayed by Sabeena Gadihoke (with whom Homai was staying), and to meet The Hindu deadline of March 2, Lal had to do a long-distance telephone interview. "A few inputs" were provided by the book's author. 3. The author's name would have been mentioned if it was a book review, which it was not, and the omission was not raised by the magazine editor. 4. The similarity of thoughts or choice of words, if any, was purely coincidental. 5. "No fact is twisted or bent in the article in spite of the telecons, hearing issues and pressure of the deadline."

The charges and the response relate to some basic issues in journalism. Borrowing words and ideas from another writer is a common practice among journalists; but it becomes an infraction when the source is not mentioned. The reader has a right to know, and to expect fairness. So does the original author. When the "borrowing" is extensive or major, it leads to a charge of plagiarism.

Now to the points raised by Gadihoke and Lal's response:

1. That the author's name was not mentioned is not disputed. The argument that it was not a book review is not an acceptable defence for this omission. The author is more important than the publishers who were mentioned.

2. Ms. Gadihoke has said that two paragraphs in the article are culled from the inner jacket of the book. A reading shows that the sentences, with minor modifications, are the same. Ms. Lal calls this coincidental.

3. What has been presented as a personal interview with Homai was in fact done on the telephone, with Ms. Gadihoke's assistance. Ms. Lal admits this partially and mentions deadline pressures for this.

The Hindu-Sunday Magazine editorial desk informs me that no deadline was mentioned — and it was a contributed, not a commissioned, piece.

4. The information was gathered from various sources, according to Ms. Lal, while Gadihoke maintains that the main sources were herself and her book.

The conclusion one draws is that there has been a lack of fairness and journalistic ethics in not giving due credit to Sabeena Gadihoke and her book. From Neeta Lal, a writer of 21 years' experience, this is surprising.

"Your concerns as Readers' Editor are noted sincerely, and hurt if any caused is entirely unintentional and is regretted," Ms. Lal concludes. I hope this message of regret will be addressed to Ms. Gadihoke.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

More than a demat scam
Iran refuses to blink
Alternative approaches to West Asian crises
Narmada: the cost of delaying rehabilitation
China's new push on the African continent
Unfair omission: an author's protest
A friend of India
Reservation issue
Amazing
The Narmada issue
Protectionism

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