The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : A continuing struggle

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, May 15, 2006

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

A continuing struggle

K. Narayanan.

"It is good that you are acknowledging the errors/mistakes. Is the organisation taking any corrective action to understand the causes of occurrence of such defects and prevent them from being repeated? It seems to me the organisation believes that as there are many human beings involved, to err is human. The policy should be to work harder and achieve zero defect."

That, I would like to assure reader P. Muralidhar, is indeed the policy of The Hindu. Every error/mistake is a learning experience, exposing the pitfalls that need to be avoided. Yet the slips recur. Why?

The reader, in his appreciative and supportive letter, cites the examples of TVS and Sundaram Fasteners, which give excellent quality products, and wants The Hindu to give an excellent quality product, day in and day out, like any manufacturing company.

Therein lies the difference and the reasons for the blemishes. The intellectual, creative work involved in a newspaper at every stage calls for skills different from the repetitive manufacturing process. Consider this: 636 journalists on The Hindu's staff (821 if other Group publications are included) churn out and process tens of thousands of words every day; there are 12 production centres, where the editorial inputs are handled and used to create over 500 pages every day.

Technology helps, as the reader points out, but it also adds to the pressures by increasing and speeding up the inflow — to be handled by humans. They have varying skills and abilities, and, therefore, varying reactions. They work all the time with an eye on the clock. If the deadline is missed, the newspaper becomes an unsaleable commodity.

This detailed explanation is not a rationalisation of the daily occurrence of defects, but an attempt to show why "zero defect," while being the goal, is not achievable in a newspaper.

I can do no better than to quote Bill Keller, executive editor of

The New York Times, who analysed this problem recently.

Keller, in an online talk to the newsroom early in April, answered questions about the newspaper and the news. One question was: why is it that The New York Times has to run so many corrections every day?

Al Siegal, Assistant Managing Editor in charge of standards "and a tireless battler for accuracy" (according to Keller) responded:

"The errors themselves occur because of the hundreds of thousands of words we write and edit against crushing deadlines, often at the last minute. Computers have helped somewhat by providing a spelling checker — but they have also hurt by making it possible for people to push the writing and editing right up to the deadline.

"Six years ago, we began printing a notice on Page A2 inviting readers to notify us of errors, and offering them a toll-free number. Those steps greatly increased the number of errors we learned about (not necessarily an increase in the errors we made). And our various credibility steps in the last three years, including the appointment of a public editor, further opened the door for people to alert us about our slips. We're taking various steps to reduce the incidence of error, in part by coaching the staff in fact-checking techniques. But the struggle is endless."

This is the position The Hindu also faces, and the struggle continues here also.

The Guardian too has seen a boost in the "popularity" of the corrections column, says Ian Mayes, its Readers' Editor. With the increase in circulation (and therefore of readership) after the format change last year, and with 13 million users a month for The Guardian online, there has been a spurt in communications to the Readers' Editor. It was 9,000 in the half-year ending April 2006. But the number of corrections published remains consistent at about 1,600 a year (this is close to the "capacity of my department to cope.") Since the column was started more than eight years ago, 12,000 corrections have been published. The strong support The Guardian provides is based on the principle that while it is human to err, it is usually humane to correct, Ian says.

The Public Editor in The New York Times writes at least two columns a month on various aspects of the paper's functioning. He does not handle the daily corrections, which are carried out by a separate team. Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity can approach the Public Editor.

Mr. Keller, answering a question on what impact the Public Editor has had on various facets of the paper, said, "Barney Calame [the current Public Editor] and his predecessor, Dan Okrent, are two of the most fair-minded men I know, and I think they've had a powerful salutary effect on the paper. They have helped keep us on our toes. They have helped explain our sometimes mysterious work to our readers. They have helped alleviate the impression of The Times as aloof or indifferent to complaint. But it's a pretty thankless job, being Public Editor. Reporters and editors can be as thin-skinned as the people they cover. And our readers can be tough to please, as well. I guess I wouldn't have it any other way."

I couldn't have described my position better.

But I am happy I am able to please some readers at least! The daily inputs from readers are welcome as they drive the effort to improve quality. Not all errors pointed out get into the "Corrections and Clarifications," which deals with significant mistakes — but they do keep our journalists on their toes. The meticulous attention readers pay to detail and the pains they take to communicate are remarkable and also humbling.

On the subject of corrections, one part of the Terms of Reference for the Readers' Editor needs clarification. "In consultation with the Editor-in-Chief and/or his nominee to decide whether and when a correction should be published ...." As the words that follow make it clear, the need for such consultation will arise only when the correction or clarification relates to a matter that is or can be the subject of a legal action or a complaint to the Press Council. The provision for consultation is only to guard against legal risk. The normal daily corrections and clarifications are done by the Readers' Editor independently and are seen by the Editor-in-Chief only on the page! We are yet to come across a case where I have had to ask for the consultation provided for in the Terms.

And the corrections come not only from readers. There are instances of journalists sending in corrections to their articles or reports before readers do. I have also had senior editors sending me material for "Corrections and Clarifications". There are instances of journalists advising readers to take serious complaints to the Readers' Editor.

The culture of self-regulation is beginning to take root.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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