Opinion - News Analysis   

In search of balance and fairness

The comment in a recent column that critics outnumber admirers in the messages I get has been revalidated by the experience since these words appeared in print.

This was a general reference to readers' views on content and presentation, with a certain pattern emerging over the last few months. But that experience and the caution expressed by Ian Mayes, Readers' Editor of The Guardian, had hardly prepared me for the post-August 14 flow.

My column that day sought to explain why astrology was kept out of

The Hindu's columns, and included the Editor-in-Chief's views on the subject. Astrological forecasts have their votaries, just as stock market prices have theirs. I did not deride them nor question astrology or its practice. That these words could arouse passions and emotions and produce an avalanche of mail — some of them personal abuse — was a revelation.

This is in passing and I do not intend dealing with the messages mostly defending astrology (or the few that backed me!) and will move on to readers' criticism of the newspaper's content, in total contrast to the laudatory references I cited in this column on August 21. As was done then, I pick a few messages that make a substantive point. Obviously it is impossible to deal with all the denunciation that has a pattern to it. Many of them are defamatory, not fit to print.

Newspaper ombudsmen are familiar with what is called "campaign" or "hate" mail. In such instances, there is an organised flow of messages all containing the same idea, only slightly differently worded. From the pattern, it becomes obvious that these motivated missives need no consideration. As a rule, the Readers' Editor of The Guardian does not read them and indeed has them filtered out of his inbox.

But I do not place in the same category, the large number of mails I get from different parts of the country, many of them from old, long-time readers. The common thread in many of these messages is that The Hindu is partisan and prejudiced. Some of the points they make are:

The paper has turned into an ideological document; there is disproportionate coverage to CPI(M) Polit Bureau members wherever they speak; a mindset prejudiced against all right-wing people; obsession for Muslims and their welfare; an anti-American bias. The demand is made that the paper should present "both sides of the ideological coin so that the readers would decide the merits and demerits of the issue." While conceding the paper's "entitlement to have its own ideology, prejudices, biases, etc.," a reader says it cannot have "pretensions of adherence to core values."

Faulting the paper for not focusing on news that affects the reader immediately and directly, a reader says, "Instead of working on its strength as a clean paper and providing balanced and quality reader-oriented news and articles, it is becoming a prisoner of its obsessions and taking on the note of moral policing."

One oft-heard grievance of readers is that the space devoted to national news is inadequate. There is a preponderance of stories from The Guardian and the New York Times in the Op-Ed Pages, which could do with more writings on national issues. Yours is no more a national paper, says T. Rama Varma of Thrissur, a reader for 55 years. "More than two pages on Iraq, Lebanon, etc., and nothing for Maharashtra, Orissa floods. You are averse to report on Kashmir, Nagaland, etc. Your reader will have no knowledge about matters happening in other parts of the country."

That is a sweeping statement overstating a partly valid case. Except when there is a disaster, or a political upheaval, the States do not get adequate attention, especially the North-East, readers feel. Regular newsletters from States on the Op-Ed page is one suggestion they make; they feel this can help avoid lopsidedness such as three articles on Lebanon on the Op-Ed page on one day. Or the attention that the Pathak report on the oil for food scam and Jaswant Singh's book received when crores of people were reeling under floods in three major States, which also had a devastating effect on the economy. You highlight "meaningless statements" of politicians like Natwar Singh and Jaswant Singh and publish their large size pictures on Page 1 when you say you are short of space, contends one reader.

Citing Arundathi Roy's article bitterly critical of the U.S., reader M.R. Gopalan (address, which we ask to be included in all messages, not known) wonders what is "balanced reporting" — (1) giving equal prominence to different viewpoints on the same page the same day; (2) publishing counterviews and rejoinders; (3) publishing what is newsworthy on a given day and not worrying too much about balance.

First, this is a blurring of views and news. An article on the editorial or Op-Ed page takes a particular view, or voices a strong opinion that is generally in tune with the paper's policy. Counter-views are accommodated in the "Letters to the Editor" column (there were quite a few attacking Roy). Where warranted, a rejoinder also gets space.

"Balance in reporting" cannot be in the literal sense; space is given to opposing views, but it need not be equal; nor need it be given the same prominence; "same page, same day," is neither feasible nor practical. Care is taken to see that generally both sides are presented, and overall there is fair presentation.

Accuracy, fairness, balance — readers set high standards. Fulfilling their expectations is the target for all the journalists in The Hindu. But with decisions being made every minute, every hour, every day, the achievement varies. It is impossible to be totally objective in this decision-making, as I have explained on an earlier occasion. However there is transparency in whatever that is done.

It is difficult to categorise readers who have different perceptions and expectations. And because of the variations, it is not possible to please all of them. But when they disagree, their views need consideration. That is done, though it may not be possible to concur with all of them.

But let us not forget one basic fact: readers write as individuals and they have their own ideological and political functions, preferences, inclinations and biases. Just as the fundamental right to freedom of expression encompasses all these, so too a newspaper's freedom of expression and independence must be recognised and respected.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Another chance for CAS
A new era in non-life insurance
Pollution, aerosols, and the climate
Naxals, government rethinking strategies
Blair delay could provoke leadership challenge
True democrats uphold our liberties — not destroy them
Fears of `extreme' TB strain
In search of balance and fairness
Ujjain incident
A shame
Creamy layer
Welcome move
A disappointment

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