Opinion - News Analysis   

Immediacy, proximity are keys to news selection

K. NARAYANAN

Readers have their pet ideas, issues and theories. They scrutinise every bit in the newspaper to see whether the coverage fits in with their view of things. When it does not, the sword is out. (The daily mail I receive is evidence of these trends.) The vast majority generally has no agenda of its own and rarely expresses any view.

On October 31, page 1 of The Hindu had a story "When water and air conspire to kill," on what led to the death of three persons in a car stranded on a flooded road in Chennai. I thought it was an interesting, well-written follow-up of a human tragedy (though it lacked identification of the writer, a new name). But that was not how all saw it. T.S. Sundar of Chennai asked, "Are you trying to be [The] New York Times?" (Why the comparison?). Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning, he said, would affect just 0.01 per cent of the population. (How was this statistic arrived at?) Why doesn't the paper highlight problems such as the mosquito menace, chikungunya, malaria, unhygienic conditions, and so on? He found it a "funny priority of news."

Gaurav Kathuria, a B.Tech final year student at SASTRA, Thanjavur, had his own priority. Why was not the death sentence in the Priyardarshini Mattoo case "which will have far-reaching implications" on Page 1? When a similar tragedy in a car occurred in the National Capital Region, it was not reported in The Hindu. Don't call yourself India's National Newspaper, but South India's regional newspaper, was his advice.

These reactions, I felt, were odd. Problems referred to by Sundar are perennial ones, various aspects of which are written about periodically. They get on to Page 1 too if and when warranted. But there was immediacy, information, and human interest in the report on what CO is. These are the criteria that guide the editorial team in deciding the display of any news.

In Priyardarshini Mattoo's case, the conviction had taken place earlier; the sentencing took place that day and was on Page 1 in Briefs, a detailed report inside. It was no doubt sensational, but the judgment laid down no new case law to have "far-reaching implications." In addition to the criteria mentioned earlier, proximity definitely influences selection of news in any newspaper anywhere in the world. If it was the South's regional newspaper, why should The Hindu devote so much space to the traders' stir in Delhi; would a bandh anywhere in the South be covered in the Delhi papers, I asked Kathuria.

The way Kanshi Ram's passing was reported (October 10, 2006) drew a sharp comment from D. Ravikumar, MLA, Chennai. He was "dismayed and saddened by the way the news was buried at the bottom of Page 14." What made it worse, according to him, was that the paper "could not rustle up an obituary" for the "greatest Dalit leader after Ambedkar." He compared this with the way the death of CPI (M) leader Anil Biswas and filmmaker Hrishikes Mukherjee was reported.

The complaint had some basis and an error too. Kanshi Ram, and his picture, did find a place on Page 1, at the very top in the promos indicating the most important news inside. But the paper erred in not carrying an obituary note (the long report contained only tributes) and in placing the story at the bottom of a page. I made this point both to the Chief News Editor and Ravikumar. But The Hindu more than made up for this the next day with a highly appreciative editorial and an assessment of the Kanshi Ram saga by Harish Khare. M.P. Umesh Chandra of Mangalore called Khare's essay a "very meaningful and beautiful tribute", which "aptly and genuinely captured the significance of Kanshi Ram." He said it showed The Hindu was "committed to [the] ethical principle of content diversity."

Ravikumar acknowledged this in his reply to my note, and expressed appreciation of The Hindu's reportage of issues related to Dalits. The Dalit Panthers of India MLA, who is also associated with Navayana, a publishing house specialising in literature relating to Dalits, raised a "related concern" of "few Dalits employed by the mainstream media." This is too complex and sensitive an issue to be taken up here but I would like to make one point. From 1978 to 1990, when I was involved in the selection of editorial staff — in which caste and creed played no part and merit was the only consideration — there was not a single SC/ST applicant.

Relevant to the question of readers' concerns is the recent adjudication order of the U.K. Press Complaints Commission on an issue raised by Alex Safian of CAMERA, a pro-Israeli pressure group, against

The Guardian. The complaint of breach of Clause 1 (accuracy) of the PCC code said two articles the paper published contended that there were many similarities between the policies of Israel and apartheid South Africa, and that an alliance between them helped the latter develop a nuclear bomb.

(Under Clause 1, the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. A significant inaccuracy, misleading information or distortion, once recognised, must be corrected promptly. The Press, while free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.)

The Commission examined the objections point by point, and the paper's response, and rejected the complaint. Its ruling said: "It was clear from the way the articles were presented that they represented the writer's personal thesis, based on his own experiences. Inherent in freedom of expression is the right for newspapers to publish challenging and partisan material, which inevitably includes political judgments with which many will disagree."

The newspaper was entitled, in the Commission's view, "to select material in the form of quotations (which had not been disputed by the people quoted) or statistics that supported the clearly stated premise of the articles. It was not obliged to attempt to balance every statement with reference to a counter-argument or counter-interpretation that existed elsewhere and opposed the position espoused in the article."

"While the complaint was able to question the merits of such claims, the newspaper was entitled to publish them, provided their provenance was made clear in the article," the order said.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Khairlanji's shame
Striving for financial stability
Defining India's identity: an alternative vision
"You must decide it [Kashmir] amongst yourselves"
Immediacy, proximity are keys to news selection
The great entrance test debate
Holland split over burqa ban
Joint mechanism
A shame!
On corruption
Tackling polio

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