Opinion - News Analysis   

Duty and restraint: the hard choice

K. Narayanan

I signed off my weekly column on January 1, 2007, with the wish that the new year would offer readers pleasant reading. But the year was ushered in with the news of the killing of Saddam Hussein. More of this followed, with gruesome clips on the visual media; some newspapers also made use of these images.

I am happy that The Hindu did not. It made a conscious editorial decision to keep out the gory and distressing pictures that were available and chose a photo of Saddam Hussein looking composed and dignified on the gallows. The decision called for approbation. It also marked a change — from the use of a picture of the blood-splattered face of al-Zarqawi on Page 1 on June 9, 2006. That was defended as a reflection of the violent trends in the world.

That image evoked some strong reactions from readers, and I referred to the need to consider readers' sensitivities and sensibilities when selecting photographs for publication ("When news value overrides reader sensitivities", October 30, 2006), especially gruesome ones. I am pleased that such considerations played a part this time — that also saved me from having to mollify angry readers.

That unenviable task fell to the lot of the Readers' Editor of

The Guardian. On January 1, 2007, The Guardian published on the front page a big picture of "Saddam Hussein hanging from a noose after execution in Baghdad, seemingly taken by camera phone and obtained from an Arab-language website." The shocking picture showed Saddam Hussein's head tilted to one side, neck apparently broken.

The January 3 issue of The Guardian carried readers' reactions: What purpose was served by printing one of the photos of what The Guardian editorial, condemning the death penalty, called a "tawdry event"? It fills me with dismay and anger, said another reader. More than 200 readers contacted the paper, and were "very close to unanimity in their condemnation," says Ian Mayes, Readers' Editor, in his weekly column "Open Door" (January 8, 2007). There was only "the very faint sound of approval."

The journalists in the paper were divided almost equally, with a slight overall majority holding that it was wrong to use the picture and that too on Page 1. The Deputy Editor, who was the duty editor on that day, said the decision to use the picture was taken after seeing the whole sequence, which was contrary to the "controlled, manipulated and sanitised version" put out by the Iraqi Government. Editor Alan Rusbridger said the original "official" silent video had given a misleading impression of the execution and it was right to give an unvarnished version of events. "A newspaper which retreats from reporting the crueller realities of the world is ... retreating from its duty of bearing witness," he commented.

The reasons for using the picture, Mayes said, were considered powerful enough to overwhelm possible objections but they did not do that. He recalled his earlier suggestion that in circumstances that are likely to be controversial, readers should be taken into confidence with an editorial note at the time of presentation rather than after the event. The Guardian should have done that, he concluded.

Opinion will be divided, and the debate will continue. But I belong to the editorial school that holds that it is better to avoid shocking readers: they have enough of that on their plate.

Not many readers communicate with me about editorials, knowing that it does not lie within my powers to comment on editorial policies — a paper is entitled to have its own stand on and approach to issues. When there is an error, or what is perceived to be one, that is pointed out by readers.

But "Singur and beyond," the editorial on January 1, 2007, brought in comments. While accepting the paper's right to present its own view of Mamata Banerjee's campaign against the Bengal Government's land acquisition policy, readers raised two points which warrant comment. One related to the sentence in the editorial, "Under the circumstances the permanent government of the State has made it clear that it will consolidate and strengthen its agrarian base but will diversify into industry as well." Readers who said they preferred The Hindu despite its "avowed leftist leanings" and "its overtly pro-communist stand," raised the question — how can it assert that an elected government is a permanent one, even though the Marxists have been in power for 30 years? Was it not carrying the allegiance too far?

No allegiance was involved in this, was the editorial response I got. The reference to the permanent government was justified because the Left Front was in power continuously and without too much challenge since 1977. It was just a factual description and a varying reference to the Government of West Bengal.

The readers, I feel, have a valid point when they say in a democracy none can predict what will happen a decade hence. An elected "permanent government" is a contradiction in constitutional terms and inexact in political terminology — even when the same alliance or party continues in power uninterruptedly, the composition of its government, including its head, can change.

Readers also objected to the description "free-floating and freelancing NGOs and individuals" who rallied to Mamata's support "to target the organised left." This, they felt, was unfair to persons like Medha Patkar. The editorial response was that not all NGOs could be judged to be alike and their work had to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. That argument cannot be faulted.

Nor could I find merit in the criticism of The Hindu's support to Eenadu, the Telugu daily of Ramoji Rao who has been locked in a tussle with the Rajasekhara Reddy Government. The Hindu had business links with Eenadu and that prompted such a stand, some readers alleged. The tie-up for advertisements had no part in a principled defence of the freedom of the press.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Iajuddin Ahmed's epiphany
Wing it like Beckham
China asserting its place on world stage
Duty and restraint: the hard choice
Liberalisation will not remove caste prejudice
Trek of the wildebeest under threat
There is only a political solution to Iraq
Welcome judgment
Defeats purpose
Assam violence

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu