Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Back to some basics of communication

K. Narayanan

A return to the topic of anonymous letters was not something I anticipated; I assumed that the earlier column ("When criticism loses its sting", January 29, 2007) had disposed of this. But responses to the column surprised me; I found some of my statements had been misunderstood. So it is back to the phenomenon of anonymous communication; first a look at some of the opinions expressed by readers and then my response to them.

Dr. Y.P. Joshi (Varanasi), retired Reader in Physics, BHU, feels content is to be valued more than the name of the author. He cites various situations — such as problems with neighbours or civil authorities or relating to dowry demands — where anonymity is a safeguard. The guarantee of confidentiality is mostly on paper, he says.

Dr. Radhanath Behera, Principal, Kotpad College, Kotpad (Orissa), resorts to the tactic he imagines my column adopts and asserts, "your roundup is more of an attack than self-defence." Why bother "when someone taunts you in a foul mouth to satisfy his ego? Does it satisfy you in equal measure to caution in the mask of journalistic prerogative? ... why publish them? To win sympathy, or to silence free opinion of your unseen readers, or to protect your unsung angels, whose breath-taking haste justifies the printing errors?"

A couple of other readers also thought that my statements were threatening in tone; that what was presented was criticism of their views rather than an analytical approach.

T.S. Krishnamoorthy (Tatabad, Coimbatore), while conceding that my "grievance" was legitimate and that criticism should be in decent and acceptable language, had a new twist: "Your newspaper belongs to a political party and is its staunch and vehement supporter." Therefore its views lead to "angry responses by some couched in intemperate language." C.A. Reddy (Hyderabad), ex-director of Space Physics Laboratory, VSSC, Thiruvananthapuram, has a different take on anonymity, which he says is a virtue; "Keerti daham" (the thirst for fame) is a great weakness. He has published poems and articles under a pen name, but in his research publications, anonymity was not permitted, he concedes.

J.P. Reddy (Nalgonda) and S. Visvanathan (Adambakkam, Chennai) throw the blame at me. Why do you consider communication that does not carry the name and full postal address, when this is one of the terms mentioned everyday in the "Corrections and Clarifications" column? Why are you sympathetic to anonymous writers, wasting precious space in the weekly column, they ask.

But some more precious space has to be taken up to answer these points and to remove some misconceptions. What I wrote about "a category" has been misread and misinterpreted as constituting a threat. There was no threat or warning. It was a clarification — that those from this category who resorted to abuse of third persons in communications to me laid themselves open to possible legal action by that person. Whatever is said about me to me only amuses me; it will not be a cause for legal action. That is no threat.

So there was no need to "caution readers in the mask of journalistic prerogative." It was not attack or self-defence, there is no need for either. When readers have the freedom to write, to abuse, to deride, or defame, I should be allowed the right to say what I think of all this. My comments are not going to silence the attackers who have the prerogative of using the open lines of communication. The "unsung angels" do not need my protection; they do their work and my explanation of how they do it is not a justification.

The anonymity I refer to is not the use of a pseudonym or pen-name, where the author is known to the publisher. On civic or personal issues, anonymous complaints made to government offices do not get any attention; as a matter of policy, they are ignored. The anonymous letters I get mostly originate from people with a particular mindset, who also probably assume that the paper "belongs" to a party.

And, finally, why do I "waste" time and space over anonymous communications or those without postal addresses, as required under our policy? Some of these contributions do have genuine and worthy views. When there is the possibility of a follow-up action, we ask some e-mailers to provide their postal addresses. And when such messages are anonymous, I sympathise with those who wasted their effort (including postage); such communications are not considered at all, even when some solid grain is a part of the chaff of abuse.

But one thing I can claim. Spicy or bland, I read every message addressed to the Readers' Editor. They (occasional depressants excluded) provide me the stimulus for the work in this post, where I complete one year on February 28. And I look forward to the reactions to my first annual survey, which I hope to present to you next week.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

A conspiracy of silence
An assault beaten back
Tackling the crisis of child malnutrition
Tourist invasion threatens Angkor Wat
In China, now great ride forward
Shock and war — what a forecaster doesn't need
On media freedom
Welcome
Back to some basics of communication

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