Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Needed: a realistic assessment

A year ago the first of these columns, "For mature, strong bonds"

(March 1, 2006), explained what the Readers' Editor was expected to do.

The Hindu's effort to "create a new visible framework" to improve standards set out a comprehensive agenda for the Readers' Editor: (1) investigate and respond to readers' concerns and complaints; (2) ensure accuracy, standards and fairness; (3) create new channels of communication with greater responsiveness to readers; and (4) look for ways to improve the paper's performance by analysing readers' ideas and suggestions.

In the year since then, what has been done in these directions? Statistics show we have succeeded in creating channels of communication. From March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007, the Readers' Editor's office received 10969 communications: 7898 by e-mail, 1243 on the phone, 1749 by post and 79 by fax.

Responsiveness to readers is evident from the action taken on these. None of these thousands of messages is kept pending. Personal replies were sent to 2105; as many as 4451 were forwarded to those concerned in the editorial and other departments for necessary follow-up; 856 are on files for action or consideration later.

The "Corrections and Clarifications" column, which appears on five days a week, had 1050 entries during this period. Besides these, regional pages carried local corrections, and the supplements had their own. These have not been tabulated. Usually, a correction has its origin in more than one message. On one occasion, we had as many as 25 communications on one error. There are large numbers on typographical and minor errors. There is only one word to describe the range and reach of the readers' passion for accuracy: amazing. And the geographical spread of the respondents never ceases to surprise.

The mechanism for investigating and responding to readers' complaints and concerns is fully functional. I do not claim that every reader has been satisfied by the response. But even when I did not agree with the points made and countered them, the appreciation for the reply was gratifying. Many expressed their happiness that someone cared. This I consider to be the most positive outcome of our efforts.

The second task assigned to the Readers' Editor — ensure accuracy, standards and fairness — has an inherent contradiction. My role is reactive, not proactive, and that makes the "ensuring" part a goal to be pursued indirectly. Readers' comments and the resulting corrections have led to an awareness among the staff that errors would be in the public eye.

No journalist makes a mistake intentionally. Journalists hate themselves when they do make one, and hate it more when someone points it out. But attitudes are changing. On many occasions, the writers have come forward to point out mistakes they committed and ask for corrections. A realistic understanding has emerged that this is not a blame game, but a joint effort to improve the newspaper. And I hope this awareness spreads.

One of the most heartening responses was from Harish Khare,

The Hindu's Senior Associate Editor and Delhi bureau chief. He thanked a reader for the "very impressive" way in which he had pointed out errors in an article. Dr. Khare hoped, in a message to me, that he did not breach any protocol in directly contacting the reader!

Finally, "improving the paper's performance by analysing readers' ideas and suggestions." That is a wish, an ideal, and uncertain territory with no guideposts. There has been any number of ideas and suggestions from readers. The major part, in the early days, was along anticipated lines: accusing the paper of bias, prejudice, lack of fairness, and so on. But there have also been good and implementable suggestions from readers passionate about "their" paper. These have earned commendations; and there they rest.

There are fundamental issues here. Some readers have the wrong perception that the Readers' Editor can bring in changes in editorial policy or news coverage. I cannot tell — or wish to tell — the editors and correspondents what to write or not write, or what to report or not report. Nor is it possible to agree with all that readers say, for each one has his or her own perceptions of journalistic norms and ethics. Many expect the paper to be moored in the old practices, while the world is changing rapidly.

A more pertinent point is raised by B.S. Raghavan, administrator, writer, social activist and speaker. (He is a regular contributor to Business Line, earlier to The Hindu). The comments I get, he says, are random in nature, tentative and transient, and may not realistically reflect the overall opinion of the general mass of readership. He provides a questionnaire, which he suggests be used to survey readers' views on the style and substance of the paper. A valid point and a laudable suggestion. But I do not have the infrastructure to undertake this huge task. And there is no guarantee that the silent majority will stir themselves to respond!

One more statistic: this is the 51st of these weekly columns. With the half-century mark crossed, I propose to unburden myself only on alternate Mondays.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Budget and the stock markets
Death by garbage dumping
The growth ideology of the cancer cell
Dangers of excessive partisanship
"Living introduction to Islam"
The trouble with Rudy Giuliani
Impact of widening Panama canal
Parliament disruption
Five years after
Shocking
Science in schools
Teaching Sanskrit
Needed: a realistic assessment

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