Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Facts, completeness and background

K. Narayanan

Picking out errors must be a fairly easy task. But analysing the content of a news report calls for more time, more attention and more critical faculties. That must be the reason why not many readers take up the second task. Charges of partisan or unfair reporting — which are made often — are not the same as pointing out gaps in a published report or omissions as compared with what appeared in a contemporary. In recent days, I received a few such communications; and I thought they merited attention.

"While not wishing to pick holes in the staff reporter's coverage," A. Narayanan of Chennai has some comments on two reports. In a first page story, "Caparo Group plans aerospace thrust," he looked in vain for the family background of Angad Paul, chief executive of the U.K.-based Caparo Group. There was no mention that he was the son of the India-born, Britain-based Lord (Swaraj) Paul, Chairman of the Caparo Group. There was a reference to the Ambika Paul Foundation, and the reporter was probably not aware that it was set up in memory of Lord Paul's daughter, Mr. Narayanan said.

Interesting points no doubt, but how are they germane to a story on a business deal between Caparo and the Tamil Nadu Government? Such family details would have been out of place in this Page 1 story. A separate personality profile of Angad on an inside page could have had all this and more, and would have made good reading. That was the real gap in this, and other stories, where a possible human angle is not explored.

The reader also took apart another report. This was on actor Surya at a meeting reading out a humorous message from his actor wife Jyothika, which evoked laughter. What was the message, he asked. A news report is meant to be factual and that places limitations on the reporter. Narration of a story, a repartee or an aside has another slot — the weekly "Reporters' Diary", which can and needs to be livened up.

What do readers do when a report leaves them guessing? Ask the Readers' Editor! They did, about the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's statement: "Tamil Nadu fishermen will not merely carry on fishing if firing by the Sri Lankan Navy continues" (March 6, 2007). What did the Chief Minister mean? I asked the Tamil Nadu Bureau and was told there was an implied warning in what the Chief Minister said. If there was one, that should have been made clear. Interpretation, perspective, background have to be provided in a news report. The reader needs information, not bafflement. However, it might be contended, if a message with an implication is deliberately ambiguous, it is best for correspondents not to speculate.

The Special Correspondent gave me the Chief Minister's words in Tamil, which he said he translated and reported. "What they will do in addition, the reader should find out from the Chief Minister's office," he added. The readers, unfortunately, do not have that privilege journalists enjoy, nor can they undertake what newspapers should do. A brush-off is not the answer to readers.

Or I should have referred them to other newspapers, which reported as follows:

1. "Reacting to the attacks on Tamil fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy, the Chief Minister said they would not be tolerated. If the attacks continue, Tamils will not confine themselves to fishing alone."

2. "Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi on Monday indicated of possible retaliation against attacks on Tamil Nadu fishermen. If the atrocities on Tamil fishermen continued, then no one should think that the hands of Tamils will only be fishing in that sea, the Chief Minister wrote in his party organ."

That comparison of reports is by me. But here is a reader doing the job. S. Savitri of Chengalpattu (Tamil Nadu), "who holds The Hindu in great reverence," has several questions about the paper's reporting of the swearing-in of the new Chief Minister in Uttarakhand. The photo caption did not fully and correctly identify those seen. The report — "short on facts and long on rumours" — did not list all the dignitaries who attended. She found all these details and more in other papers. A Congress or a Left Government being sworn in would not "have received such a lackadaisical coverage," she added.

I went through all the reports she cited and could not but agree that the event deserved better treatment. This was the first time a retired Major-General assumed the post of Chief Minister. Preferences or prejudices should not intrude into actual reporting, when fairness is the paper's credo. And the readers are quick to spot the slips.

The figures cited in my last column ("Needed: a realistic assessment," March 5, 2007) have a reader, N. Dharmeswaran, Chennai, charging me with "terminological inexactitude." I said none of the messages I received was pending with me. The reader said 3557 of the communications remained unaccounted for. That is proof of the scrutiny readers undertake. I should have explained that the various figures will not add up. One correction is the result of many communications. Those relating to minor errors are noted and passed on to the people concerned. Anonymous and abusive communications are included in the incoming messages; but not in the action taken list. All these explain the "gap".

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

A bad miscalculation
Warblers and wetlands
Heading towards a new full-scale arms race?
Journey in the footsteps of anti-slavery heroine
Don't exaggerate climate dangers, warn scientists
Facts, completeness and background

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