Opinion - News Analysis   

Concerns that go beyond a spellchecker's

K.Narayanan

Is ombudsman a gender-neutral word? That question from a reader (not named here as he has not provided his address despite a request) had me stumped. I had assumed it was, and never thought about it. Now I had to get to the root of it and that was the Swedish word umbuds man, meaning representative. It is not gender-specific. However, with the trend for gender-neutral expressions, words such as ombuds, ombuds officer, ombuds person and even ombudswoman are now mentioned. But with quite a few women as its members, it is still the Organisation of News Ombudsmen (ONO).

Nor has there been any disagreement on what the role of a news ombudsman should be. Even when he or she is a part of the establishment and is assigned the work for a specific period such as three years, independence is assured — the job is neither to agree nor to disagree, but to verify the accuracy of news content and evaluate whether contrary opinions find space in the news columns and whether editorial opinion contaminates news. (The emphasis is added to indicate that editorials and opinion pieces are not within the ambit of the ombudsman.) Generally, and particularly in The Hindu, the ombudsman does not act suo motu but only in response to readers' communications. As I have mentioned on earlier occasions, I am neither an advocate nor an adversary. All I seek, work for, is good journalism.

The iteration was sparked by the comments from a reader (also unnamed because he provides no address) that "lately your role has been limited to that of a spellchecker and/or pointing miniscule errors in reporting ... . The change came after your column in January when you responded to queries regarding handling of Singur and Nandigram issues by your newspaper. In that you berated letter writers for abuses heaped on you and your newspaper. But that is natural when you decide not to respond to their genuine concerns. You have stopped replying to the emails also."

Yes, I do not reply to e-mails without addresses. But I do not recollect berating any reader any time. I looked at what I had written in January 2007. There were references to Singur-Nandigram in two columns. I cited readers' criticism of two sentences in an editorial, gave the editorial response to this, and concluded that the reader's objection was valid in one instance. The other reference was to the published letters to the editor on this subject — I agreed that there was factual inaccuracy in one, as pointed out by a reader; and found strange the comment that all letters were from non-Bengal locations.

The only reader reaction about the news coverage I received was from R. Gopimony of Thiruvananthapuram, a reader for 60 years, who wondered why The Hindu had not sent a reporter or team of reporters to Nandigram. That indeed was a gap in the coverage; and this was noted because the aftermath of the naxal massacre in Chhattisgarh around the same time had spot reporting.

This is a question of editorial judgment is the answer I get. Every news item involves such judgment. But the exercise must be marked by a sense of proportion, fairness, and consistency. When these are not evident, at least to the readers, they are bound to ask questions, such as: "You have prominently published photographs and report on the attack on a Christian preacher in distant Jaipur ... A series of more heinous attacks were unleashed on innocent gurukkals (temple priests) in Tiruvarur in Tamil Nadu ... . Your newspaper probably found no news value in the incidents." (V. Anantharaman, Bangalore). All forms of religions or casteist intolerance need to be reported and criticised. Omitting some or selective reporting can lead to readers forming their own conclusions, which may not always be warranted.

The published TV pictures of the Jaipur attack made me wonder: do assailants make their preparations such as covering their faces (why?) in front of TV cameras? I was reminded of the alleged "immolation bid" pictures "dramatically" captured by these cameras — which The Hindu rightly ignored then.

In this job, surprises never cease. "I am a keen reader of your column. You have mentioned somewhere in your column that you read every letter addressed to you. I am at least sure this letter would not be tossed into the wastepaper basket, unread. I am presently spending my time in ... prison and have spent the last five years and three months as an undertrial prisoner." His request has been passed on to the appropriate person, as desired by him.

Equally interesting are communications from S.S. Shampath, Salem, who says he is a worker in a textile mill and snatches time during the lunch break to read The Hindu in the mill. He has a grouse — none of the errors he points out (written regularly on post cards, which he says is all that he can afford) has got into the "Corrections and Clarifications" column! They are mistakes, no doubt, but not "significant" enough.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Well done, Election Commission
Raising labour standards
Signs of another kind of line of control
Concerns that go beyond a spellchecker's
A lot of ground to be made in U.P.
The future for Britain's PM-in-waiting
Whistleblowers should not be persecuted
Decisive verdict
Rainbow coalition
Lesson or two

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