Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Some gains, but much more needs to be done

One of the Terms of Reference for the Readers’ Editor is, “To require of the Editor-in-Chief that he or she take steps to ensure that his or her staff cooperate fully and promptly with the Readers’ Editor should they be requested to provide assistance in responding to readers’ concerns and complaints.” That provision has never been invoked. There has never been an occasion when cooperation was withheld.

The response from all offices of The Hindu was quick: this was to my circular seeking their views on the impact of the Readers’ Editor’s work. And it was positive, unanimously so. They said readers appreciated the effort , while the staff showed an additional sense of responsibility. One of the respondents (all of them will be nameless here) said the abusive phone calls the office used to get from readers about mistakes had ceased. There was now another forum where such voices got a hearing and a response. The paper had earned respect and confidence among customers and contemporaries.

That however does not mean that the staff uniformly welcome the readers’ initiatives. There is a feeling that it is often nitpicking, small errors get magnified, there are unwarranted assumptions, and that readers have been empowered to exercise some sort of tyranny! There may be some justification for such feelings, but much of it arises from a sense of resentment — at the reader picking holes and being more knowledgeable. I view the readers’ awareness as something to be welcomed, a spur to better efforts.

All centres agree that there has been a salutary effect on the staff, both writers and editors. Reporters are more cautious and double-check facts. Pages get a second look before they are passed. The number of serious errors has come down. There are instances of staff members themselves pointing out a mistake they have committed and asking for a correction. Mistakes seldom get repeated. (There are a couple of instances where we have had to repeat corrections. Recently, a correction was repeated for the fourth time in nine months!) There are now peer reviews and discussions on usage. These are the gains.

The initial reaction to the creation of a Readers’ Editor was uncertainty, even fear, more so because of the person chosen (as News Editor I was known for reacting sharply when there were mistakes). Reassurances from the top were required that this was not a finger-pointing exercise. As the system got going, fear was replaced by curiosity and a desire to learn. But I have a feeling that it is now moving to a stage of complacency, even scepticism, of shrugging it off as a daily routine to be endured.

The trend can easily be explained. Mistakes are pointed out in the “Corrections and Clarifications” column daily. There is however no correlative follow-up action at other levels. The entries may cause a smirk, a frown or some cogitation, depending on the viewer. There it ends; there is no accountability. Minus points for every mistake by reporters or the desk, a suggestion that has been made, may not be workable, but some action is called for, if the evident dilution is to be arrested.

Should the daily exercise continue? One view has been expressed that it is seen as a reflection of the paper’s infirmities, giving outsiders the impression that there is something terribly wrong with the paper. (That was also the view of Mr. Arun Tilak, which triggered this two-piece self-analysis and explanation.) Quite a few want the corrections restricted to serious lapses, to errors of fact. I explained the rationale of the corrections in my last column. One suggestion that merits action is that the corrections should be appended to the published item in the archives as guidance for anyone who looks it up some time. This is the practice in The Guardian.

All are agreed that much more needs to be done. Some point to structural and systemic weaknesses. The hierarchy (the word has a bad connotation) that existed in the newsrooms, and which was effective, has disappeared. It was subeditor–proof examiner–chief sub–news editor or reporter–chief reporter–news editor. Technology has eliminated some of these levels. It has distanced reporters from chief subs, subs from news editors. The subeditor today is compositor (who used to typeset the copy), imposer (who laid it on the page), and proof reader, all in one. Senior Assistant Editors sub copy, make up pages, and pass them. In the race against time, no one can pause and ponder.

Deadline pressures, the bunching of copy and pages, staff numbers that do not match the enormous task — too much volume to pay adequate attention to; all these are cited as factors leading to mistakes. There is also trading of blame. The writers feel the desk is responsible for a major part of the errors and basic checking is not done. On the other side is the argument that if copy is tightened at the reporters’ level, there will be fewer mistakes. There is substance in both views, but I feel that ultimately it is the responsibility of the desk, the last gate, to keep out the errors.

A common thread running through all the responses is the urgent need for a stylebook. The newcomers have not the vaguest idea of what the paper’s practices are. The published corrections offer some sort of guidance, but they are clearly inadequate. The wish is also expressed for some sort of proof-reading. A system of training and orientation for new entrants is another area calling for action. The district correspondents have neither mentors nor monitors. (As Mr. L. Balagopal – referred to in the last column – pointed out, the regional pages are full of mistakes requiring corrections.) Periodical in-house refresher courses may be one solution (institutionalising and systematising the work now done by G. Krishnan, senior training consultant.)

Systems and structures finally depend on the human resource that uses them. What is needed, to avoid mistakes, is commitment and the urge to excel.

And it is back to the beginning. An error-free paper is an illusion. The aim, the attempt, is to minimise mistakes. Dispensing with daily corrections is no solution.

Stories in this Section

A cautious approach
Innovative approaches needed
Agriculture: where India and China stand
Why we oppose the Indo-U.S. military ties
India and the Doha Development Round
Lie detectors target benefit claim cheats
Iraq still looks much like a failed state
Agrarian crisis
On the nuclear deal
Ridiculous!
Some gains, but much more needs to be done

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