Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Preferences and prejudices

K. NARAYANAN

Newspapers, in the classical definition, are purveyors of news and views. “All the news that is fit to print” and “Facts are sacred, comment is free” are antediluvian concepts now. Judgment and selection are the key to what a newspaper contains. That process, inevitably, has a major element of subjectivism built into it. But the choice has to be just, fair and balanced and should not lead to a feeling of manipulation among readers, who expect the paper to be independent. (I avoid the word neutral which a newspaper cannot be.)

It is a tiny minority of The Hindu’s vast readership that communicates with the Readers’ Editor. Many of them write in the plural, “we readers .…” But their opinions cannot be assumed to be representative of the silent majority. Many of these respondents have strong biases. We can tell them apart. In the midst of this mass are the occasional ones that command attention because of the background of the person and the refined, sober way the views are put forth.

* * * 

There was one such recently. Because of the post he holds, he requests that he not be identified. I paraphrase his views here:

“I am a reader of The Hindu since 1973 and it has shaped my understanding of the world and life itself … I am deeply troubled by the coverage given to left-related issues. Criticism of the left is at best muted if not airbrushed. The massive Kerala CPM factional war is hardly getting any coverage, especially for a southern based newspaper. The latest is the soft-pedalling of the PM’s comments to The Telegraph newspaper regarding left support or a lack of it for the nuclear deal. Most newspapers gave it wide coverage.

“Many middle-aged readers feel that the paper has lost its balance … There is a view that the paper is far too ideologically involved with the left parties.”

* * * 

Around the same time as this letter came one from a reader in Kerala protesting against partisan standards in The Hindu not reporting graft charges against some political parties in the State, which was the main news in all newspapers.

Readers had made similar complaints when West Bengal was being rocked by the anti-land acquisition protests, saying The Hindu’s coverage was selective and did not present the full picture.

Apart from the left parties, the DMK too got preferential treatment in the news columns, some readers from Tamil Nadu complained. They received additional ammunition from the way The Hindu handled Chief Minister Karunanidhi’s comments on the Ramar Sethu and the Sethusamudram canal, while other newspapers played up the provocative remarks which hurt the devout. The Hindu had highly sanitised versions.

* * * 

The readers’ concerns were conveyed to the Editor-in-Chief and his response was as follows:

There is adequate and balanced coverage of inner-party differences in the CPI(M) in Kerala. On the whole, the coverage reflects the state of affairs. We also published a strong editorial ridiculing the factionalism when the Chief Minister and Pinarayi Vijayan were suspended from the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M).

One newspaper doesn’t generally reproduce what another publishes. However, our reports subsequently referred to The Telegraph interview and its possible effects.

There is no preferential treatment given to the DMK other than what is inevitable when a party is in government. There is also the question of accessibility and public activities. In contrast with their counterparts in the main opposition party, the AIADMK, DMK leaders, starting with the Chief Minister, are always accessible.

It is not our practice to reproduce “indecent remarks” (as one reader described it) by anyone. Often it is best to allude to them. We don’t reproduce all the remarks made by Narendra Modi or Uma Bharati against Muslims or Christians or the unrestrained attacks on individual political leaders by Subramanian Swamy. It is a policy to keep out highly abusive or wounding remarks. Inflammatory items should not be published by the news media. Editorially we welcomed the Chief Minister’s willingness to consider an alternative alignment for the canal as it would help defuse an unwanted and divisive controversy.

We have balanced and fair coverage. Above all, it is factual, nothing embroidered or propagandist. Nothing to be defensive about. We don’t do campaign journalism. We have an estimated four million readers who continue to support The Hindu, largely for its reliability and balance.

* * * 

The Hindu’s strong points, listed by the Editor-in-Chief, are unquestioned and it is generally balanced. But readers now have multi-layered, multi-sourced access to news and omissions do get noticed and commented upon — especially when it relates to one party and important developments like a rare interview with the Prime Minister at a politically sensitive moment, or a Chief Minister’s comments that wounded religious susceptibilities.

The policy of not publishing abusive or wounding comments is laudable. But it needs to be followed uniformly, whether it is a Chief Minister or an unknown BJP ex-MP (whose remarks were published with the Hindi words and English translation). The clarification makes it clear that some of Mr. Karunanidhi’s remarks on the Ramayana were highly sensitive. The editorial was an opportunity to make this point. Readers noted that there was no disapprobation. On the other hand, the editorial said the remarks were “wildly misrepresented.” Mr. Karunanidhi had not said so but had made further comments.

I can do no better than quote The Hindu’s editorial of August 23, 2003: “The long-term strengths of this newspaper have been independence, seriousness, newsiness, credibility, fairness, balance and critical spirit … These traits needed replenishment and reinforcement.” That editorial also wanted editorial values put first, with responsiveness to the needs of readers.

* * * 

“A newspaper … is a partial, hasty, incomplete, inevitably somewhat flawed and inaccurate rendering of some of the things we heard about in the past 24 hours … distorted despite our best efforts to eliminate bias by the very process of compression that makes it possible for you … to read it in about an hour.” That was what columnist David S. Broder of The Washington Post wrote around thirty years ago. Concerned readers, please note!

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

An unavoidable divorce
Judiciary lets Pakistan down
Contempt power and some questions
Revisiting Punjab’s secret search for peace
Lethal injection review may halt executions in U.S.
Turmoil in Myanmar
Faith and history
Preferences and prejudices
“Japanese energy security is dependent on the Indian Navy”

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