Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Chimera of universal acceptance

K. Narayanan

There is an odd, strange feeling when you have to clarify, explain, justify your actions again and again; even offer explanations for your existence as Readers’ Editor. A newspaper is open to public scrutiny all the time; the Readers’ Editor more so. What he does, or does not do, evokes comment. As K. Parthasarathi (I do not know where he is based; no indication in his mail) points out: “Yours is a thankless job defending quite often the indefensible, pleasing neither the reader nor the editorial team … you have not yielded your space.”

How difficult it is to please was revealed by a communication from my old friend, Dr. K. John Mammen (Thiruvananthapuram). Says he: “The Readers’ Editor of The Hindu has unreservedly defended his newspaper’s carrying jacket advertisements, proffering a rationale that may not be universally accepted.” The income generated by such advertisements that occupy the full first page and the next will be “substantially marginal,” according to him. “Conscientious readers will not want the Readers’ Editor to play the sole role of Devil’s advocate (devil here to signify readers) but would want him to keep in mind the virtues of Caesar’s wife in appearance and reality.”

* * * 

Dr. Mammen also brings in the Readers’ Editor of The Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth, to buttress his case. Her finding that The Guardian’s coverage of the Bridgend suicides (referred to in my last column) was “relatively restrained” is “exceptionable and exceptional” and she “merely donned the cloak of her publisher’s editor,” according to this reader.

I do not have to explain or justify what The Guardian’s Readers’ Editor wrote. But I will try and clarify my stand, which may be hers also. I am neither an advocate (devil’s or anyone else’s) nor an adversary of the paper’s management or readers. A devil’s advocate is one who argues for or against something just to encourage an argument. I do not envisage such a role for myself when I have my own views on issues and present them when needed. My explanation of something may sound like a defence of the paper to some. That does not, however, turn me into a publisher’s editor; nor should it become an occasion to doubt my credentials.

In the case of the jacket ads, I explained the commercial considerations behind such a practice, to make the readers understand why it was being done. That did not mean that I “unreservedly defended it.” I am neither competent nor qualified enough to say whether the revenues from such ads will be “substantially marginal.” (To me that is a contradiction. What is substantial cannot be marginal. But economist that Dr. Mammen is, he would have some authority for the expression!)

* * * 

Dr. J.P. Reddy (Nalgonda) reduces my work to that of “a postman, conveying the views of the readers to the management. A postman is not responsible for the contents of the message or the response to them. Your job is to maintain the line of communication with least satisfaction from the readers … As an ombudsman you should have some say in bringing the paper according to the wishes of the reader.”

Dr. Reddy is partly correct. But this postman also takes a look at the contents of the messages and the responses to them and can publicly express his views on both. Beyond that, it is neither feasible nor practicable for the internal news ombudsman to have a say in shaping the contents of the paper.

* * * 

That brings me to a fundamental question — “Is the newspaper ombudsman more or less obsolete?”— posed by Simon Dumenco in the Advertising Age. He offered five reasons to argue that it made no sense to have such a post. 1. Readers themselves can challenge newspaper reporting, especially in the blogosphere. 2. The large online conversation about media makes the readers’ editor’s column seem parochial and anaemic. 3. Readers can directly engage with journalists and editors through e-mail. 4. Ombudsmen are sober, seasoned, elderly, paternal/maternal types and are “boring as hell.” 5. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

Examining the issues in a recent Monday column in The Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth concludes that self-regulation is the key — being open about mistakes and being ready to correct them. It should include a process for independent assessment of whether the newspaper is meeting the standards it sets for itself. This is where the ombudsman comes in.

In the Indian context, while the blogs carry on a lively and sharply critical examination of newspapers (particularly The Hindu), it is a small circle of participants. The large readership, in general, is either unaware of these or cannot or does not participate in them. For them the Readers’ Editor’s columns do hold appeal, as the feedback indicates. Anyway direct engagement with the editor or the journalists is not possible in The Hindu as things stand. Of course, I am elderly, paternal and may be boring! An “independent assessment” of the paper’s functioning will remain a readers’ wish.

* * * 

Nearly 40 per cent of the entries in the “Corrections & Clarifications” column pertain to sports, points out S.P. Sundaram (Bangalore), a keen and discerning observer. Are the sports editors more prone to shoddy reporting and checking than the rest, he asks.

I told him more readers scrutinised the sports pages minutely (the most diligent of them being Dr. Raghavendran, a consultant urologist in Mysore). Since these deal with a lot of figures and statistics, the chances of error are high.

The Sports Editor adds: the figure of 40 per cent is open to question. Most sports events take place late in the evening and the reports are filed on deadline. In IPL, for instance, the match ends around 11.30 p.m. and the main sports page (for city editions) is passed at midnight with a full review and detailed scores. The sub-editor has hardly 10 minutes to process the report and get it on page. Quite a few of the stories are from international agencies, and with deadline pressures, there is no way they can be checked for facts before being taken on the page. But all the time we remind ourselves that greater care is needed.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Behind the oil price spike
Tragic callousness
For a new deal to the rural poor
A disaster and the politics of ‘democracy’
The country of the future finally arrives
Minister’s appeal
Ramar Sethu issue
Wall of shame
Chimera of universal acceptance

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu