Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

When caution is the preferred option

This column, in a way, is a continuation of the last one (“Changing and varying profiles and mindsets,” December 8, 2008) that dealt with readers’ perceptions of the paper, and how dissimilar these could be, influenced by their own views and ideas. In that column I also noted that readers sometimes saw more than what is in print and sometimes did not grasp what the paper seeks to convey.

The reader scanning the paper in the morning has no conception of the breakneck speed at which it has been put together the previous night, with snap decisions taken amidst various pulls and pressures. Judgments on stories and their display are made in such an atmosphere with the eye always on the clock. The finished product becomes a permanent record not only of events but also of the occasional follies of the humans who create it — and there is nothing more to be done, except face the music that readers orchestrate.

That scenario is always in my mind as I go through readers’ comments on what the newspaper carries and how it does that. Where is the need for this story on Page 1? The story on Page 4 should have been front-paged; so also another story, both of interest to the common person. This is a sample of a reader’s comment. Similar opinions land almost every day, confirming my statement that readers view the paper in their own light.

* * * 

As does K.K. Cherian (Bangalore), who says the paper maintains a high standard in the editorials and articles, but not in the priorities given to reporting various events, “particularly in matters pertaining to politics, religion and region.” That probably covers most of the paper! No doubt certain basic criteria exist in all newspapers for selection of news items for publication. But priorities differ from paper to paper, based on the policies they adopt. A lot also depends on the persons in charge: their likes and dislikes can influence the news decisions. That being the case, how can there be universal approbation of what has been done?

The coverage of the recent terrorist outrage in Mumbai is a case in point. S.R. Vijay (Sharjah), who regularly comments on the coverage in The Hindu, felt the paper lagged behind others in describing the happenings. That was on the first day when the paper was found wanting. The early editions did not carry the news at all because of the time factor. But the paper pulled up its socks and did full justice to the developments from then on, including some outstanding work by Praveen Swami. Reader T.S. (he prefers to be known by his initials) from Edayaranmula, Kerala, thanked the editor and staff of The Hindu for “the restrained, dignified and informative coverage … The absence of gory and sensational pictures and the focus on information rather than shock value was especially appreciated … setting a calm and courageous tone … at a time when highlighting fear-mongering and corpses might have sold more issues.”

* * * 

The way the clashes in the Government Ambedkar Law College, Chennai, were dealt with was another instance. The incidents were underplayed, only reporting what happened — it was a clash between two groups. The caste factor was deliberately not highlighted and that, I felt, was in keeping with the Press Council guidelines advising newspapers to exercise caution in reporting communal clashes so as not to inflame passions and aggravate the tensions.

But that was not how all readers saw it. One reader who wishes to be unidentified said The Hindu did not mention the caste factor as it was “scared of the DMK government” and asked it to “display the courage it has shown while attacking Hindutva and while commenting on the Lanka issue.” Describing the charge as inaccurate, the Editor-in-Chief said, “We don’t want to add fuel to the vulnerable situation. At times, such caution can be overdone but better to err on the side of caution.”

The restraint is commendable, but the background needed to be analysed later. The long history of animosity in the college and its hostel, the conditions therein, the role played by outside elements, not students, in stirring up recurring troubles — the background was essential for the reader to be properly informed.

* * * 

How contrary can readers’ views be? Nothing brought this out better than two comments I received about Siddharth Varadarajan’s very informative analysis of the tortuous course of the Indo-U.S. negotiations on the nuclear deal. I found reader S. Sudhir Kumar (Hyderabad) concurring with me when he said, “Please pass (on) my appreciation to Siddharth Varadarajan in particular and The Hindu staff in general for the excellent coverage of the entire Nuclear deal process. In this age of sensational journalism, where no issue is discussed threadbare, you people have done amazing groundwork in presenting a point by point analysis of the entire deal.”

S.N. Surya Narayan (Mysore) did not think so. Referring to one report, he asked, “What is it doing on Page 1? It is clearly an expression of opinion and interpretation of Mr. Varadarajan.” Such readers, I suppose, would prefer The Hindu to stick to news agencies and spot reports than provide analysis or interpretation. I would prefer more of the latter on Page 1 so that it does not become a rehash of mostly what you heard on TV the previous night!

* * * 

Reader Ramakrishna Bantu (Hyderabad) makes a valid point when he says The Hindu’s coverage of the economy is inadequate but his comparison with Business Line is not. A general newspaper cannot provide all the details that a specialist publication does. In the current churning of the world economy, the developments need attention and detailed coverage. But there are constraints of space, the Editor-in-Chief points out, and asks what is “adequate.” He adds that specialised economic coverage has historically not been the strong point of The Hindu. I do not agree entirely and recall the detailed spot and analytical coverage that correspondents like H. Venkatasubbiah, B.S. Padmanabhan and C.V. Gopalakrishnan provided. Probably, that again is a question of priorities!

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Height of irresponsibility
A silver lining
Crises today and the future of capitalism
Portents of insurance amendments
The latest crisis of trust
‘Bush shoe’ gives a Turk firm footing
S-300s for Iran: an argument for peace
Sharif’s disclosure
Beyond defence
Welcome
Unfortunate
Relevant
On playing cricket
When caution is the preferred option

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