Opinion - News Analysis   

When flexibility is needed in laudable restraint

K. Narayanan

Some time ago, a question was posed to me: how does this newspaper ensure that people involved in editorial decision making are impartial and not influenced by vested interests? Is there any “office of profit”-like clause? Or any other rules and regulations (Ajit Kumar Sahu, Delhi)?

Somewhat allied to this is a poser (Sathya Narayanaswamy, Chennai): Is there an editorial policy on naming people or organisations accused of or being investigated for illegal activities (criminal or civil)?

And, quite a few readers have questioned the standards adopted in reporting statements, which may be provocative, abusive or angry, but not defamatory. Is there a uniform policy in such matters?

The answer for all the questions is, no.

In a profession where crises are part of the daily struggle, such codes will not offer readymade solutions, but they can provide the signposts, the parameters, within which answers can be found. Consistency, which can be derided otherwise, contributes to credibility.

* * * 

It is a common experience for newspapers to come under attack for decisions taken consistent with their policies. The most recent example is the reactions to the reporting of the Kerala Chief Minister’s remarks after his visit to the Bangalore house of Major Sandeep, who was killed while fighting the terrorists in Mumbai. On December 1 The Hindu had a one paragraph report that Major Sandeep’s father refused to see Chief Minister Achuthanandan. TV channels and other papers had much more. A follow-up the next day confined itself to quoting the Chief Minister as saying the family should have displayed better behaviour. According to this report, there were “overwrought scenes” during the visit which were “reported by the media.”

On December 3, The Hindu carried Achuthanandan’s statement in the Legislative Assembly claiming he had not said anything wrong and his comments were twisted. Along with that was a statement by CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat that “certain remarks” of Achuthanandan were regrettable. The Congress party demanded an apology. That came the next day, when the Chief Minister regretted having caused anguish to the family on account of “a remark.”

* * * 

What was the “remark” that caused all this “furore”? Readers of The Hindu would have been left wondering. Not all; those who saw/heard/read the news elsewhere said The Hindu was selective/suppressing/withholding news.

In defence, the Editor-in-Chief said: “We don’t publish (as a rule) abusive/intemperate/indecent words uttered by anybody. A conscious decision was taken by the Chief News Editor not to reproduce words that might cause further anguish to the family of the victim. This is our policy.”

That has been The Hindu’s tradition and it is laudable. But every rule, every policy has exceptions, and a newspaper particularly has to be flexible. This was one such instance. When the issue had been blown up (thanks to the TV sound bite) and the Chief Minister was forced to explain and then apologise, the reader had a right to know what it was all about. What was done on the first day was correct; but as the issue acquired new dimensions, a relaxation of the rule was called for, to rescue the befuddled reader.

* * * 

The Guardian’s Editorial Code says direct quotations should not be changed to alter their context or meaning. The New York Times Stylebook has this entry: “The Times does not clean up quotations. ‘Approximate’ quotations can undermine readers’ trust in The Times.”

The Hindu has changed in many ways. At one time, the policy was not to use photographs that were gory or gruesome. That stand has been abandoned and the change has been defended. The use of quotations also needs rethinking, especially because the objectionable remark is in the public domain immediately. That can be done in The Hindu’s restrained style, without being aggressive or offensive. As one observer comments, many readers can stay informed and updated through the internet, but what of the majority who depend solely on The Hindu?

* * * 

The context varied but I recall the Editor-in-Chief’s words when a reader objected to the judgment in the cricketer Harbhajan Singh affair appearing unedited in the online version of the paper with all the swear words. He said: “Obscenity is sometimes in the mind of the reader. Why object to a few swear words in a judgment online which is not read by the bulk of your readers?” The Hindu’s on-line edition is mostly a reproduction of the print edition, and not a full-scale interactive web version. The rules that apply to the print edition, should, in my opinion, extend to the net edition, irrespective of how many read it. That not many see it is no reason for a different yardstick.

That the internet edition carries items that do not, and would not, find a place in the print edition is another issue. Readers quite often contact me to point out wrong reports or errors in reports. Since these items look unfamiliar, we do a search and find out that these appeared only in the internet edition. One instance cited was a school shootout incident. We do not include corrections or clarifications relating to what was only published online in the daily corrections columns as most readers would not have seen it. But we reply direct to the readers.

All these highlight the need for guidelines.

I wish all readers a happy New Year.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Kilinochchi and after
Traumatic times
26/11 and India’s Pakistan dilemma
The troubled life of an anthrax suspect
Making a home in a cemetery
When flexibility is needed in laudable restraint
Rural idyll or terrorist hub?
Kilinochchi's fall
Israeli attacks
Corruption galore
Arrest laws
Television news

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu