Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Universal acceptance is an elusive aim

The last two columns picked out distressing and funny lapses in language that had appeared in The Hindu and were pointed out by readers. Highlighting the weaknesses without referring to the strengths would lead to a wrong impression about the paper. It reminded me of a conversation I had with my editor when I was the news editor. I remonstrated with him, making the point that faults were always pointed out, with no reference to the good work done. His answer was: “good work is the expected norm and I point out lapses for corrective action.” A similar aim motivates me: to focus on the basics that call for attention.

Language skills is one of these. But the craft of journalism has changed in many ways and new styles of presentation are needed. This applies to the content too. The role of newspapers remains the same — to inform, educate and entertain – but the emphasis needs constant attention and it should be responsive to reader interests. To meet the challenge from the broadcast media, newspapers are striking out in new directions. That has increased the need for trained, capable professionals. Journalists today have better craft skills. But the proliferation of numbers has also meant a dilution of the commitment that the profession demands — it is not merely a job to be done, it is something creative, yielding a sense of achievement when something good is produced.

Not all readers are happy with the changes, especially the long-time readers. Says R. Lakshmanan of Secunderabad, a reader from the 1930s: “The Hindu is a holy institution of national pride and strength. Anything inconsistent with its sanctity and glory hurts me personally.” According to Dr. John Mammen of Thiruvananthapuram, “ethical journalism that shapes public opinion disinterestedly for society’s good no longer exists. Newspapers in India now cater to a felt need for sensational news which excites.”

“Felt need” — does the newspaper cater to that? No, says G.M. Rama Rao of Visakhapatnam, who finds “the lion’s share of space devoted to favoured politicians and their parties, crime by influential persons, mafia activities and opinions again of favoured persons. The poor do not get any space except for suicides, not the injustices they suffer.”

Sweeping statements. I do not think these can apply to The Hindu which has certain norms and strives to maintain them. There is no single uniform standard for what will appeal to all readers. Some people are upset when the newspaper does not support their views. (That means there will be many who welcome what is published.) Everyone has certain perceptions and views and it is impossible to reconcile all of them with the paper’s own ideas, or accept all of them.

Simon Jenkins put it aptly in The Guardian (reproduced in The Hindu):

“Editors of most serious newspapers get regular letters complaining of declining standards and dumbing down. The letters hark back to a time when news was impartial, editorials independent, opinions judicious and the world taken seriously. In the 1950s and 1960s newspapers were dreadful … Now the product is better and certainly bolder. Newspapers have vices but they should not chastise themselves with fantasies of past virtues.”

In the 1950s and 1960s, Jenkins said, “newspapers were humourless and reverential of authority” and without investigative stories. But have things changed much here? During my early days as Readers’ Editor, a reader from Thiruvananthapuram asked me: “Why is The Hindu shy of taking any initiatives these days? Earlier it took the lead in partially unravelling the Bofors case and in preventing the loss of Silent Valley. Has it lost steam? In today’s competitive world you should take the initiative and take on the competition.”

Much of the news that appears in the paper, unfortunately, is reactive, not proactive. The point made by the reader was noteworthy because it stood out from the rest of the grievances, which fall into a pattern. Most of them are about alleged bias in The Hindu. In some instances, the complaints were valid. But they also revealed the readers’ own angles and perceptions and their own biases. When what appeared in the paper did not agree with their own ideas, they levelled charges of bias and partisanship.

“A newspaper through its coverage affects society at large,” wrote Balram V. Rathod (Bharuch, Gujarat). “That means reporting entails a huge social responsibility and that is achieved only by impartial and true coverage of events that are not tinged or coloured by the ideological beliefs … It should be left to the readers to conclude what is best. What they need is an objective and true view.”

What does a serious reader expect from a newspaper? Balance, independence, quality, pluralism. These expectations need to be fulfilled, but it is not possible to do so every day, in every news item. Total objectivity is a myth; it is not to be found anywhere. No newspaper can be neutral. It takes its own stand on issues. It has the right to do so, but it should be ready to face criticism and engage with readers. This is seldom the case; as a rule, journalists are ready to criticise but not willing to face criticism. On the readers’ part, there is not sufficient appreciation of the difficulties journalists face. Rarely do I come across a reader writing, “outstanding, moving, thought-provoking … setting history right … enabling justice to be done,” as Saurabh Sharma described the Mumbai 26/11 coverage.

Readers’ criticism of The Hindu is always about a few topics — the BJP, the Left parties, China, Tibet and Sri Lanka. There is no need to go into the details of these grievances. Issues like the stand on the nuclear deal and the Gopalaswamy affair also provoked their ire. Where there was some justification, in my view, for the criticism, I dealt with it in my columns. The Readers’ Editor can criticise but cannot make the paper change its policies — though some think he can and should. My conclusion is that readers shape their own agenda and do not always agree with what the newspaper may set for them. For them the paper’s role is to inform, educate, and guide. That should be done with transparency and pluralism — providing space for contrary opinion.

On the complaints of biased coverage, the Editor-in-Chief says: “This newspaper like many others doesn’t call itself neutral. It is independent, which means it will take stands on issues and trends. It will support correct, secular, progressive actions and oppose those that are not. This has been the history of The Hindu’s editorial evolution over time. Nobody can claim to be correct on all issues all the time.”

On the charge of the poor not getting any space, he says: “This is quite inaccurate and unjust. For example, The Hindu’s Rural Affairs Editor, P. Sainath, concentrates almost exclusively on the plight of the rural poor and the injustices they suffer year-round. And he is very productive. The Magsaysay award citation specifically mentioned his outstanding work in this regard.”

(To be concluded)

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Cause for concern
Beleaguered Brown
Obama’s world & Pakistan’s war on terror
Vaccination option for cervical cancer
“I don’t know how we’ve stayed alive”
Why television is so bad for children’s health
Tiller remembered
Quota for women
First woman Speaker
Cairo address
Universal acceptance is an elusive aim

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