Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

It was daunting … and rewarding

It is my last Monday as Readers’ Editor and it is time to bid farewell and offer thanks. Tomorrow, June 30, 2009, also marks the end of my 54-year-long association with The Hindu. During this extended tenure, I have seen many changes, transformations in the paper, in the organisation, and in the building too, which, while retaining the façade, has had its innards reshaped.

My professional career began and ends with The Hindu. That arguably must be the longest service by a non-member of the Kasturi family. I have been associated with four generations of the family, starting with the revered Kasturi Srinivasan, and have received nothing but kindness and consideration from all. That enabled me to progress, despite health problems, from a raw apprentice to Associate Editor, and as culmination, the first Readers’ Editor (of any Indian newspaper.) Health reasons have also led me to call it a day, cutting short my term.

* * * 

I took up this post 40 months ago with much hesitation and some trepidation, venturing as I was into uncharted territory. Sceptics questioned the appointment of an insider — he would never take a stand opposed to the management’s. But I was encouraged by the larger volume of welcome and support. As I leave, I suppose the final assessment will also be along similar lines: many will appreciate what I have done (quite a few have already done so, and I thank them) and there will be some who ask, what did he achieve?

Let me recapitulate what I set out to do. Under the Terms of Reference for the Readers’ Editor, he is assigned these tasks: to respond to readers’ comments, concerns and complaints; to seek to ensure the maintenance of high standards of accuracy, fairness, and balance; to create new channels of communication with readers; to look for ways for improving the paper’s performance by collecting and analysing readers’ ideas and suggestions.

That I could create an effective channel of communication with readers is what gives me satisfaction. (In these 40 months the number of communications received in my office exceeds 30,000.) All their comments were responded to. Not all their grievances were solved, of course, but even the angry ones were mollified, to an extent. A certain amount of accuracy could be ensured because of the daily corrections and clarifications, preceded by an enquiry. (So far 3,120 corrections were carried in the daily column on the Op-Ed page apart from the corrections carried in the regional pages.) As for fairness and balance, my concepts were different from what was practised and I was told the kind of balance I expected was not possible. “Improving the performance of the paper” was a no-go area: it was seen as questioning editorial judgment.

* * * 

It was therefore no surprise when the critics concluded that the Readers’ Editor was content with clarifying and correcting errors and was not “the conscience-keeper” of the paper, as some wanted him to be. He was just being a postman conveying readers’ views to those in charge. There were yet others who felt I did not express opinions but merely quoted readers’ letters instead of addressing their complaints. These critics assign to the Readers’ Editor a role and powers he does not have; he is not a Super Editor.

I made it clear at the outset that I was neither an advocate nor an adversary. My aim was good journalism. I did express my opinion and question the editorial judgment when the occasion demanded it — on issues like Tibet, China, Bengal, Orissa and so on. Some might have felt it was understated. But that was my way; I do not believe in screaming and shouting. At times like these, the Editor-in-Chief told me that he disagreed with what I wrote and that I sometimes presented a purely negative picture of the paper. But then it is your column, he added.

* * * 

I have been criticised for my obsession with accuracy. Generally the editorial staff are committed to accuracy, the cornerstone of a newspaper’s credibility. Sometimes they did feel readers were a pain, and the Readers’ Editor a greater pain, but they were supportive nevertheless. The daily corrections caused discomfort to many and anger in some, but we carried on with the effort to promote professionalism among journalists and trust in readers about the paper’s honesty and openness.

A very senior staff member had this to say: “Your labours are highly appreciated by colleagues. We feel kept on our toes. The institution of the Readers’ Editor as fleshed out by you has earned enormous respect for the paper from readers … (It) is seen as a very democratic bow to the readers’ constituency.”

Dealing with that constituency has been a daunting and, at the same time, a rewarding experience. Taking their complaints to those concerned was often a painful task, attracting criticism, hostility, and snide remarks. Listening to grievances over a long period can transform you, with bouts of frustration. What perks you up is the appreciation that comes in.

* * * 

When I started out, I assumed my long experience would enable me to share what I had learnt with readers. It did not take me long to realise how presumptuous I was. The exchanges with knowledgeable readers led me to learn more than what I had learnt earlier. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to them. They gave me work to do; their appreciation nourished me; and I could build a strong bond with them.

For giving me this opportunity, for making me visible, and for all other kindnesses, I cannot thank N. Ram enough. Murali N. Krishnaswamy and R. Lakshminarayanan have been pillars of support on which the edifice of the Readers’ Editor’s office was built.

I am happy S. Viswanathan is taking over from me. He worked with me in Frontline and impressed me with his dedication, commitment and powers of observation and analysis. These qualities, and his experience on both sides of the profession — editing and writing — will enable him to be a success in his new task. I offer him my good wishes.

* * * 

Finally, does the institution of Readers’ Editor have a future? Yes, it has, if the paper has a set of core values and principles and adheres to it. As long as readers look for ethics, transparency, and quality of information in newspapers, the ombudsman will have a job to do. For a newspaper “its most precious asset (is) the bond with its readers,” as Rupert Murdoch has said. Stephen Pritchard of The Observer and President of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen (ONO) quotes Murdoch as saying: “It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.”

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

The politics of proscription
Need for a rational policy
Why disinvest when profits are booming?
Domestic violence: the day my daughter hit me
Sibal’s agenda
Michael Jackson
It was daunting … and rewarding

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