Opinion - News Analysis

The pluses and minuses, stresses and reliefs

This should have been a swansong. It turns out to be an overture.

My two-year term as Readers’ Editor ended on February 29, 2008. And it was time to sign off. Not yet, I am told, and have been made to continue. Another two-year term has been offered, but I am keeping it open-ended. And so I begin a second innings.

I started my first tenure with reservations and some hesitation. The past two years have wizened me mentally and physically. The doubt now is whether I can stay a second two-year term.

But the exercise continues and it is time for the annual summing-up, a review of the past year. On March 5, 2007, this column provided an overview of the performance of the Readers’ Editor in the first completed year since the institution was created on March 1, 2006. A similar review of the second year is in order.

Now for the cold statistics. In the 12 months ending February 29, 2008, the Readers’ Editor’s office received 8,805 communications: 6,608 by e-mail, 1,091 by phone, 1,037 by post, and 69 by fax. This marks a drop from the previous year’s tally of 10,969 communications (7,898 by e-mail, 1,243 phone-ins, 1,749 by post and 79 by fax).

* * * 

There are many reasons for the numerical decline. The most important is that the novelty has worn off. The early days saw a deluge of messages dealing with all imaginable topics, some unconnected with the newspaper. A very large number posed tasks for the Readers’ Editor much beyond his ken. The parameters set out in the “Terms of Reference” became well-defined over time and readers became aware of what I could and could not do; and the extraneous demands dropped sharply.

The early days also saw a large volume of messages pointing out typographical errors in the paper. We instituted a practice of not dealing with typos in the “Corrections” column. When this became known, such correspondents stayed away. Readers still point out these mistakes. We individually thank them and point out that such lapses are part of the game of newspaper production, although there should be a determined effort at every level to eliminate them.

While explaining this, we also have to douse feelings inflamed by printing (or typing or proofing) errors such as “immoral” for “immortal”. There were two such occasions recently and we faced the ensuing readers’ wrath. I pointed out to one reader that there are some dread words in newspapers that call for extra care. A misprint of one of these words, as in the example cited above, can result in major discomfiture. Journalists the world over have a fund of such instances.

* * * 

Another group of communicators too soon dropped out of circulation. These were persons who had a score to settle with The Hindu and with persons connected with it. They now had a target to vent their spleen on. The ferociousness of some of these had me staggering. I recalled Ian Mayes, then Readers’ Editor of The Guardian, cautioning me as I started out: this job can be “stressful.” By the time my skin acquired the required texture, this class, realising the futility of their efforts, had given up.

That left me relieved. But not the decline in the number of communications from readers genuinely interested in The Hindu, who made positive, purposeful suggestions. I empathised with them and shared many of their views. But beyond passing on their remarks to those in charge, there was nothing more for me to do. Some of these good souls still write, but the majority lost their enthusiasm.

Yet another group dropped off: those who wanted their names mentioned when a correction resulted from their communication. I have explained why this is not done. There may be more than one reader pointing out the same mistake, and the column can turn into a list of names. Applying the rule uniformly, we keep out the names even when there is only a single source.

* * * 

That explanation of the drop in numbers was too long. So what have we achieved apart from highlighting errors? My summing up this time is almost the same as what I presented last year. The Readers’ Editor has been effective as far as two of the four main points in his mandate are concerned. These are — respond to readers’ concerns and complaints, and create new channels of communication with them, with greater responsiveness. The reactions I get give me the satisfaction that this has been achieved to a large extent. Even in matters not concerning the editorial department, readers generally get quick redress. Those who disagree with my stand too are happy that there is a response.

I cannot make similar claims on the other two points — ensure accuracy, standards and fairness. “Ensuring” any of these is not within my powers. That is the task of those who produce the paper and mine is to review it when someone objects. My views on standards and fairness are old-worldish — “Dinosaurian,” in the eyes of some. I have got responses, when I raise a point, that it is not possible to provide balance in all reporting at all times. I can only disagree. To me the core values of journalism remain the same, whatever the changes around you.

On the last point in the “Terms of Reference” — improve the paper’s performance by analysing readers’ ideas and suggestions, my assessment of my work is set out in the preceding paragraph. There have been many good ideas from readers. They earn appreciation when forwarded, but remain in the realm of ideas.

I am not done. I have something more to say on what the Readers’ Editor can and cannot do.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu