Opinion - News Analysis

Changing and varying profiles and mindsets

Readers are the lifeline of this fortnightly potpourri. They provide the sustenance for it in the form of opinions and objections. Their reactions to the column enthuse or deflate me. But positive or negative, the responses are welcome, for these become further grist to the mill.

But as a critic recently asked, how many readers communicate with me? Do they form even one per cent of the paper’s readership of millions? Do those who appreciate the paper contact me? And how sound are the judgments based on the reactions of this minuscule section?

It is not the number of comments but their content that matters. They are not accepted as they are. I am aware that people bring in their own biases and ideas to what they read and see. They have their own interpretations. Sometimes they see more than what is there in print and sometimes they do not grasp what the paper seeks to convey. After making due allowance for these factors, I present my own conclusions, conscious that they may not be acceptable or palatable to all.

When they are not palatable there are strange reactions. One reader commented that I faithfully reproduce what the Editor-in-Chief has to say. That ignores the principle of equity. When a forum is provided to the readers to voice their views, that should be extended to the Editor-in-Chief too. When my response does not redress their real or perceived grievances, readers drop out of the game.

Maintaining “sustainable contact” between readers and the Readers’ Editor is a virgin area for in-depth study and analysis, suggests Dr. John Mammen (Thiruvananthapuram). He poses more questions for study: Who is the reader of a particular paper? Do readership profiles change over time? Are readers of all newspapers alike? What are the expressed (and, more important, unexpressed) mindsets of readers?

The last point is a significant one. There will be as many mindsets as there are readers. And the mindsets keep changing. It will be impossible to arrive at the mean from what readers tell me. For instance, one reader, N. Ramanathan (Chennai), proclaims that “no amount of Hindu bashing is going to help” and wants The Hindu to stay neutral because “no one expects it to be pro-Hindu.” There are readers like A.K. Muneer Hudawi (Kuzhimanna, Malappuram, Kerala) for whom The Hindu is no exception to the media tendency to “use terrorism as a hammer to beat Islam and Muslims.” It can, he adds, “kiss goodbye to its tall but hollow claims to be a balanced and unbiased paper.” For M.S. Mohamed Salihu (Chennai), The Hindu’s “reporting on these issues (terrorism) continues to be biased, unquestioning of the authorities’ claims, and sensational.” Such characterisations by both sides, says the Editor-in-Chief, “are reassuring and proof of our even-handedness in our editorial stand against communalism, fundamentalism, and religious fanaticism.”

Readers range themselves on opposite sides on many issues. A detailed interview by N. Ram with BJP leader L.K. Advani, the lead story in the paper, pleasantly surprised many readers who felt The Hindu was no longer treating the BJP as an untouchable. But there were sceptics: “Featuring the enemy’s enemy” (S. Sivaraman, Srirangam), “another attempt to thwart the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal” (R. Raja, Hyderabad), “undue importance to a leader seen as destroyer of India’s religious harmony” (H. Ravikumar Pai, Kochi).

Amidst such dissonance, some pleasant notes too emerge. N. Khosla, IAS retd. (Panchkula, Haryana), urging The Hindu to make its appearance from Chandigarh, says the Union Territory has “four English dailies (and four or five in Hindi/Punjabi) but they leave much to be desired. As a regular reader of The Hindu I know the difference from a mile.” Chandigarh is served from Delhi, but this edition is printed at 10 the previous night and many important stories are missed, he says. There are readers from Kolkota who make the same demand.

Appreciation comes from other readers too, but with caveats. A reader for three decades, S. Krishna Kumar (Neyyattinkara, Kerala), says “The Hindu is still the only serious quality newspaper in India, but the position may soon be challenged” and suggests necessary course corrections. It has upheld “its admired qualities of credibility and abstention from sensationalism all along. But there has been a change in the readers’ perception in the last decade because of its editorial stance.” The principles laid down by the Editor-in-Chief have not been followed and the paper has lost its connect with the readers and their legendary loyalty, he says.

S. Vaidya Nathan (Chennai) finds The Hindu is still a superior paper but suggests a reality check on the ground to find out “if your audience connects with your leftist tilt.” Such purported leanings are what disturbs another reader (Arun George, Chennai) for whom “The Hindu is the choice because of its legacy as the best newspaper in terms of content and quality.” Propagandist trends will turn readers away in the long run, he cautions. K. Jagadeesan presents it in another way. In the highly competitive newspaper world, readers have become more discriminating and “The Hindu runs the risk of losing ground to very aggressive and ruthless contemporaries unless it devises more innovative ways of presenting the news.”

These views should lead to some introspection. Some time ago, the Editor-in-Chief cautioned senior journalists against “editorialising in the guise of news. Keep news reporting away from analyses and comment.” “Bias in news reporting,” he said, “is a breach of good practice and journalistic discipline.” That was in the context of a particular report. That discipline should be enforced in all writing, down the line. And it should extend to news display, which has more impact than subtle nuances in writing.

As B.S. Raghavan, retired civil servant, writer and social activist, told me more than a year ago (I had referred to this in my column then), random comments from readers cannot be taken as the overall opinion of the general mass of readership. The “transient and tentative” comments can give a misleading impression. What is needed is a “structured and standardised survey” of the readers’ perceptions on how the paper implements its professed mission. That suggestion is more valid now. The comments I get are straws in the wind. Experts should assess the strength and direction of the wind.

Such a survey, however, would not answer Dr. John Mammen’s questions that sparked off these thoughts. A couple of the questions can be answered off hand. Readership profiles keep changing. And readers of all newspapers are not alike — that is why publications of different hues survive. The other queries — who is the reader and what are their mindsets — cannot get precise answers.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu