Opinion - Readers' Editor : Online & Off line   

Issues of acceptance and accommodation

Can there be a totally bias-free handling of an amorphous commodity like news? As Nicholas D. Kristoff wrote in the New York Times (reproduced in The Hindu on March 20, 2009): “There was little interest in encountering solid arguments that might undermine one’s own position.” He says he himself is guilty of selective truth-seeking in looking for views with which he agrees. “The effect is to insulate us further in our own hermetically sealed political chambers. The danger is that this self-selected news acts as a narcotic, lulling us into a self-confident stupor.”

Whom does Kristoff refer to — readers or the print media, asks S. Sivaraman (Srirangam), whose acerbic comments, always neatly typed on a postcard, are a regular arrival on my table. The comment applies to both, according to me. But Sivaraman argues that if the media do it, the consequences are disastrous. For him every part of the paper shows “bias, nastiness and superficiality.” That too, I suppose, is another “hermetically-sealed” position, where no good is seen.

Readers’ perceptions also extend to the treatment stories get in the paper. They ask why an item got the prominence it did, or why another did not. Some even suggest a different display. I tell them they are entitled to their opinion; but so are those who produce the paper and use their judgment. Even here the final product is the result of a consensus reached by a team after discussion. And you cannot expect everyone to agree.

There was a recent occasion when I agreed with the readers who complained about the way the train hijack incident in Chennai had been handled in the paper. The criticism was mostly from outside Chennai. A Delhi reader said he had to search the paper to locate the story on Page 7 with no photograph, while Delhi papers splashed it on Page 1. A Bangalore reader said he did not find the news in his edition. Even in the Chennai edition the sensational story did not get the space or the treatment it deserved.

As regards content there can be as many views as there are readers, as I mentioned earlier. There are, however, some areas where caution and care are needed. One such area is medical reporting. I pointed out in a column the hazards and pitfalls in handling these issues and the need for checking before accepting the claims made. One doctor told me that many in the medical profession were “amused/annoyed and occasionally appalled” by some of the reports appearing in the paper. Following all these, the Editor-in-Chief circulated a note asking the staff to take special care in handling medical stories.

And yet a report appeared in a Kerala edition a few days ago with the heading, “Sweet news for diabetic patients.” The report said a team of college students had prepared a tuber extract with anti-diabetic properties after “rigorous research” for two and a half-years; its medicinal qualities had been “proved through a series of tests at the college laboratories.” The report accepted the claims made. It did not note that various phases of rigorous tests had to be done by qualified agencies before the pharmacological properties of any drug could be proved. Encouraging students is one thing; to make or swallow untested claims is another.

Another part of the paper that attracts frequent complaints is “Letters to the Editor”. In one of my early columns (March 20, 2006) I explained the whole process of handling letters and how rigorous selection, and more rigorous editing, has to be made in this column, because of the large number of letters received and the way many of them are written. Those eliminated in the selection round carry a grouse; some whose product has undergone heavy editing (or got rewritten changing the tone) too feel upset. They convey their feelings to me, though I have made it clear that I cannot do anything to help them or give an opinion on what they have written.

Jagannadhan Ravi (Toronto, Canada) took a totally different approach. He sent me a big Excel file, a statistical analysis of “Letters to the Editor” published for 100 days, from September 17, 2008 to January 12, 2009. The list includes 1,483 names of letter writers, with a daily tabulation of the number of letters, those in agreement with the paper’s stand and those dissenting. He finds there are 12 to 14 letters daily, with one or a maximum of two (none on some days) disagreeing with the paper. There is a detailed analysis of the contents, leading him to the conclusion that there is lack of professionalism and credibility.

Ravi, who says he has been watching the column for years, argues that it is filled with letters that sing paeans to the paper’s wisdom. Certain names appear often, probably because they agree with the editor always. Such letters, in his view, are self-righteous and strongly expressed, while the very few critical ones are meek, almost apologetic.

That may be because of the heavy editing, necessitated by the desire to accommodate more letters in the limited space available. The editing often makes long-winded pieces pithy and readable. But R. Rajkumar (Coimbatore) complained that his letter on Tibet had been edited in such a way that it had been reduced to a blurb, excluding the criticism and distorting his point of view. Comparing the original that he sent to me with the published version, I had to agree that his complaint had substance. Every letter is subject to editing but that does not mean introducing what is not in the original.

Ramachandra Guha, author and historian, narrated his experience. A letter he and some others wrote on Tibet, questioning the paper’s views, was published and it was followed by seven long ones trying to rebut their arguments, “surely a record in the history of the paper.” Fair debate demanded that the original writers be provided a chance to respond, he said.

This is what The Guardian does, and which I had suggested in an earlier column, The Hindu too could do. On the full page it devotes to letters, The Guardian has a “Response” column where readers react, at some length, to something published in the paper. Space can be found for this on the Op-Ed page in The Hindu. That can also make the page more lively.

That, according to me, is what the “Letters” column should be — lively, offering new and original ideas, new perspectives, and not what readers already know. Letters should entertain and encourage thinking and debate. If such criteria are adopted, there may not be the repetitive letters on the same topic for days on end.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Katchatheevu is settled
In negative territory
Beijing cautions U.S. over Iran
Our Editor: a remembrance
Teaching Zambian children to read
World Bank backs tiger conservation programme
Matter of concern
Aam crorepati
Electronic voting
Kolkata edition
Issues of acceptance and accommodation

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