In an early column, “Not infallible but trustworthy” (October 3, 2015), I had shared some of the probing questions we get from readers: Why should The Hindu persist with the ‘Corrections and Clarifications’ column for years? If the system is not geared up to learn from the mistakes pointed out, what purpose does this column serve? Has the column helped to reduce errors? Does technology have a role in producing a flawless newspaper? What are the factors that contribute to obvious errors which readers are able to find out in their first reading?
The real challenge is to overcome the deadline-driven pressures and produce a flawless newspaper. There are embarrassing moments when the desk introduces errors or inaccuracies in a factually correct copy. Sir Harold Evans called the subeditors the hidden impresarios of news. “Subs take pride in translating the complex into the comprehensible, in making sense of conflicting information from divergent sources, in making sure the story fits the space allotted to it, and in writing read-this-or-die headlines,” he wrote nearly four decades ago. I think the desk-induced errors happen because at some point, professional pride gives way to the daily chore of processing words. And this has a disastrous effect.
The trigger of a wrong blurb
Let’s look at the interview article, “Mirroring rhythm ideas” ( Friday Review — Arts & Culture supplement, Dec. 16, 2016). It was about a glass mridangam, an innovation by one of the finest percussionists of our times, Umayalpuram K. Sivaraman. But the opening paragraph and the blurb erroneously referred to a fibreglass mridangam. The original copy was correct. This was an egregious and unwarranted change made by the desk without reference to the writer. A writer is only a phone call away and a quick consultation with the writer is the best way to avoid these types of blunders.
One of our long-time readers wrote: “I read the article, ‘Mirroring rhythm ideas’ in Friday Review and was rather surprised that legendary percussionist, Umayalpuram Sivaraman, had clearly chosen to omit the fact that he had launched the same fibreglass mridangam many years ago with the same fanfare at the Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Sabha. I recall the launch lec-dem vividly because I was there, being an ardent fan of his. Apparently the concept did not take off then or it did not find acceptance amongst his peers in the percussion fraternity. It is only fair that he recall the past and unabashedly state that he is making yet another effort to launch his pet project… In the process, the writer who totally reposes confidence in the person whom he is interviewing and calls it ‘his latest innovation’ is factually incorrect. The readers are also misinformed in turn. After all, there is nothing wrong in his stating that he has taken the fibreglass mridangam out of the cooler for a second avarthanam .”
These concerns raised by the reader flow from the fact that the desk made a mistake. It is true that Mr. Sivaraman had earlier fabricated a fibreglass mridangam. However, it does not mean that he stopped working with other materials. The latest innovation was indeed in glass; hence the weight of the instrument is a heavy 18 kg. A single error, added without consulting the writer, has led to unfair questions to both the innovating artist and this newspaper.
What is disturbing is that Mr. Sivaraman’s innovation was not the only story where the desk has introduced a mistake. Let me share some of the recent desk-induced mistakes. A sentence in “Amit Shah cites Kalyan govt. as a model” (Oct. 28, 2016) read: “Mr. Shah went on to speak of Mr. Ansari’s brother Afzal Ansari, SP leaders Azam Khan and Ateeq Ansari, and the BSP’s Naseemuddin Siddiqui, saying the only common factor between these leaders was that they are Muslim.” Due to an editing error, the “common factor” remark was attributed to Amit Shah. It was actually a comment by the reporter. The sentence should be recast as: “However, Mr. Shah did not stop there, going on to mention his brother Afzal Ansari, SP leaders Azam Khan and Ateeq Ansari, and Naseemuddin Siddiqui (BSP) in the same breath. The only common factor between these leaders is that they are Muslim.”
The strapline of a report, “Probe against ex-Kerala Minister may lead to excise officials” (September 5, 2016), said, “Bar association members and political appointees also on list of suspects”. It should have been “Kerala Bar Hotels Association”, as mentioned in the text. The article on the hardships faced by Rohingyas due to demonetisation — “No cash, no job, nowhere to go” (December 11, 2016) had a glaring error. The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was mentioned as UNHRC, which is the United Nations Human Rights Commission, throughout the article.
One of the finest desk veterans, Charlotte Baxter, defines the role and the responsibility of the subs in a succinct manner: “We are basically the last line of defence — whether we save a writer from a legal suit, looking daft or being simply unintelligible — and our furniture (headlines, standfirsts — also known as subheadings — and captions) can be decisive in whether a story is read or ignored.” If every subeditor internalises this, then there is no scope for desk-introduced errors.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
