I often wonder how sixteenth century artists would allegorically portray the trials and travails of the twenty-first century newspaper ombudsman. Many of the European masters worked on a range of conflicts, emotions, attributes and aspirations in their body of work called the allegorical series. I recollect the import of at least four paintings that went beyond the usual metaphorical meaning to capture something that was sublime and multi-layered in their readings and renderings: Venetian painter Paolo Veronese’s two huge canvasses, Allegory of Wisdom and Strength and Allegory of Virtue and Vice , part of the Frick Collection in New York, and two intriguing canvasses — Allegory of Time by the Florentine artist, Agnolo Bronzino, and An Allegory of Prudence by another Venetian master, Titian at the National Gallery, London. The inscription on Allegory of Prudence reads: “From the experience of the past, the present acts prudently, lest it spoil future actions.”
Do we, always, get prudent questions? What are imprudent questions and what do they imply? Last week, this newspaper, like many others, >carried a story about Moody’s Analytics cautioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi that unless he reined in the members of his Bharatiya Janata Party, India ran the risk of losing domestic and global credibility. The story was based on a report titled ‘India Outlook: Searching for Potential’, by Moody’s Analytics, which expressed concern over what it called the belligerent provocation of various Indian minorities.
There was a barrage of mails that questioned the need for carrying the report. The three major arguments against the story were: Moody’s Analytics — the economic research and analysis unit of Moody’s Corp. — is distinct from the global rating arm, Moody’s Investors Service, and hence does not deserve coverage; it was authored by the son-in-law of a left-leaning historian; and that the analyst is not a senior person competent to comment on a large economy like India.
PMO statement The pitch was further queered when the >Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) rejected the report . “The government notes with distress that the personal opinion of a junior analyst was passed off as a commentary on India by a rating agency by the media to buttress the narrative it wants to portray. The media has a great role in enriching our national discourse, and such episodes seriously hamper its credibility, while spreading misinformation among the masses,” the PMO statement said. It also accused the media of not doing due diligence and of not informing the readers about the difference between Moody’s Analytics and Moody’s Investor Services.
Both the defenders of the government and the PMO were proved wrong on many counts. First, with reference to the status of Moody’s Analytics, this newspaper was upfront in declaring that it was not Moody’s Investor Service when it carried the report. Second, Moody’s Analytics has denied that its report expressing concern over what it called the belligerent provocation of various Indian minorities was the personal opinion of an analyst employed with it. Third, on November 5, 2015, when > The Hindu contacted the spokesperson from Moody’s Analytic s , the response was: “The report was published by and is the view of Moody’s Analytics as part of its economic outlook series. The report included a section observing political developments in the context of their potential economic impact, and did not advocate any political agenda or perspective.”
The newspaper reproduced the relevant portion of the report titled, India Outlook: Searching for Potential, that clearly stated that the publication was produced by Moody’s Analytics and “if sourcing or referencing any contents from this publication please quote Moody’s Analytics.” It also established that the PMO issued the statement without consulting Moody’s Analytics.
The question of the author of the report being the son-in-law of historian Irfan Habib was pure fiction created by trolls on social media. Saman Habib, daughter of Irfan Habib, had to publicly deny that she is married to the author of the Moody’s Analytics report. When this office tried to politely point out the fact of the matter to those who called us, we were accused of bias and more: “You have no sense of national pride. How can you not name the person who authored the report? Isn’t this censorship by the media?”
The power of trolls in sustaining a lie and demonising a newspaper for doing what it should do, undermines public discourse. Trolls never accept that they made a mistake, they never apologise for their excesses, they oscillate between downright abuse and subtle innuendoes, they are not accountable to anyone, they have a hold over digital news ecology to plant suspicion and flag non-existent issues. The fact is that trolls neither verify their facts nor attempt to develop fact-checking abilities. In this environment, the legacy media becomes critical for providing crucial information to the citizens. Its ability to check facts and to provide the context helps readers to sift the chaff from the grain. A contemporary artist may come up with ‘An allegory of troll and truth’ to capture the contradictions an ombudsman has to navigate.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
