Letters from readers often reminds me of the song ‘To Life’ from Fiddler On The Roof : “Life has a way of confusing us/Blessing and bruising us.” Their pithy humour in pointing out editorial slip ups has the power to force us to constantly evaluate our journalism. They weave unrelated strands of information into a fine texture of harsh criticism. The latest case of such weaving was a declaration by Donald Trump Jr. and a fawning report on Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah addressing a meeting despite being ill. Mr. Trump Jr. said: “I am the first person in the history of India to say I love the Indian media. They are so mild and nice.” Has the Indian media lost its ability to question those in power, readers asked.
Not in public interest
In this age of digital connectivity, an error in judgment on a local page in a single edition of the newspaper has the potential to hurt the publication as a whole, and its fallout is never restricted to that geographical region alone. “ Fever did not deter this warrior ” (Feb. 21) was the headline of a report that was published in the Mangaluru edition of this newspaper. It was about how Mr. Shah continued with his tour of the coastal districts in Karnataka as scheduled despite running a temperature of 102°F. The Times of India also featured the same story with an equally flattering headline: “Navashakti meet was the tonic Shah needed to battle his fever”.
The report was not in public interest. It was a public relations piece that could have only satisfied the political party and its leaders. The report filed from Subrahmanya/Bantwal in coastal Karnataka became a national talking point. But what should be the ideal remedial measure when such a goof-up happens? Is there an ethical manner in which one can point out the mistake without resorting to invisible mending? Is it possible to avoid such mistakes from happening?
The first thing this newspaper did was to change the headline from sounding like a eulogy to a matter-of-fact statement, with a visible disclaimer on the web. The new headline was: “Amit Shah campaigns with a fever.” The disclaimer read: “The original headline was inappropriate and had the tone of a comment. It has been changed.”
When do we take down stories?
Some readers wondered why only the headline was changed and why the story was not taken down altogether. The transparent intervention was to retain one of the core principles that this newspaper has been following since it launched its web edition nearly two decades ago: not to take down a story and falsify the history of publication. Any sly altering of the digital archives is akin to opening the proverbial Pandora’s box.
The newspaper has taken down stories from the web in the case of a breach of ethics, such as when a copy was plagiarised, or when a report was factually incorrect. These were exceptions. In my column, “Shades of grey in the right to be forgotten” (March 9, 2015), I had argued against takedowns of reports. The story in question may not have met the newspaper’s high editorial standards, but it was not factually incorrect. The archives section of the newspaper’s website is a repository of reportage and articles published over time.
On the other hand, visible mending leads to larger reflection within the editorial team. The issue here is the level of unevenness in the quality of reporting from smaller centres. In capital cities, reporters are used to meeting national political leaders on a daily basis. There is a sense of proportionate reporting that keeps the line dividing information and propaganda intact. However, for small-town reporters, the presence of a national leader in their locality is a rare phenomenon and this rarity sometimes skews the reportage. By retaining the story with its amended headline and disclaimer, journalists working outside the major centres can imbibe the importance of journalistic values and competence. An error in editorial judgment in local or hyperlocal editions has a global implication.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
