One of the rewards of interacting with readers is learning something new about one’s own work. Earlier this week, an investment banker called to share his views about the column, “ >Time to take stock” (August 1, 2016) , and came up with his own set of classifications. For him, the daily corrections and clarifications were like day investing, and the weekly column was akin to Warren Buffett’s idea of investing for the long haul. He said the wider canvas created by the weekly column puts the daily corrections and clarifications in perspective, and hoped that the editorial team absorbed the spirit behind this self-correcting mechanism.
He was upset with the headline, “‘Bawariyas never spare young women’” (August 4, 2016), and wondered whether the role of the Readers’ Editor means anything to the headline writers. His arguments were that the headline did not distance itself from the obnoxious classification of the colonial era which our law-enforcing agencies still peddle; that the story, which was sensitive and looked at the issue with a critical eye, was lost because of the headline that went against the story; and that the quotation marks used in the headline did not take away the insensitivity of the headline. Another reader from Bengaluru, Anbazhagan S.V., was equally offended by the headline. He said: “It is a quote, no doubt, but one need not be a mouthpiece for him (the person quoted).” Sweeping generalisations, which criminalise an entire community or tribe, are certainly not a good idea. The headline slip-up hurts more because this newspaper has been consistent for decades in covering the stigma and social ostracisation that de-notified communities face, both in its reportage and comment pages.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The response from the desk for using a generic picture was: “It was just a representative picture used to illustrate facilities in railway stations. We never said it was an Adarsh station, either in the copy or in the caption.” My earlier column,
Jeff Sonderman, in his Poynter article, “Use of generic photos can be dangerous for illustrating news stories”, has explored this theme by interviewing various editors who have used generic pictures, none of whom were very happy using them. For instance, KMIZ News Director Curtis Varns, said: “The stock image issue is a concern we do think about. We’re not happy with it… The images are used when we’re not able to provide specific story-related photos. During that time, I have fielded questions from a few readers about this topic. I quickly realised the way the photos were displayed was not ideal but the most we've been able to do as an organisation is try to minimise their usage.” This leads to a different set of questions. Do we need to illustrate every news story with a photograph? If a photograph is not available for a specific story, what prevents page editors from using an illustration or an infographic for visual relief?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
My inquiry revealed an interesting story. On July 31, most of the editions had an advertisement of varying sizes on the last page and only some editions such as the Mumbai one had the space to accommodate the story, which was a feed from the newspaper’s syndication with The New York Times . The next day, there was one more feed with a different headline and the business editorial team decided to use it in their pages. The internal system of checks and balances helps to spot a story repetition when the headlines are the same, but there is no method to locate a story that has a different headline. This is one more reminder that technical checks and balances need to be supplemented with critical human intervention to avoid these types of lapses.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in