What is the relationship between social media and legacy media? Can legacy media render itself vulnerable to the state of cynicism that pervades social media? How do we effectively explain the importance of reliable, fact-based news media — now more than ever before — to combat the misinformation that flows from social media? What should be done to delineate the salient features of an inclusive legacy media platform that distinguishes itself from the silos-like exclusive narratives of social media? What gives traction to social media-fed misinformation: is it numbers, anonymity, a general disregard for the rigorous method of verifying facts and going beyond a single source for every story? Can we confuse digital possibilities with the pitfalls of social media?
One of the influential newspapers of the world, The Washington Post , reposed its faith on the Internet and abolished the position of its in-house ombudsman — The Public Editor — in early 2013. The newspaper argued: “It is not as if The Post doesn’t come in for criticism, from all quarters, instantly, in this Internet age. There is ample criticism of our performance from outside sources, entirely independent of the newsroom, and we don’t pay their salaries.” Is this argument really tenable? Do online responses effect a real course correction in the event of a mistake? Does the publication offer a meaningful clarification? Is there a mechanism for redress?
In this context, it becomes incumbent to explain the workings of a legacy media organisation like The Hindu . The idea of editorial freedom has to be understood in its context. The literature on media gives us a fair interpretation of what constitutes editorial freedom. The sacred space for disagreement cannot be reduced to the erosion of the editorial freedom of individual reporters or section editors. It may be beneficial to both the digital evangelists and young journalists to understand the dynamics of a responsible newspaper. Many years ago, the editor of The Sunday Times , Sir Harold Evans, said that a newspaper is an argument on the way to a deadline. To him, if there isn’t any argument, there is not much of a newspaper.
The arguments are about the content, the form and the social obligation of the newspaper to its readers. The questions that Evans encountered then are still valid and they starkly stare at every respectable editor on a daily basis: “Is this report credible and clear? Is it a rehash of the familiar or does it advance public understanding? Does it justify its space and position in the paper? Is its readability derived from malice? Is it legally risky? Does it betray a source? Is it faithful to the paper’s espoused values of seeking truth fairly and without fear or favour? All facts might check out, but that did not mean we should publish something as it stood. Have we put it in context? What are the foreseeable consequences of publication and of non-publication? Should we seek and accept an interview if a condition is to not disclose the identity or the whereabouts of a person wanted by the authorities? If someone has information which could save lives, what measures are justified to get it out of him or her? Ill-treatment, threats, cruelty, torture? If you know about these practices, should you keep quiet? Should you suppress everything which might conceivably make things worse? Which comes first, truth or patriotism? And if other media distort the facts, how much time and space shall we spend correcting them?”
Collegium approach At The Hindu , these questions are earnestly addressed. The senior editors recognise that the newspaper would be subjected to scrutiny by both a priori reasoning and a posteriori reasoning. The news production process is vastly different from the Taylorian assembly line. It is a collegium approach where the in-house expertise is harnessed, and the external expertise is solicited, to give meaningful insights into what is happening and what might happen.
The office of the Readers’ Editor is a manifestation of the newspaper’s commitment to self-regulation and transparency. The idea of giving the e-mail address of the writers at the end of opinion pieces is to facilitate a dialogue, and if necessary, to answer queries regarding accuracy of information. There have been instances where one set of facts are pitted against another, one set of details are drawn from a source that is different from another. For instance, some readers wondered whether two of the stories filed by Suhasini Haidar on the Kerry-Lugar Bill contradicted each other. There were actually two different claims. The report “Pak. has reined in LeT: U.S.”(Jan.4, 2015) was the claim of the official Pakistani news agency, APP. The report “U.S. denies Pakistan got clean chit, funds” (Jan.5, 015) was the U.S State Department’s denial of the APP story.
Three-fold task It is important for reporters and writers to understand the type of queries this newspaper receives on a daily basis. They must realise that their task is threefold when it comes to facts. They have to check and verify facts. Their sources should be impeccable. They should not hesitate to answer queries from the desk or editors. I have seen some reporters becoming either defensive or sensitive when asked to explain their facts and figures, their arguments and deductions. They should realise that the gatekeepers are posing these questions to not only protect them but also give necessary traction for their journalism.
