Repetition is an aesthetic device in music and poetry. But, it becomes untidy and jarring in journalism where space is premium. I have written a couple of columns and a number of clarifications on repetition of news items across the various pages of this newspaper. But, a recent example is unique. In the Bangalore edition (October 26, 2014) of this newspaper, the State ranking in badminton was repeated in the same page (page 14). A couple of days ago, in the same city edition, a news report titled “U.S. jobless aid applications rise” was repeated in page 13 and page 14. But, this was not an isolated mistake. In the Kochi edition of October 22, 2014, a Kottayam datelined report titled “Entrust fund management with Banks: Contractors” appeared in pages 3 and 4. In the Thiruvananthapuram edition, on October 21, 2014, Atul Aneja’s story, “India, China agree to step up military interaction”, appeared on page 10 and page 12.
The two earlier columns on this subject were: “When coordination fails” (December 23, 2013) and “Self-regulation works” (April 28, 2014). In those, I shared with readers the steps initiated by the Editor to eliminate this irritant. I wrote: “As a standing instruction to all editions she has urged all senior editors to up their antennae with regard to reports that may have multiple points of reference. She has also directed them to be watchful against reports from the newspaper’s correspondents and agencies on the same subject being duplicated. The Editor has made it mandatory that a careful scan of all pages is done at each centre before typesetting. Specific responsibility has to be assigned to individuals in order to ensure that this works. Instances of duplication will be viewed with due seriousness and accountability with consequences enforced henceforth.” Despite these directives, repetition happens much to the chagrin of senior editors and readers.
Tall claims, short on evidenceADVERTISEMENT
Another question that was raised last week pertained to a report published a couple of years ago based on tall claims by a student without cross-verification. The article in question, “In search of extraterrestrial life”, was published on September 19, 2012. In that, a student in Kerala, P.V. Arun, had claimed that he was concurrently selected by NASA as a research scientist and was admitted at Massachusetts Institute of Technology to do a doctoral thesis. It was proved to be a hoax. Many publications and some web-based news organisations carried a detailed exposé last week. Readers B.R.P. Bhaskar and Jestin Joy took the trouble to give the links to the exposé.
This was not the first time a reporter fell for such claims. It happened last year too when another student from Anna University came up with a story, resulting in a gushing report. But, the newspaper moved quickly and rectified the situation by publishing a detailed clarification and a note of regret. In both P.V. Arun’s case and the Anna University student’s case, it was a journalistic failure at two levels. As I had mentioned in some of the earlier columns, the central element of journalism is its steadfast commitment to the act of verification. Let me reiterate the cause for this blunder. The reporter has failed to respect and practise the fundamental binding rule in journalism: never rely on a single source; always cross- verify. The desk failed to ask any hard and probing questions to the reporter who filed the story. It seems that both the desk and the reporter were lured by the romantic idea behind the story in which fact was the casualty. My personal suggestion to rectify a mistake that took place two years ago is have a detailed clarification appended to the original story’s web edition, which has now become a source of record. I am not in favour of take down of a story which was in public domain for a considerable period of time. But, an additional paragraph giving the new details that have emerged would not only correct the mistake but can act as a deterrent for overzealous reporters and a lax desk.
Now, let me present a case in defence of journalists. Some engineers and architects wrote to this office contesting a report on green-rated buildings based on a study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) carried on October 13, 2014. And these letters were e-mailed on October 28, 2014 and the major thrust of their argument was that the CSE report was not a comprehensive one and that they have a different view on eco-friendly constructions. But, the same reporter who filed the story about the CSE study filed another report titled, “Architects question CSE report on green buildings” (October 16, 2014), giving the viewpoints of these engineers and architects. The architects’ contentions over the benchmark have nothing to do with journalism. The journalist in this case had diligently tried to present the two sides of the story: first, a set of questions from an environmental group and, second, counter arguments from the architects over the green rating.
ADVERTISEMENT
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in