The brutal rape and murder of a 27-year-old veterinarian in Hyderabad has triggered a debate once again on capital punishment. A couple of readers wanted to know whether The Hindu will change its opposition to capital punishment in the light of this horrific crime. Legal scholars have explained in no uncertain terms that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime against women. The arguments in my column, “Undeterred by malice” (August 1, 2015), clearly state the reason for making a distinction between justice and revenge. Journalism cannot become a tool for implementing draconian laws. One heinous crime does not justify another heinous crime. The column traced the history of this newspaper’s stand against capital punishment right from the days of the Bhagat Singh trial.

Normalising hate

One reader, P.R. Raghavan, was unhappy with the newspaper’s coverage of MP Pragya Singh Thakur’s insensitive reference to Nathuram Godse as a patriot. He felt that the newspaper consciously blacked out BJP spokesperson G.V.L. Narasimha Rao’s statement that Saamana, the official organ of the Shiv Sena, had also expressed similar admiration for Godse in the past. “Your newspaper seems to be following its tradition of suppressing news not in tune with its own narrative... some time ago it suppressed the last Census figures that revealed that the Muslim population in the country had increased much faster than the population of other communities,” he wrote.

There are multiple problems with Mr. Raghavan’s email. He must realise that whataboutery has the potential to normalise hate, undermine the public sphere, create false equivalences, and confuse agenda-peddling with news. First, it is extremely disturbing to have an elected MP making outlandish statements that normalise the political assassination of the biggest apostle of the politics of non-violence. Second, senior leaders of the BJP including Home Minister Amit Shah and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh have condemned Ms. Thakur’s statement. Third, the MP herself has apologised for her statement, however weak her apology may be. Fourth, in this context, what is the relevance of a BJP spokesperson’s attempt to cite Shiv Sena’s skewed vision of Gandhi? Did the newspaper ever defend anyone’s attempt to justify political violence and assassinations?

Providing context

What is more disturbing is that Mr. Raghavan has failed to understand that this newspaper was one of the select few that got the Census figures correct. It was the subject of my column, “Making sense of metadata” (August 29, 2015). These were the questions I had addressed then: “Did The Hindu get its story on the population by religion, based on the census figures for 2011 released on August 25, 2015, wrong? Why is its report different from the reports in other publications? Is there a bias in its reporting? What is the need for talking about numbers in terms of religion?”

In order to debunk some of the systematic lies that are generated on social media, let me recollect what I had said in that column: “In The Hindu’s editorial judgment, the Census was primarily a demographic document and it decided to look at the findings through a demographic lens. It was a valuable source of over 60 years of historical data. It became imperative to provide a context, framework and milieu to the new findings to put it a proper historical perspective. The historical context helps one understand the social transformations these numbers tend to capture. A systematic disaggregation enables us to understand the full implications of the individual strands — social, economic and regional among many others — that intertwine to form the complex metadata.”

I explained in detail how The Hindu’s report thwarted attempts to polarise society by providing the full context for the demographics. This brings us to three important questions: How do we ensure that clarifications reach a broad readership in the digital age? How do we deal with disinformation that gets amplified through encrypted platforms like WhatsApp? And how do we spread media literacy across sections, which will help citizens sift news from rumours?

We need to create digital tools and news industry protocols to help journalists reach the widest possible audiences for corrections and clarifications when inaccurate information is promoted by vested interests.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

It is heartening that many readers have shown keenness to participate in the editorial meetings of The Hindu (“Dialogue to bridge divides”, October 7). Many have asked what prompted the newspaper to open up its most important in-house consultations to our readers. Some have asked whether the offer is restricted only to participants from Chennai or is open to other centres too. The reason for the initiative is based on the simple belief that trust is the bedrock of journalism; it unites a news organisation and its readers or viewers. Trust in the news media is under severe strain today due to multiple reasons that include social media-led misinformation, filter bubbles, echo chambers and limited understanding of the act of verification and the role of bearing witness in reporting.

In an interview to Prospect magazine in 2018, when Salman Rushdie was asked what was the biggest problem of our time, he said: “Our collective inability to agree on the nature of reality. There are such conflicting descriptions of how things are that it becomes difficult to make agreements that allow people to move forward. Something like that is true in the whole Brexit nonsense and in India, in the war between the current administration and old-fashioned secularism. When people stop believing in truth, it allows demagogues to come forward.”

Breaking silos

Readers of The Hindu are better equipped in dealing with this contentious but constantly growing collective inability to agree on the nature of reality. A letter from V.N. Mukundarajan, a reader from Thiruvananthapuram, validates my belief. He feels that the proposed monthly access for selected readers to the newsroom is a bold innovation. He wrote: “This unique experiment that very few newspapers have attempted will offer readers a close look at the deliberations happening in the newsroom, a journalistic territory that is zealously guarded and is usually out of bounds for outsiders. No matter how many columns the Readers’ Editor may write, it is a thankless task to try to explain the ethical and professional underpinnings of news selection, news production, and story-writing to a staggeringly diverse readership, many of whom tend to judge the print media by the standards followed by cacophonous broadcasters and a divisive social media. There is no better alternative than a first-hand experience of newsroom activities to educate readers about the tremendous pressures that editors face in prioritising news and stories while simultaneously ensuring that the newspaper gets delivered at our doorsteps the next day.”

At some level, this initiative is close to what Antonio Gramsci said during the inter-war years: “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. For the idea of breaking silos to take off, we need diverse participation. The American Press Institute (API) states that “journalism, in its truest form, should be produced for the benefit of all, not only those who wield a particular power, class or authority.” I concur with the API’s argument that its concern for diversity provides it with “a unique perspective, a chance to question assumptions, identify blind spots, clarify the goals, and rethink the methods”.

Shortlisting participants

I realise that demographic representation is inadequate in the present polarising environment. I request interested readers to write a personal biographical note as well as a short evaluatory statement about the newspaper. This will help us in shortlisting the participants. Readers should keep in mind that the each session may last for an hour and they have a choice to attend either the noon meeting or the evening one. The invitation is only for the editorial meetings that are held at the head office of The Hindu in Chennai. We welcome readers from other cities too to this event, but expect them to organise their own transportation and stay. Like at our Open House meetings, we encourage readers not to seek anonymity in expressing their views during the meet. However, if some require anonymity to freely articulate their views — the reasons may be personal or professional — they can invoke the Chatham House Rule: “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in