An impossible mission, rewarding, exhilarating

K. Narayanan
The Hindu, 30 April

The key element in a daily newspaper is speed — speed in every facet of its operations, be it writing, editing or deciding the choice and display of news. The mechanical aspects such as putting together the paper, printing, and distribution also involve speed, but these are not, I would think, as stressful as the cerebral part of the newspaper industry.

The production team might disagree with me, because of the experience on Tamil New Year's day, and the days following, when parts of Chennai city went without The Hindu, because of some settling-in problems in the new printing unit that started functioning at Maraimalai Nagar, on the outskirts of the city. The Readers' Editor's office was flooded with phone calls throughout the day; I can very well imagine what the marketing staff went through.

Moving away from this digression and getting back to the speed and stress of the editorial department: Post-production reviews can reveal the flaws in what was done and throw up ideas on how a more polished effort could have been made. Self-criticism and constructive criticism by peers can spur the urge to do better. But that I feel is an ideal and is seldom practised.

Readers who pick out the real and perceived flaws are seldom aware of the causative factors — mainly the speed at which the work is done. Many are quick to point out errors in printing, syntax, and of course facts. Some go deeper as does Devraj Sambasivan, a part-time teacher of English in Alappuzha (Kerala). He has sent me some published reports in

The Hindu, re-edited by his students as a class exercise, effecting a 10 per cent reduction in wordage. It is a good effort, but as I pointed out to Mr. Devraj, such polishing and chiselling is possible when your eye is not on the clock.

* * *

A more serious point he raises is about contributions to readers' mail. "News items on regional pages seem to find their way unobstructed from the reporter's scribble pad to the broadsheet. But the staff seem to be hyperactive with regard to readers' mail which undergo insensitive and unimaginative and sometimes atrocious manipulation," he says. Rather strong words, but a comparison of the original and the published versions of Mr. Devraj's contribution shows there is some justification for the comments. It is in this context that Mr. Devraj asks me whether "your observations and suggestions [on editing] are considered in-house. More than on the factual errors which you more often than not promptly acknowledge and rectify, I focus on the standard and quality of the edited content that finds its way to print."

In these columns, I comment on quality and standards. There it ends — these are my views, not edicts. If someone benefits, that will be a matter for satisfaction. I receive feedback from readers, next to nothing from the staff. What I do is meant to "enable corrective action to be taken," as the Editor-in-Chief said. What action is taken, I am not aware of.

That seems to be the experience of newspaper ombudsmen elsewhere too. Some of them have given expression to this.

Israel Rosenblatt, who was ombudsman of Maariv of Tel Aviv from 1991 until he retired three years ago, describes ombudsmen as "the last idealists in a too commercialised, overpacked-with-prejudices journalism. Or to use a poetic metaphor ... the legendary Dutch boy, trying to block the flood in the dam with his finger ... To succeed as an ombudsman, you have to be not only right, but also very wise. A mission sometimes impossible."

* * *

Marcela Beraba, who served Folha de Sao Paulo, Brazil as ombudsman for three years wrote in a farewell piece on April 1, 2007: "I leave the job without the leap in quality which I hoped and desired being accomplished ... Pressures by readers are here to stay and that is good ... The impression I have in these years of observation is that companies have their complete focus on the business side and the discussion about content in the newspaper stopped being a priority with the weakening of news rooms."


* * *
Her job as readers' representative at the San Diego Union-Tribune for nearly 15 years was satisfying and frustrating, said Gina Lubrano (she took voluntary retirement in December 2006 as part of the downsizing of the editorial department — a trend seen in U.S. newspapers). Satisfying because she was able to correct and sometimes make amends with people who felt hurt or offended. Frustrating when the paper was wrong and when it needlessly offended readers. Ms. Lubrano continues to work as executive secretary of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen.


* * *
But Ian Mayes, whom I consider a role model for newspaper ombudsmen, finds his 10-year stint at The Guardian (which ended on March 31, 2007 — he has moved on to write the history of the paper) "rewarding and sometimes even exhilarating." "The Guardian has set high standards and then opened a door to let the world watch its struggles to live up to them ... It is perhaps lamentable that The Guardian has been unable to prevent the repetition of petty but irritating mistakes particularly those which seem to indicate a lack of care or attention to the language. It is folly not to have an interactive relationship between newspapers and readers."

That, I think, should answer Mr. Devraj's doubts on what ombudsmen can and cannot do.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in