Concerns and complaints beyond the routine

K. Narayanan
The Hindu, 17 September

The last two columns in “Online and Off line” set out what key journalist staff of The Hindu felt about the functioning of the Readers’ Editor for the last 18 months and its impact. In general, there was welcome for my endeavours and there were also suggestions for rectification and improvement. That has a reader (Dr. J.P. Reddy, Nalgonda) asking me: should you not have sought the feedback from readers on the effect of the corrections made by the Readers’ Editor, “a unique institution with good and affectionate response from readers”? He adds, “The reader is the customer and can judge the performance better than sales persons.” Well, according to some newspaper proprietors, journalists are just selling a product!

Dr. Reddy has a valid point. But I have never had to seek readers’ responses. From Day 1 they have been flowing in, sometimes a trickle, some days a torrent, but never still. The comments are wide-ranging in tone and substance. Major topics of fact and style are raised. The sentiments range from the appreciative to the abusive.

* * * 

In recent days, the uncomplimentary comments have formed a bigger proportion than usual. And with good reason. Along with criticism of the contents of the paper also comes a swipe at the Readers’ Editor (and tangentially at readers too) – “a farce … doing disservice to the readers … pointing out spelling mistakes pointed out by readers (retired government employees) and nothing else … He should have taken a suo motto stand and given an explanation.”

Angry reader R. Raja (Hyderabad) should realise that the Readers’ Editor does not, and cannot, act suo motu. He only reacts when readers point out some omission or commission, and tries to analyse why and how something was done or not done. He is, under the Terms of Reference, enjoined to consider and respond to readers’ concerns, comments and complaints in a prompt and timely manner. The response may not be immediate, for often the reader’s query has to be referred to someone and a reply has to be awaited.

This reader’s grouse revolved around what he termed “cover up,” referring to The Hindu’s “contradictory” editorial stands on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. More readers expressed themselves strongly on the editorials of August 6 and 20, 2007, and the subsequent signed clarification. “If the detour was surprising, more surprising was the explanation”; “comically brave attempt to justify the turnaround”; “readers are extra cautious reading your opinion”; so went the comments. There were also the genuinely perplexed, and those unhappy with what they saw as political compulsions influencing the paper.

* * * 

Editorial stances the paper adopts do not fall within my purview. But this was the first time, in my long innings in journalism, that I was coming across a newspaper (particularly the one with I have been associated all along) having to convince readers that there was no contradiction in the positions it had taken, within a short span of time. The comprehensive news coverage The Hindu provided on the nuclear deal was appreciated, with the stray comment that it was anti-deal, but the editorials did confuse some readers.

* * * 

That a section also had come to associate The Hindu with some bias became apparent in the avalanche of angry protests a typographical error produced. In normal circumstances it would have been innocuous, even hilarious. But not this one. The Readers’ Editor’s office had to face the fury of abusive readers, who descended to the personal level.

All because the “immortal call of Swami Vivekananda” became “immoral” in print. (My editor used to warn me to be on guard about some words that in misprint could become obscene or vulgar.) Though the Editor said “it is ridiculous to interpret a spelling mistake as a deliberate insult,” in this case, readers saw it as part of the “anti-Hindu stand” of The Hindu, “a Freudian, Marxist slip” and an “intentional humiliation.” The explanation that it was a routine printing error was brushed aside. The entry next day in the “Corrections and Clarifications” column was termed lame and inadequate. It was not prominent enough when a Page 1 apology was warranted, they said.

* * * 

There were objections too, though small in number, to the M.F. Hussain work on the front page of the Independence Day special feature. A “faceless Bharat Mata” was in bad taste, was their view.

The Readers’ Editor’s office is now familiar with some names, and some nameless persons who are regular in denunciatory declamations about The Hindu’s un-Hindu character (for these campaigners, Hinduism is synonymous with the BJP). But many of the callers who were upset over the misprint did not belong to this category. Therefore, their concerns, to me, were disturbing and needed to be addressed.

* * * 

On a different footing is the dislike readers express of the Page 1 featuring of the photos of Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan going to/coming out of prison. They are not judicial heroes but convicts in criminal cases, they point out. The selection and placement of photos is undoubtedly a matter of editorial judgement. Readers question the Page 1 prominence. Well, there are policemen who hug or shake hands with the actors when they come out of jail!

Readers have also voiced doubts and disquiet over the treatment given to some categories of news. Their concerns, and the editorial response to them, merit separate treatment.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in