Media In India/elsewhere

[Guest]

On The Hundi
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the gist of readers' appraisal:
<b>  "The common thread in many of these messages is that The Hindu is
partisan and prejudiced. Some of the points that make are: The paper has
turned into an ideological document; there is disproportionate coverage
to CPI(M) Politbureau members wherever they speak; a mindset prejudiced
against all right-wing people; obsession for Muslims and their welfare;
an anti-American bias. "</b> 
 
http://www.cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.as...hild=mediawatch
  Analysing 'The Hindu'

Friday, September 15, 2006 11:8:22 IST
 
Despite its staunch readership, this newspaper is not without its
critics, a point raised by the paper's Reader's Editor, K. Narayanan (4
September, 2006) in his very revelatory column 
 
The Hindu is one of the most respected newspapers in India. Few papers
can stand comparison with it in terms of credibility; it is admittedly
conservative and makes no bones about it. It does not sell editorial
space, nor does it cater to sex, as some dailies do. Yet it has its
staunch readership. If The Times of India has a "readership" (which is
different from circulation) of 7.4 million – the largest in India, The Hindu
emerges second among English dailies with 4.05 million readers,
followed by Hindustan Times with 3.85 million readers. But The Hindu is not
without its critics, a point raised by the paper's Reader's Editor, K.
Narayanan (4 September, 2006) in his very revelatory column.
 
  In the first place, The Hindu does not publish astrological forecasts
as some dailies do. The Hindu had never done that. But astrological
forecasts have their votaries, just as stock market prices have theirs.
Narayanan writes a regular daily column in one of which he explained why
the paper did not carry a column on astrological forecasts. He also
carried the views on the subject of the editor-in-chief. But obviously,
their points of view were not acceptable to a certain section of readers.
And they wrote back in anger.
 
  Editor browse through the readers grouses
  Narayanan writes (4 September): "I did not deride them (those who
love astrological forecasts) nor question astrology or its practice. That
these words could arouse passions and emotions and produce an avalanche
of mail — some of them personal abuse — was a revelation". It is
difficult to believe that there are, among The Hindu's readers, many who
would go to the extent of abusing the paper's Readers' Editor, a person of
high journalistic standing.
 
  According to Narayanan, many of the letters he has been receiving are
defamatory, "not fit to print". Newspapers ombudsmen are familiar with
what it calls 'campaign' or 'hate mail' — as even an editor can tell.
Editors take that in their stride. But Narayanan had other things to
deal with that he has been frank enough to admit. He writes: "(Of the)
large number of mails I get from different parts of the country, many of
them (are) from old, long-time readers. The common thread in many of
these messages is that The Hindu is partisan and prejudiced. Some of the
points that make are: The paper has turned into an ideological document;
there is disproportionate coverage to CPI(M) Politbureau members
wherever they speak; a mindset prejudiced against all right-wing people;
obsession for Muslims and their welfare; an anti-American bias.
 
  The demand is made that the paper should represent 'both sides of the
ideological coin so that the readers would decide the merits and
demerits of the issue!' While conceding the paper's "entitlement to have its
own ideology, prejudices, biases etc, it cannot have pretensions of
adherence to core values".
 
  Some readers had other grouses even more serious. One charge was that
the space devoted to national news is inadequate. Another charge was
that the space devoted to national news is inadequate. Another charge was
that there was a preponderance of stories from The Guardian and The New
York Times in the Op-Ed pages, which could do with more writings on
national issues.
 
  One reader who claimed to have been a Hindu reader for 55 years had
this to say: "more than two pages on Iraq, Lebanon etc and nothing for
Maharashtra, Orissa floods. You are averse to report on Kashmir,
Nagaland etc. Your readers will have no knowledge about matters happening in
other parts of the country".
 
  Many readers felt that except when there is a disaster or a political
upheaval, states, especially those in the North East, do not get
attention in The Hindu. That, according to Narayanan is "overstating a partly
valid case". As he put it: "Regular newsletters from states on the
Op-Ed page is one suggestion they (readers) make: they feel this can help
avoid lopsidedness such as three articles on Lebanon on the Op-Ed page
on one day. Or the attention that the Pathak Report on the Oil-for-Food
scam and Jaswant Singh's book received, when crores of people were
reeling under floods in three major states which also had a devastating
effect on the economy".
 
  Then there was another reader who wrote to say that The Hindu
highlighted "meaningless statements" of politicians like Natwar Singh and
Jaswant Singh and published their large-size pictures on Page 1 even while
claiming that the paper was short of space. Another reader demanded
"balanced reporting"; and how did he describe it? To him "balanced
reporting" meant (1) giving equal prominence to different viewpoints on the
same page and the same day (2) publishing counterviews and rejoinders and
(3) publishing what is newsworthy on a given day and not worrying too
much about balance.
 
  Narayanan met this criticism in his own style: He wrote: "An article
on the editorial or Op-Ed Page takes a particular view, or voices a
strong opinion that is generally in tune with the paper's policy.
Counter-views are accommodated in the 'Letters to the Editor' column". Where
warranted, a rejoinder also gets space. 'Balance in reporting' cannot be
in the literal sense; space is given to opposing views, but it need not
be equal; not need it be given the same prominence, 'same page, same
day' (which) is neither feasible nor practical. Care is taken to see that
generally both sides are presented and overall there is fair
presentation. Accuracy, fairness, balance – readers set high standards.
Fulfilling their expectations is the target for all the journalists in 'The
Hindu'.
 
  But with decisions being made every minute, every hour, every day,
the achievement varies. It is impossible to be totally objective in this
decision-making…"
  This is as straightforward and honest a reply that can be expected
from any Readers' Editor or Ombudsman.
 
  Ideal newspaper, a myth not reality
Newspapers have their own stands. Nobody forces a reader to buy any one
newspaper. India is a democracy and one has access to a dozen
newspapers that often give different points of view on the same subject. No
newspaper can be completely 'objective' – certainly not in the sense that
some readers define objectivity.
  Credit should be given to 'The Hindu' even for appointing an
Ombudsman who openly presents readers' views in this regular daily column on
Op-Ed page. There is no such thing as an 'Ideal' paper. Sometimes a
particular news item does get more coverage than it deserves and one may
call it 'hype'. But often it is not done deliberately.
 
  Admittedly, more space was given to Jaswant Singh and his unfortunate
reference to a 'mole' – a word that he didn't use. How one wishes that
every important national paper – and one can identify half a dozen of
them – hired an Ombudsman to receive comments, assess them and give
transparency to all editorial work! Congrats to 'The Hindu'.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->