08-01-2006, 02:19 AM
Comparisons and contrasts
K. Narayanan
Too often I venture into areas that are not my province. And every time the reasoning I offer is that it is giving expression to readers' concerns. This column is intended to serve that purpose, and so here we go again, this time on editorials.
What editorials express are a newspaper's views. It is entitled to hold them and propound them. Readers may disagree, and it is those who disagree who are most vociferous â and sometimes vituperative. They now have a ready target for their barbs â the Readers' Editor.
There are instances of unanimous approbation for an editorial, but these are not frequent. The freedom to criticise the views in an editorial is granted, and the dissent is seen by those responsible for them. But the critics cannot question the paper's right to have its own views on issues, which is decided by and is the prerogative of the Editor-in-Chief and his team.
What is taken up here are some views of readers who have no animus but are concerned with what they see as inconsistencies in the paper's stand, which they feel affect its credibility. Going through their comments I was surprised by these readers' range of recall; and realised it is not correct to assume that public memory is short.
The latest instance pointed out was the editorial "Autonomy as a shield" (June 27, 2006), which supported the decision not to pay salary to the AIIMS doctors for the period they were on strike: "The principle of no work, no pay is something industrial workers across India have always been confronted with when they go on strike. The AIIMS staff cannot expect an exception to be made to them." The editorial also recalled the suffering of poor patients.
Readers pointed out that three days earlier, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi announced that the period of general strike by the State Government employees in 2003 and 2004 would be treated as "on duty." Why did The Hindu not comment on this, which affected an entire State and more number of people than the AIIMS patients, they asked.
An editorial that attracted a huge volume of "Letters to the Editor" was that on "A case of presidential overreach" (June 1, 2006), sharply criticising President Abdul Kalam's action of returning the Office of Profit Bill. Since readers have expressed themselves against (the larger proportion) and in support of the editorial, I do not touch upon those points. Here the reference is to the comparison some readers made with The Hindu's stand on President K.R. Narayanan's rejection in 1998 of the Vajpayee Cabinet's recommendation to dismiss the Rabri Devi Government and impose President's rule in Bihar.
On Mr. Kalam's decision, The Hindu wrote, "When the Rashtrapati pits his constitutional and political wits against key decisions made by the Cabinet, not to mention Parliament, it certainly goes against the spirit of the Constitution and parliamentary government. ... President Kalam seems to have played into the hands of the main Opposition party."
But President Narayanan was lauded when he set his face against a Cabinet decision. An editorial on a Sunday (September 27, 1998), headlined, "Well done, Mr. Narayanan," said: "Mr. Narayanan has demonstrated that he as Head of State can be relied upon to intervene effectively â and within the parameters set by the Constitution... . The Vajpayee Government has realised the imperatives of being seen to respond responsibly to the President's counsel."
A reader found the stands "incorrigibly partisan" depriving The Hindu of "the right to adjudicate between the President and Parliament."
Readers have also raised the alleged contradictions in The Hindu's stand on the Dutch cartoons on Prophet Muhammad and M.F. Hussain's paintings of Hindu gods in nude. "Needless and nasty controversy" (February 9, 2006) said: "Freedom of expression is supremely important. But surely it does not require its champions crassly to cause offence to the faith and beliefs of an identifiable group." "Outcry against Hussain" (October 10, 1996) described "the orchestrated outcry ... led by Hindutva forces and ... by the Maharashtra Government" as "a threat to freedom of expression ... The latest instance ... is part of a concerted effort by fundamentalists against the freedom of expression and needs to be condemned outright."
Another instance is not a comparison of two editorials, but citing an editorial to question news coverage. "Stop the witch hunt" (June 23, 2006) said, referring to the police action against Apollo Hospitals in Delhi after the Rahul Mahajan episode, "It is a shame that some sections of the media have put out unsourced, tendentious reports at the behest of a police force that has been leaking like a sieve." A reader lays the charge that this applied to
<span style='color:red'>
The Hindu in its reporting of the police investigation against Sri Jayendra Saraswati, the Kanchi Sankaracharya.
"We don't claim to be neutral or impartial. Editorials take a stand, provide an assessment or judgment, and where appropriate, applaud, comment, criticise, deplore, condemn, oppose," according to the Editor-in-Chief. None of the readers cited in this column has questioned this right. They have only pointed out what, according to them, are some contradictions. </span>
http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/31/stories/...891100.htm
K. Narayanan
Too often I venture into areas that are not my province. And every time the reasoning I offer is that it is giving expression to readers' concerns. This column is intended to serve that purpose, and so here we go again, this time on editorials.
What editorials express are a newspaper's views. It is entitled to hold them and propound them. Readers may disagree, and it is those who disagree who are most vociferous â and sometimes vituperative. They now have a ready target for their barbs â the Readers' Editor.
There are instances of unanimous approbation for an editorial, but these are not frequent. The freedom to criticise the views in an editorial is granted, and the dissent is seen by those responsible for them. But the critics cannot question the paper's right to have its own views on issues, which is decided by and is the prerogative of the Editor-in-Chief and his team.
What is taken up here are some views of readers who have no animus but are concerned with what they see as inconsistencies in the paper's stand, which they feel affect its credibility. Going through their comments I was surprised by these readers' range of recall; and realised it is not correct to assume that public memory is short.
The latest instance pointed out was the editorial "Autonomy as a shield" (June 27, 2006), which supported the decision not to pay salary to the AIIMS doctors for the period they were on strike: "The principle of no work, no pay is something industrial workers across India have always been confronted with when they go on strike. The AIIMS staff cannot expect an exception to be made to them." The editorial also recalled the suffering of poor patients.
Readers pointed out that three days earlier, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi announced that the period of general strike by the State Government employees in 2003 and 2004 would be treated as "on duty." Why did The Hindu not comment on this, which affected an entire State and more number of people than the AIIMS patients, they asked.
An editorial that attracted a huge volume of "Letters to the Editor" was that on "A case of presidential overreach" (June 1, 2006), sharply criticising President Abdul Kalam's action of returning the Office of Profit Bill. Since readers have expressed themselves against (the larger proportion) and in support of the editorial, I do not touch upon those points. Here the reference is to the comparison some readers made with The Hindu's stand on President K.R. Narayanan's rejection in 1998 of the Vajpayee Cabinet's recommendation to dismiss the Rabri Devi Government and impose President's rule in Bihar.
On Mr. Kalam's decision, The Hindu wrote, "When the Rashtrapati pits his constitutional and political wits against key decisions made by the Cabinet, not to mention Parliament, it certainly goes against the spirit of the Constitution and parliamentary government. ... President Kalam seems to have played into the hands of the main Opposition party."
But President Narayanan was lauded when he set his face against a Cabinet decision. An editorial on a Sunday (September 27, 1998), headlined, "Well done, Mr. Narayanan," said: "Mr. Narayanan has demonstrated that he as Head of State can be relied upon to intervene effectively â and within the parameters set by the Constitution... . The Vajpayee Government has realised the imperatives of being seen to respond responsibly to the President's counsel."
A reader found the stands "incorrigibly partisan" depriving The Hindu of "the right to adjudicate between the President and Parliament."
Readers have also raised the alleged contradictions in The Hindu's stand on the Dutch cartoons on Prophet Muhammad and M.F. Hussain's paintings of Hindu gods in nude. "Needless and nasty controversy" (February 9, 2006) said: "Freedom of expression is supremely important. But surely it does not require its champions crassly to cause offence to the faith and beliefs of an identifiable group." "Outcry against Hussain" (October 10, 1996) described "the orchestrated outcry ... led by Hindutva forces and ... by the Maharashtra Government" as "a threat to freedom of expression ... The latest instance ... is part of a concerted effort by fundamentalists against the freedom of expression and needs to be condemned outright."
Another instance is not a comparison of two editorials, but citing an editorial to question news coverage. "Stop the witch hunt" (June 23, 2006) said, referring to the police action against Apollo Hospitals in Delhi after the Rahul Mahajan episode, "It is a shame that some sections of the media have put out unsourced, tendentious reports at the behest of a police force that has been leaking like a sieve." A reader lays the charge that this applied to
<span style='color:red'>
The Hindu in its reporting of the police investigation against Sri Jayendra Saraswati, the Kanchi Sankaracharya.
"We don't claim to be neutral or impartial. Editorials take a stand, provide an assessment or judgment, and where appropriate, applaud, comment, criticise, deplore, condemn, oppose," according to the Editor-in-Chief. None of the readers cited in this column has questioned this right. They have only pointed out what, according to them, are some contradictions. </span>
http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/31/stories/...891100.htm