In retirement in a secluded place, with no professional pressures, I no longer pay serious attention to newspaper content, casually scanning a few of them daily. But I was jolted out of my languidness by the references to newspaper ombudsmen and their ineffectiveness in an article by B. S. Raghavan. (“No sign of India’s own media culture,” Business Line , April 26, 2013.)

There have not been many ombudsmen in Indian newspapers, and having been the first such in India, I thought I should set out what I could do and could not.

Raghavan, my well-wisher for long (we used to interact when I was news editor of The Hindu and he was a contributor to the editorial page) sets out his reasons for an ombudsman being ineffective in bolstering readers’ confidence: (1) He is invariably a journalist, (2) mostly from within the establishment, (3) shaped by it, with his own likes and dislikes, and (4) he has no final say in regard to his findings nor can he enforce remedial action.

An “ombudsman”, according to the dictionary, is an investigating officer; he can enquire and report to some one for action. The mandate given to the Readers’ Editor of The Hindu , under the terms of reference, was (1) to investigate and respond to readers’ concerns and complaints, (2) ensure accuracy, standards and fairness, (3) create new channels of communication with greater responsiveness to readers, and (4) look for ways to improve the paper’s performance by analysing readers’ ideas and suggestions.

Creating awareness

At the end of my term, I felt I had been effective as far as two points were concerned — investigating and responding to readers’ concerns, and creating new channels of communication, responsive to readers. Not so in the other areas. “Ensuring” accuracy was not possible for the Readers’ Editor, who came into the picture post-publication. Yet, the daily “Corrections and clarifications” columns did help in creating an awareness among the journalists of the paper, of the need for accuracy and how the public eye was on their work.

As for fairness and standards, I had my own benchmarks (“shaped by the ethos of the paper” as Raghavan says) and did set out these in my columns, holding that what had been published in the paper did not confirm to the required standards of fairness and balance. These comments were appreciated by many readers. My right to criticise was not questioned by the establishment.

These observations and many other ideas (often based on readers’ comments) that I put forth were part of what I saw as my efforts to “improve the paper’s performance by analysing readers’ suggestions.” These were acknowledged and sometimes appreciated. There it rested. For, in matters of policy, the Readers’ Editor had no role. That is in response to the last point Raghavan made about the ombudsman. Now for his other points.

The ombudsman is invariably a journalist, he says. That I consider is a definite advantage and is generally the practice in newspapers that have an ombudsman (differently called in different papers.) Production of a newspaper is a complex process, involving various layers and groups of people and a variety of technologies. Familiarity with these is essential when dealing with a query/complaint from a reader. A lay person may not find it easy.

‘Impartial and unbiased’

When The Hindu announced its first Readers’ Editor, reactions poured in. In large measure they welcomed the decision and the choice of the person. But there were many who were sceptical; they doubted whether an insider could measure up to the requirements of the job calling for detachment.

I was shaped by the institution, no doubt. But one principle I believed in was that for a journalist, there should be no likes or dislikes in work — news was news, and had to be treated as such, though its display was decided by the paper’s policy. My long innings in the paper in no way affected my independence as Readers’ Editor (appointed by the Board of Directors) and did not hamper me in criticising the paper, when needed. I can only quote from one of the many messages I received: “When you were appointed…readers criticised…they got apprehensions that you might be partial and toe the line of the management. But you proved that you are impartial and unbiased…” The duty of the ombudsman is limited to sensitising the staff to readers’ concerns and helping the readers understand why newspapers do the things they do.

(The author is former Readers’ Editor, The Hindu.)

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW