For long, Indian newspapers have relied primarily upon international agencies for foreign news. The big ones, more resourceful than the rest, supplement agency reports with syndicated material from large American and British newspapers. Now they have no hesitation to turn to foreign sources even to inform us about our land and our heroes.
Featured on the back page of today’s edition of The Hindu is a one-and-a-half column story based on an interview with A. R. Rahman, reproduced from The Guardian of Great Britain. The story, datelined London, tells us that Rahman is to attend a festival there.
The reporter, Sarfraz Manzoor informs us that “Rahman may have only achieved global fame recently, but he has been making music for most of his life. He was born to a Hindu-Tamil family, in which his father was a composer, arranger and conductor of music for Malayalam movies, considered more serious and realistic than Hindi films.”
India’s National Newspaper, published since 1878 from Madras, reproduces a Pakistan-born British journalist’s report in a British newspaper to enlighten us on the life and work of the ‘Mozart of Madras’. Is this journalism in the age of neocolonialism?
Showing posts with label The Hindu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Hindu. Show all posts
02 April, 2010
25 March, 2010
The Hindu vs The Indian Express
The Indian Express reported on Thursday that a fight was on in the family that owns The Hindu for control of the newspaper group, and in a quick response N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief of all publications of the group, announced his decision to launch civil and criminal defamatory proceedings against IE personnel.
The Indian Express carried the New Delhi-datelined report by Archna Shukla, under a telling headline: Battle for control breaks out in The Hindu very divided family.
The report, which also appeared in IE’s sister publication, the Financial Express, said, “A bitter battle has broken out among family members for control of one of the country’s oldest and most respected media companies, Kasturi & Sons Ltd, the publisher of the 132-year-old English newspaper The Hindu and business daily The Hindu Business Line.
“At the heart of this battle is the proposed retirement of publisher and the group Editor-in-Chief N Ram and his decision to dig his heels in.”
As Associate Editor of The Hindu, Ram had played a key role in the newspaper’s coverage of the Bofors scandal, based on investigations made by Chitra Subramaniam, a part-time correspondent based in Geneva. The B.D. Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism, instituted by the Indian Express group, was awarded jointly to him and Chitra in 1989. The following year Ram received the Padma Bhushan.
Ram was widely tipped to succeed his paternal uncle, G. Kasturi, as the Editor of The Hindu but differences cropped up between them in the closing stages of the Bofors investigation. As a result, when Kasturi stepped down in 1991, Ram, who was already the Editor of all other publications of the group, was bypassed and his younger brother, N. Ravi, made the Editor of The Hindu.
In 2003, Ram was brought into The Hindu as Editor-in-Chief. Kasturi himself was said to have taken the initiative to re-induct him.
The media is a big champion of transparency but it rarely parts with information about itself except when a newspaper or television channel wants to blow its trumpet on the basis of readership surveys or audit reports.
Soon after Archna Shukla’s report appeared in the Indian Express and the Financial Express, Ram said in a statement displayed at The Hindu’s website: “These reports are riddled with demonstrable falsehoods and defamatory assertions, some of them attributed to unnamed sources, made with reckless and malicious disregard for the facts and the truth. And this despite the professional courtesy I extended to the journalist and the newspapers by responding precisely and factually to five specific questions emailed to me on March 24 by Ms Shukla.”
Ram’s decision to sue the Indian Express group is unfortunate. Such action may inhibit newspapers from publishing material about media developments. A more desirable course of action would have been to point out the alleged falsehoods and defamatory assertions and demand that the newspapers correct them.
The Indian Express group was also embroiled in a family dispute not long ago. It was resolved by splitting the newspaper group into two and separating the real estate part.
The Indian Express carried the New Delhi-datelined report by Archna Shukla, under a telling headline: Battle for control breaks out in The Hindu very divided family.
The report, which also appeared in IE’s sister publication, the Financial Express, said, “A bitter battle has broken out among family members for control of one of the country’s oldest and most respected media companies, Kasturi & Sons Ltd, the publisher of the 132-year-old English newspaper The Hindu and business daily The Hindu Business Line.
“At the heart of this battle is the proposed retirement of publisher and the group Editor-in-Chief N Ram and his decision to dig his heels in.”
As Associate Editor of The Hindu, Ram had played a key role in the newspaper’s coverage of the Bofors scandal, based on investigations made by Chitra Subramaniam, a part-time correspondent based in Geneva. The B.D. Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism, instituted by the Indian Express group, was awarded jointly to him and Chitra in 1989. The following year Ram received the Padma Bhushan.
Ram was widely tipped to succeed his paternal uncle, G. Kasturi, as the Editor of The Hindu but differences cropped up between them in the closing stages of the Bofors investigation. As a result, when Kasturi stepped down in 1991, Ram, who was already the Editor of all other publications of the group, was bypassed and his younger brother, N. Ravi, made the Editor of The Hindu.
In 2003, Ram was brought into The Hindu as Editor-in-Chief. Kasturi himself was said to have taken the initiative to re-induct him.
The media is a big champion of transparency but it rarely parts with information about itself except when a newspaper or television channel wants to blow its trumpet on the basis of readership surveys or audit reports.
Soon after Archna Shukla’s report appeared in the Indian Express and the Financial Express, Ram said in a statement displayed at The Hindu’s website: “These reports are riddled with demonstrable falsehoods and defamatory assertions, some of them attributed to unnamed sources, made with reckless and malicious disregard for the facts and the truth. And this despite the professional courtesy I extended to the journalist and the newspapers by responding precisely and factually to five specific questions emailed to me on March 24 by Ms Shukla.”
Ram’s decision to sue the Indian Express group is unfortunate. Such action may inhibit newspapers from publishing material about media developments. A more desirable course of action would have been to point out the alleged falsehoods and defamatory assertions and demand that the newspapers correct them.
The Indian Express group was also embroiled in a family dispute not long ago. It was resolved by splitting the newspaper group into two and separating the real estate part.
25 January, 2009
A CPI (M) 'plant' in The Hindu?
Many long-time readers of The Hindu have accused the daily of tilting towards the Communist Party of India (Marxist) since N. Ram became the Editor-in-Chief. A report appearing in today’s edition shows the party has the ability to plant a story in this venerable newspaper.
The report, headlined “Krishna Iyer for debate on Central, State police process”, is based on an interview with former Supreme Court judge V.R. Krishna Iyer. The report has no dateline. Nor does it have a creditline. The absence of attribution suggests that the report was not received from any correspondent of the paper or from any news agency to which it subscribes.
The report identifies the interviewer as P. Rajeev, a leftist journalist.
P. Rajeev is a young CPI (M) leader and Resident Editor of the Malayalam daily, Deshabhimani, which is an official organ of the party.
Rajeev’s report of the interview appeared in Deshabhimani only today. Evidently it was made available to The Hindu before its publication in Deshabhimani.
The interview report quoted Krishna Iyer as saying, “I feel that the time has come for a national debate on the creation, operation and control of the Central and State police process. I express this view because I find so much of hot controversy over the Lavlin issue where Sri. Pinarayi Vijayan’s name is being made the subject of political imputations.” (Italics added)
Rajeev interviewed Krishna Iyer after the party launched a campaign accusing the Central Bureau of Investigation of implicating Pinarayi Vijayan, who is a member of the CPI (M) Politburo and Secretary of its State Committee, in the SNC Lavalin case as reprisal for withdrawal of the party’s support to the United Progressive Alliance.
Deshabhimani featured it as the lead story.
According to Malayalam news channels, Krishna Iyer said in a statement today that his remarks were capable of misinterpretation to suit the needs of some political leaders.
While reiterating his stand that investigations must be truthful, he said he believed an offender, howsoever high, must not escape punishment and an innocent person must not be penalized.
For more on the Lavalin case, please see my commentary "Lavalin developing into CPI-M's Bofors", distributed by Indo Asian News Service.
POSTSCRIPT: Justice Krishna Iyer's revised statement, referred to above, appears in The Hindu's edition dated January 26 under the heading "Investigating agencies must enjoy immunity and independence, says Krishna Iyer". It carries a Kochi dateline and is credited to the paper's Special Correspondent.
The report, headlined “Krishna Iyer for debate on Central, State police process”, is based on an interview with former Supreme Court judge V.R. Krishna Iyer. The report has no dateline. Nor does it have a creditline. The absence of attribution suggests that the report was not received from any correspondent of the paper or from any news agency to which it subscribes.
The report identifies the interviewer as P. Rajeev, a leftist journalist.
P. Rajeev is a young CPI (M) leader and Resident Editor of the Malayalam daily, Deshabhimani, which is an official organ of the party.
Rajeev’s report of the interview appeared in Deshabhimani only today. Evidently it was made available to The Hindu before its publication in Deshabhimani.
The interview report quoted Krishna Iyer as saying, “I feel that the time has come for a national debate on the creation, operation and control of the Central and State police process. I express this view because I find so much of hot controversy over the Lavlin issue where Sri. Pinarayi Vijayan’s name is being made the subject of political imputations.” (Italics added)
Rajeev interviewed Krishna Iyer after the party launched a campaign accusing the Central Bureau of Investigation of implicating Pinarayi Vijayan, who is a member of the CPI (M) Politburo and Secretary of its State Committee, in the SNC Lavalin case as reprisal for withdrawal of the party’s support to the United Progressive Alliance.
Deshabhimani featured it as the lead story.
According to Malayalam news channels, Krishna Iyer said in a statement today that his remarks were capable of misinterpretation to suit the needs of some political leaders.
While reiterating his stand that investigations must be truthful, he said he believed an offender, howsoever high, must not escape punishment and an innocent person must not be penalized.
For more on the Lavalin case, please see my commentary "Lavalin developing into CPI-M's Bofors", distributed by Indo Asian News Service.
POSTSCRIPT: Justice Krishna Iyer's revised statement, referred to above, appears in The Hindu's edition dated January 26 under the heading "Investigating agencies must enjoy immunity and independence, says Krishna Iyer". It carries a Kochi dateline and is credited to the paper's Special Correspondent.
15 April, 2008
Times of India launches Chennai edition
The Times of India has reached Chennai to take on The Hindu after worsting market leaders in New Delhi and Bangalore in bitter battles in which it demonstrated its readiness to bend the rules of the game.
It had made a big impact outside the home turf of Mumbai in the last few years using the twin strategy of trivializing news and cutting the cover price.
It had been preparing for the Chennai entry for several years. “With a circulation of 3.5 million, we are today the world's largest English newspaper across formats, sizes and genres,” it declared in the Chennai edition, which was launched on April 14. “And yet, there has been this strange void. Call it a Chennai-shaped hole.
“We have long dreamed of having our masthead in the historic southern city of Chennai, where there is such a premium placed on the written word. In many ways, it was our final frontier - at least within India.”
The paper’s website featured the front page of the print edition (reproduced here) , and carried several letters from readers.
T.M.Premkumar, Chennai , wrote: “Dear Sir, We warmly welcome (you) to the City of charms and hospitality. Of late there has been a vacant slot for an unbiased newspaper. Every other newspaper here has developed a shade of political colour. I believe that every newspaper should present NEWS for its readers, and exhibit its VIEWS in its editorials. When the NEWS is coated with political HUES and VIEWS, it becomes unpalatable. I only pray and hope that the TIMES OF INDIA does not change its colours, and should concentrate on NEWS alone.
S. Bhaargavan of Coimbatore enquired when he could get the paper in his city.
The very first issue made a conscious attempt to woo the city’s large Malayalee community. In a report, headlined “Far from home, yet in touch with roots”, the paper took note of Vishu celebrations by those who did not get back home to Kerala.
14 April, 2008
The Hindu responds to criticism of biased coverage of Tibet developments
K. Narayanan, Readers’ Editor of The Hindu, after examining readers’ complaints, has made a professional assessment of the newspaper’s coverage of Tibet developments in his fortnightly column “Online and Off Line”, published today. He writes:
I compared the reporting of the events in other Indian newspapers (English) and also The Guardian and the New York Times with that in The Hindu from March 15 to 19 and could not but note the wide gap which led to the readers’ protests. (The angles given to the stories and their display are not to be questioned; that is editorial privilege). Overall, these points struck me as noteworthy:
1. Reliance on Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency. Its reports should have been balanced by inputs from other news agencies, but their use was scanty and selective. No doubt they too would have had their angles and biases but that would have been another side of the picture. Why was The Guardian, otherwise used extensively, ignored (except for an eyewitness account which was not very informative)?
2. The Hindu’s perceptive correspondent in Beijing, Pallavi Aiyar, made no contribution, except to report Prime Minister Wen’s press conference.
3. The statements of the Chinese Prime Minister and the Chinese envoy in Delhi were fully reported. The Dalai Lama’s were truncated versions. Many readers noted that his remark on “cultural genocide” was edited out.
4. The most surprising feature was the total absence of Tibet in the “Letters to the Editor column” — in which otherwise comments appear even as events are unfolding and continue for days. A few letters appeared after an article and an editorial were published and ceased abruptly.
The Readers’ Editor has also included in his column the response of the newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief N. Ram to the readers’ comments and to his observations on them. Here are excerpts from it:
We have an arrangement with Xinhua. We have also used western agencies and PTI. The violence reported and confirmed editorially was by Tibetan discontents, some hundreds of them. The Chinese authorities seemed unprepared at first but moved to stop the savagery in Lhasa and violence in some Tibetan areas. The riots were easily overcome. The violence in Lhasa, by every account, was by protestors, who included monks. No specific incident of violence by the police or paramilitary forces has been reported by any credible news source or eyewitnesses.
The comments in the column fail to look critically at the abundant editorialising in the guise of news. If the content in The Guardian, The New York Times, and Western news agencies is analysed, the problems of professional news reporting on the Tibet developments can be better appreciated. They were full of editorial judgments and loaded phrases and were often inaccurate (such as death toll). Their websites published wrong photographs or photographs with wrong captions. The Dalai Lama’s statements were edited because he is a separatist and tended to justify the savage and murderous riots in Lhasa. Not many letters were received other than what we published.
Nobody asked Pallavi Aiyar not to report in The Hindu on Tibet. She has been on leave during the relevant period.
The Readers’ Editor concludes the column with the following quotation from the editorial The Hindu wrote on August 27, 2003 (not August 23, 2003, as stated in the column):
The only answer to all this can be journalism of high quality, rooted in well-defined principles, clear-sighted, ethically and professionally sound, determined to put editorial values first, responsive to the needs of readers and the market within clearly worked out journalistic parameters .…
The Editor-in-Chief’s explanation that some observations of the Dalai Lama were suppressed because he is a separatist and tended to justify the Lhasa riots does not go well with his proclaimed determination to put editorial values first. He says nobody asked Pallavi Aiyar not to report on Tibet. He sidesteps some relevant questions: Did the newspaper ask the correspondent to report on Tibet? Would she have had access to sources other than the Communist Party-controlled Xinhua news agency if she were asked to report?
While The Hindu’s Tibet coverage fell short of its own illustrious traditions, let us salute the newspaper, the Editor-in-Chief and the Readers’ Editor for the transparent manner in which they deal with readers’ complaints on such matters.
I compared the reporting of the events in other Indian newspapers (English) and also The Guardian and the New York Times with that in The Hindu from March 15 to 19 and could not but note the wide gap which led to the readers’ protests. (The angles given to the stories and their display are not to be questioned; that is editorial privilege). Overall, these points struck me as noteworthy:
1. Reliance on Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency. Its reports should have been balanced by inputs from other news agencies, but their use was scanty and selective. No doubt they too would have had their angles and biases but that would have been another side of the picture. Why was The Guardian, otherwise used extensively, ignored (except for an eyewitness account which was not very informative)?
2. The Hindu’s perceptive correspondent in Beijing, Pallavi Aiyar, made no contribution, except to report Prime Minister Wen’s press conference.
3. The statements of the Chinese Prime Minister and the Chinese envoy in Delhi were fully reported. The Dalai Lama’s were truncated versions. Many readers noted that his remark on “cultural genocide” was edited out.
4. The most surprising feature was the total absence of Tibet in the “Letters to the Editor column” — in which otherwise comments appear even as events are unfolding and continue for days. A few letters appeared after an article and an editorial were published and ceased abruptly.
The Readers’ Editor has also included in his column the response of the newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief N. Ram to the readers’ comments and to his observations on them. Here are excerpts from it:
We have an arrangement with Xinhua. We have also used western agencies and PTI. The violence reported and confirmed editorially was by Tibetan discontents, some hundreds of them. The Chinese authorities seemed unprepared at first but moved to stop the savagery in Lhasa and violence in some Tibetan areas. The riots were easily overcome. The violence in Lhasa, by every account, was by protestors, who included monks. No specific incident of violence by the police or paramilitary forces has been reported by any credible news source or eyewitnesses.
The comments in the column fail to look critically at the abundant editorialising in the guise of news. If the content in The Guardian, The New York Times, and Western news agencies is analysed, the problems of professional news reporting on the Tibet developments can be better appreciated. They were full of editorial judgments and loaded phrases and were often inaccurate (such as death toll). Their websites published wrong photographs or photographs with wrong captions. The Dalai Lama’s statements were edited because he is a separatist and tended to justify the savage and murderous riots in Lhasa. Not many letters were received other than what we published.
Nobody asked Pallavi Aiyar not to report in The Hindu on Tibet. She has been on leave during the relevant period.
The Readers’ Editor concludes the column with the following quotation from the editorial The Hindu wrote on August 27, 2003 (not August 23, 2003, as stated in the column):
The only answer to all this can be journalism of high quality, rooted in well-defined principles, clear-sighted, ethically and professionally sound, determined to put editorial values first, responsive to the needs of readers and the market within clearly worked out journalistic parameters .…
The Editor-in-Chief’s explanation that some observations of the Dalai Lama were suppressed because he is a separatist and tended to justify the Lhasa riots does not go well with his proclaimed determination to put editorial values first. He says nobody asked Pallavi Aiyar not to report on Tibet. He sidesteps some relevant questions: Did the newspaper ask the correspondent to report on Tibet? Would she have had access to sources other than the Communist Party-controlled Xinhua news agency if she were asked to report?
While The Hindu’s Tibet coverage fell short of its own illustrious traditions, let us salute the newspaper, the Editor-in-Chief and the Readers’ Editor for the transparent manner in which they deal with readers’ complaints on such matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)