By Ranjona Banerji
The role of an ombudsman (woman/person?) is one of the most neglected in the media. In India, The Hindu is the only news organisation which has been consistent with this post. The Hindustan Times used to have a “readers’ editor†– a recent name for the same post – for its Mumbai edition but has now discontinued it.
The Wire (thewire.in) now becomes the first digital publication to have a readers’ editor, the very experienced, delightful and redoubtable Pamela Philipose.
This is from The Wire’s announcement:
“Despite the enormous value they bring to news organisations, public editors, readers editors or ombudsmen are still relatively rare in the media world. The concept was pioneered by the Asahi Shimbun in 1922 but has only gained traction in recent years. The New York Times, the Guardian and the Washington Post are some of the news organisations that have put in place public editors. In India, the office was first introduced by The Hindu in 2006, though The Times of India briefly flirted with the post of an ombudsman in the 1990s.â€
Philipose will join The Wire in September and will work independently of the digital publication’s “editorial structure and her mandate will be to examine and, where appropriate, investigate complaints and concerns that readers may have about its coverage,†says the announcement.
It is difficult to understand why a media organisation would not want a public or readers’ editor. One can of course point out the obvious – that they do not want to be open to public scrutiny, that the media thinks too much of itself, that editors do not want to hand over control and so on.
However, these are childish, egotistical reasons. A news organisation that keeps its readers views in mind is a news organisation that is in touch with its main constituency. Readers always complain that editors are not interested in what they think and that their suggestions and letters do not get enough space. This is true, without a doubt. There is a distasteful contempt for the reader that runs through all newsrooms.
In the days before the internet, there was a distinct slump in letter-writing so one could make the excuse that enough people just do not bother to write to newspapers. Personally, I have handled letters in just about every newspaper organisation I have worked for and I have always found it a fascinating, exasperating, educational experience. But since the internet and social media, there is enough feedback at all times.
Many feel that Comments sections on websites are enough interaction with the public. But as any journalist knows, comments are often just a platform for vicious abuse. The Guardian’s former editor Alan Rusbridger was very firm that journalists must pay attention to comments but it is usually a thankless job of trawling through personal attacks. A readers’ editor – which The Guardian does have – provides a more workable interaction with readers.
There are also a number of misconceptions floating around about how a newsroom works. Television news, by bringing journalists into your home, has made everyone into a media commentator and expert, with neither knowledge nor experience.
A readers’ editor works both to dispel that ignorance as well as to make it clear to readers that they do matter.
The Hindu’s current readers’ editor AS Panneerselavan is a great example of how the post can work. He takes on readers’ complaints but he does not get caught up in the nitty-gritty. He explains the philosophy behind an article or a position or a newsroom angle. He draws distinct lines on how far a reader can accuse a newspaper but always with dignity and respect.
Television news as we can see need public or viewers’ editors really badly. One might argue that they need editors in general but I have decided not to be nasty.
Congratulations to The Wire and to Pamela and may all news organisations in India take a cue from this.