Singur: The Hindu responds, partly

It was a pleasant surprise to find the Reader’s Editor of The Hindu responding to the accusations made in my previous post on Singur/Nandigram. Thanks to Desicritics, Desipundit and Blogbharati for extending the reach of the post.

I came across some interesting comments on some published letters on the Singur/Nandigram land acquisition controversy in West Bengal. A letter referred to "rumours of land acquisition" while the same issue of the paper carried the news of the Chief Minister admitting that the Haldia Development Authority had issued a notice to acquire land. This "factual inaccuracy" is explained by the time gap between the processing of letters and placing them on the page, which is done early in the day, and the news development and its reporting.

Along with this comment came the observation that all the letters The Hindu carried were from "non-Bengal locations," 2000 km from West Bengal. This is strange: is it the argument that only residents of a State can comment on developments within that State? The spread of the paper's readership is known. It is only natural that the letters originate mostly from this readership.

The first explanation is accepted. With regard to the second, my major contention was that the Letters to the Editor should be a representation of the people’s perspective on the issue. It should give voice to dissent and avoid reiteration of the newspapers’s stand, something which has been agreed in the above column.

But that process should not muffle or distort the voice of the people, which the column presents. The letter appears under the contributor's name and should reflect the original as faithfully as possible. Variety in style should be the spice of this column, not rewritten uniformity. They should not become opinion manufactured in-house — that some newspapers are said to do, and a charge a couple of readers laid against The Hindu too.

Priority should be given to alternative opinions. After all, we see newspaper as a source of information; not as a snap poll on the agreement or otherwise of its readers to its views.

I never questioned the liberty of non-residents of the state from commenting. What my concern was that, if the selection of the letters carried atleast a few from the state, it would have been a better reflection of what people at the ground zero think. I am not convinced with the cover of “spread of the paper's readership”. Yes, we all know that The Hindu has a better readership in South India. But I am sure it enjoys a respectable readership in Kolkatta, if not in the whole of West Bengal. A letter or two from there would have extended some credibility to the column.

Finally, one of the commentators on the Singur post at Desicritics wondered if “The Hindu puts doctored or manufactured letters under Letters to the Editor.” I confidently responded that “I don't think The Hindu would stoop so low to doctor letters, though from my personal experience, I know that they do reduce the length of letters.”

Today’s column eroded my confidence when it admitted that a two-sentence letter was re-phrased and published in a manner that the “printed version had no resemblance to the original”. Retrospectively, the Editor-in-Chief feels that instead of “sanitizing”, the letter should have been "dumped". So while The Hindu clamors for freedom of expression, even if it means protection of dubious finance companies, it itself would never grant the same.