Without credibility a newspaper will perish

The usefulness of the press

by Kumar David

"The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account - trying them in the court of public opinion". These prescient remarks come from The Economist (August 26th, 2006) Leader article.

Television has stolen a huge share of the natural audience for news and entertainment - not to mention advertising - and the web with its marvellous new search engines provides instant, near unlimited, access to information. Well organised web sites and a multitude of amateur bloggers churn up analysis and opinions from the valuable to the preposterous.

However, neither TV nor the web can do quite as well as a respected and responsible newspaper in holding, not just governments, but businesses, parties and personages to account. Even when a big story first breaks on TV or the net it is only when it is picked-up by the print media and explored and analysed all over its pages that public opinion really gels.

The Economist does not pause to ponder why, but one reason is the physical difference in the human contact between electronic and material media. The first thing a PhD student does on encountering a good research paper on the web is to print it out, underline, annotate and ponder.

A second reason in countries such as ours is the accessibility and the immediate community nature of the print medium as opposed to the web and perhaps even TV. Everybody may have glanced at a paper in the morning, or on the bus on the way to work, but rarely would two people who meet at work or socially, have visited the same web site just previously. A final reason could be the varied analytical depth, to suit different needs, that a bevy of newspapers can conveniently offer.

The Readers' Editor

A remarkable development in enhancing the accountability of a newspaper is the appointment of a Readers' Editor, a practice that started in the US some decades ago. The following is an extract from the web-site of India's Hindu newspaper which boasts a history of 127 years and a readership of 3.75 million.

"The Hindu believes it is the first newspaper in the history of Indian journalism to appoint a Readers' Editor. The Readers' Editor will be the independent, full-time internal ombudsman of The Hindu.

The key objectives of this appointment are to institutionalise the practice of self-regulation, accountability, and transparency; to create a new visible framework to improve accuracy, verification, and standards in the newspaper; and to strengthen bonds between the newspaper and its millions of print platform and online readers.

The Hindu wishes to acknowledge that it has been inspired to do this by the exemplary practice and experience of The Guardian, U.K." The full text of the terms of reference can be found on: www.hindu.com/2006/01/14stories/2006011405341300.htm

The party was slightly spoilt by the appointment of Mr K. Narayanan - no reflection on him personally - who had been with the newspaper for 50 years as the first Readers' Editor. Typical of readers' comments was: "It was disappointing to see a former News Editor of The Hindu being appointed Readers' Editor. Mr. Narayanan is sure to be bound by the newspaper's line of thinking."

Readers wanted a consultative role in the choice.

What about our press?

Technically the press in this country is adequately, if not well equipped, and one cannot complain about tangibles such as paper and ink quality, readability and illustrations. The quality of journalism spans the range oft-times from the good sometimes to the gutter - quite normal. But are our news organisations "up to the task of sustaining the informed citizenry on which democracy depends", to echo the words of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a charitable research foundation quoted by the Economist?

None other than Lake House Friday Magazine Editor, Ajith Samaranayake, fired the opening salvo in this debate some months ago. Ajith's case, mainly in defence of Sri Lanka's government owned newspapers, was that all news organisations worked under constraints and limitations such as ownership, advertisers and other forms of subsidy and support.

The constraints vary case by case but do not necessarily vitiate the whole product. Fair case I would say, familiar as I am with how telecommunications advertising revenue has got the whole 'free press' dancing to the tune of private service providers, making it an accomplice in fleecing the public.

The BBC is a government owned statutory organisation, but its reliability and independence though imperfect are respected. Al-Jaziera has a huge following and though part owned by the government of Qatar brings independent content to Arabic-literate public attention; it is also carefully monitored internationally.

Selective reporting, distortion or tendentious silence does not have to be a necessary result of government proprietorship. The gauge is whether editors, writers and journalists pull on the leash be it government, advertisers or sponsors.

The jury is out

So how hard do we pull? This writer is the first to admit to a degree of self-censorship, even prior to editorial surgery, but not to the point of vitiating the essential message.

One can be steadfast, one can censure governments and powerful parties when necessary - no compromise is possible on, say human rights violations - but also do so in measured and moderated tones; in any case this is more effective than bluster or mockery. LSse-majest, against an incumbent (but not former!) head of state is third-world media's Achilles' heel and it can be avoided without subverting the message.

The public is the ultimate jury and it is for you, dear reader, to judge whether the press in this country measures up to Ajith's claim, whether it provides fair and balanced coverage. Newspapers themselves must be tried in the court of public opinion and reputations once tarnished are not easily restored.

It is understood and accepted that state owned news organisations in many countries are constrained in certain ways. But do non-state news organisations in Sri Lanka inspire confidence for balance and reliability? Unfortunately, in some respects at least, they do not pass with flying colours.

No denying, some of the investigative reporting has been remarkably informative - scoops on inner and inter-party political machinations, defence situation reports, property transactions of presidents and their associates, are examples of bold investigative journalism.

However, the litmus test in this country, surely, has to be balance and openness in news and views on what is called "the ethnic issue." The private media is less constrained than the government owned press, but has it been an exemplar in openness to views other than those of the editors and owners, on this the central issue of our times? I would argue that the record is flawed.

For example, Mr. Anandasangaree gets full-page publicity - no fault of his - despite his negligible following, but mass pro-Tamil, let alone pro-LTTE views are absent. Though personally I am not a Tamil nationalist, I do believe that the exclusion of this viewpoint from the 'national' press diminishes its entitlement to that adjective.