In a newspaper set-up

Restore Editor's Dignity

NOTHING is more amusing in these hapless days than the circulation war between The Times of India (the world's largest selling newspaper, no less) and The Hindustan Times (Delhi's largest selling newspaper, or so it claims). A couple of weeks ago The Times of India claimed that in Delhi it has pushed its rival to second place and won't everyone kindly raise their glass and drink to the health of the Old Lady of Bori Bunder? The OLBB's Delhi avatar has long been vying with The Hindustan Times for the heart and mind of the capital's readers of English language papers that now include The Tribune as well. The Tribune, like the Kolkata-based The Statesman is a sober newspaper not given to displaying semi-nude models and others of their ilk. The war of semi-nude display unquestionably was started by The Times of India and to everyone's dismay, The Hindustan Times has taken-up the challenge. Rumours have it that in this battle the loser is Debonair, not to mention Fantasy though this may not be true though again it should surprise no one if it is. Parading nudity is now an article of faith with our so-called ‘national’ Press. If The Times of India in Delhi has its counterpart of Bombay Times, The Hindustan Times has its HT City; like twins, they are often indistinguishable, one from the other. It was The Times of India that first dared to blow its trumpet and to announce to an indifferent world that it has become the capital's Number One paper. That should have elicited a well-merited yawn from the average reader but then The Hindustan Times picked up the challenge to inform the world that its rival was not exactly accustomed to telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That could well be considering that in recent times The Times of India has shifted its famous emblem with its inapt motto ‘Let Truth Prevail’ from the top (as part of the title) to the sidelines (or above column one). This, incidentally, was noticed by a reader who wrote to tell the paper that this change was unfair, and reminded him of what Mark Twain once said: “Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let's economic on it”. According to The Hindustan Times there is just one universally recognised body that certifies newspaper circulations and that is the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC). “Ever since ABC started checking, the Delhi edition of HT has consistently beaten TOI in every single ABC report” claimed The Hindustan Times. Then it added: “This July, ABC certified that HT's circulation had risen further: it was certified at 9.55 lakh, making it the largest circulated English newspaper edition in the country. But something curious happened. TOI decided not to submit its circulation to ABC. It did not want to be subjected to any independent verification. Why did TOI do this?

TOI's reply is that its circulation figures have been authenticated by The Indian Readership Survey (IRS) 2002. “There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics.... Newspapers are free to claim whatever circulation they like for themselves. But if they are to expect anybody to believe them, then they need to get their claims verified by an independent body” fumed The Hindustan Times. The Hindustan Times, news-wise is no better or worse than its rival. It probably needs some better sub-editors, though. A newspaper report on the Kaveri water dispute in HT says: “By refusing to release water he (S.M. Krishna of Karnataka) has effectively embarrassed Jaya (Jayalalitha of Tamil Nadu), who is fuming and fretting. Serves her right, is it?” Play it again, Sam: is it?

A Bench comprising Justice U.C. Banerjee and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan gave this ruling rejecting the contention of the Chief Editor of Malayala Manorama, K.M. Mathew, the Managing Editor of The Indian Express, Vivek Goenka and the (former) Resident Editor of Hindustan Hari Narain Nigam that only the Editor whose name was printed was liable to be prosecuted. The Bench did not accept their argument that they could not be prosecuted in view of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1987 which says that declaration as to who was the Editor is a prima facie evidence. The Court felt that even if a person's name is printed as Editor of a paper, he could still show that he was really not the Editor and had no control over the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. Reported The Hindu “The Bench was of the view that there was no statutory immunity against the Managing Editor, the Resident Editor or the Chief Editor against any prosecution for the alleged publication of any matter in the newspaper over which these persons exercise control.”

This entire business of naming persons as Managing Editors, Executive Editors, Executive Managing Editors, Resident Editors and Editors in charge of News is—so far as Indian newspapers are concerned—a recent development. It is a silly copy of western ways. A paper may have a General Manager, a Circulation Manager and an Advertising Manager but in no way are these distinguished gentlemen entitled to call themselves Editors. That is a needless foray into the editorial realm. On any one paper there can only be one Editor and that is the man who is—and should be held—responsible for what gets published, and takes legal raps on his knuckles. The tragedy is that in today's newspaper world editorship is downgraded and that does no credit to the sphere of journalism or to the standing of an Editor. Nobody ever heard of Managing Editors and Executive Editors in the days of S. Sadanand, Frank Moraes, Tushar Kanti Ghosh or Durga Das, let alone a Devdas Gandhi or a Pothan Joseph. As Editors those men were held in high regard by both journalists themselves and the public at large. Who could ever have supplanted a Kasturi Srinivasan or a Stalin Srinivasan or a Syed Abdullah Brelvi or a Benjam Guy Horniman? It is time that Editors are returned their dignity and place in a newspaper. The buck stops at their desks, which is as it should be. Fancy titles such as Managing Editor and Executive Editor merely serve to highlight managerial pomposity and lessen the standing of the Editor even while imposing harsh responsibilites on him. It is time this silly custom is given up for good. Let us have only Editors—Just plain Editors responsible for what goes under their names in their papers. That should be good enough for all purposes stated and unstated.