 |
||
|
||
|
||
TIME (Dec. 2000) magazine has declared that US President-elect George W Bush is its Person of the Year. In a letter to the reader, the magazine's Managing Editor, Walter Isaacson stated that the weekly had been considering "a variety of candidates" for Person of the Year. How was such a person chosen in the past? According to Mr Isaacson, "for 74 years that distinction has gone to the person (or, in two cases, the object that) for better or worse, most affected the news and personified what was important about the year."
Time had often chosen a new President-elect, but not always. Neither John F Kennedy nor Richard Nixon had been chosen Person of the Year in the year he had won. Then why has Bush been chosen this time? According to Time, head become "a symbol of a historic showdown that would be remembered and cited a century hence." If Al Gore had won, he too would have been chosen Time's Person of the Year. No doubt Bush has many good qualities about which there need be no controversy. But obviously he was chosen not because of his individual worth but because he symbolises "a historic showdown."
Time is entitled to its views. But take the Man of the Year chosen by the Cochin-based The Week (Dec. 24, 2000). Nobody but nobody has probably heard of him except by a small group of people. But that has not prevented The Week from choosing Ratan Katyayani for that high honour. Most people would probably ask: Ratan who? The Week in recent years has made it its habit to nominate persons of real merit who have done sterling work away from the prying eyes of reporters and photographers. The naming of Ratan Katyayini, therefore, comes as no surprise to those who know the weekly's propensities. But what exactly has this man done to merit The Week's approbation? In introducing him the magazine says: "Ten years ago, a young lawyer discovered that thousands of Indians had no citizenship rights.
They were nomads, the nowhere people. Ratan Katyayini quit his legal practice and settled 20,000 of them in Rajasthan. For centuries the nomadic tribes had been perpetually on the move, never knowing a permanent roof over their heads. Their children were born on the move, their elders died on the move. Development by-passed the wanderers. None of them had ration cards, none of them figured on voters' lists. None of their children went to school. Many of their women sold themselves for survival.
The establishment said the nomads did not want to live rooted to the earth. That their traditions and traders impelled them to wander. Katyayini proved that they yearned to break with the past." He decided to help them and he has succeeded, at the cost of his own career. Is that enough to make him Man of the Year? If it is not, what else is? The Week has to be congratulated for its own daring to look for something beyond the obvious. May it be said that it is the only magazine of its kind to do so.
In recent weeks at least three leading citizens have complained of being misquoted. One is the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. Another is RSS chief K S Sudarahan.
The third is the Mumbai-based chief of the Shiv Sena. The last has said that his statement on taking away the Muslims' right to vote "has been taken out of context and distorted by vested interests."
What the SS leader apparently had said was that "the so-called secular parties will not other about Muslims if the latter's right to vote is taken away from them." Is that really what he said? We have to take his word for it. The other person to complain of being misquoted is K S Sudershan. Sudershan was quoted by the media as having said that the disputed structure at Ayodhya was brought down by an explosion.
Deposing before the Liberhan Commission Sudershan maintained that his statement was based on an interview given by a well-known Gandhian Nirmala Deshpande in a section of the press and that the view ascribed to him was not his. He told the Commission: "The observations were made quoting Ms Despande. What was actually said by her has been attributed to me. The media converted the explosition into a blast, the blast into a bomb blast and out words in my mouth."
This is sickening in the extreme. It is amazing what our so-called national and supposedly responsible press would do to damn the RSS. But how can Sudershan prove that he has been misquoted? In its report the anti-RSS daily Hindustan Times made no mention of the fact that Sudershan had read "from the transcript of the recorded version of his speech made at an RSS meeting in Thiruvananthapuram on 8 December." The hindu in its own report mentioned this fact. Sudershan, then, was absolutely right in saying that his speech was distorted by the media. The Hindu (21 December) has gone a step further by reporting that Sudershan "handed over an audio cassette of his Thiruvananthapuram speech and an English transcript to Mr Justice Liberahan."
The Indian Express (22 December) nevertheless has found the occasion fit for writing an editorial damning Sudershan and others like the Shiv Sena chief and Uma Bharati, for daring to say that they have been miquoted.
This is what the Express comment on Sudershan is: "K S Sudershan, RSS chief, deposing before the Liberhan Commission, also discovers that he has been treated extremely shabbily by those funny people with their camera and notepads. He thunders that the observations he made were not his observations but the observations of somebody else and that the media just ended up having a blast at his experience..." It may be the opinion of the Indian express that Sudershan is not telling the truth. But it could at least have asked for a transcript of his speech and a copy of the tape before making an ass of itself. Comment is free but comment should be based on facts, not on rumours. Sudershan has given a transcript of his recorded speech and the audio cassette of his speech as well, to Justice Liberhan. Surely, the man is telling the truth?
At this stage it is important to raise certain pertinent questions. Reporting is not the easiest of jobs in a newspaper office. These days especially, a reporter has not only to know English very well, but he also needs to know Hindi just as well if not better, because leaders like Sudershan and Atal Behari Vajpayee tend to speak in Hindi most of the time. How many of our reporters know Hindi well? How many carry with them tape recorders so that they can fall back on them when in doubt? How many take down notes when a man is speaking in Hindi?
In what language do they take down the notes in Hindi or in English? If they are taking down their notes in English, can one be quite sure that they are truthfully and accurately translating what they heard in Hindi into English? Do they know shorthand?
In which language are they adept in shorthand: Shorthand in Hindi or in English? These are valid questions. Watch reporters at work at any meeting. Not many take down notes. Or the written notes are cursory. What is also to be noted is that men like Atal Behari Vajpayee have a great command over the Hindi language anyone must be aware of the nuances of the language, in order to appreciate what he has said.
It is cheap and easy to laugh at politicians when they say they have been misquoted. True, some politicians do say things that later on, when things get hot, they deny having said ever. The Express editorial makes a reference to this. Politicians - at least some of them - are known to say one of the followings :
I never said what I have been quoted as saying
I never meant what I have been quoted as saying
What I have said has been cruelly torn out of context and I have been completely misinterpreted.
Let us presume that politicians, as a class, are rogues. But does that lessen the responsibilities of the press in correctly reporting what has been said by any politician or public figure? Let newspapers ask themselves the following questions:
How many of our reporters are fluent in English as well as in Hindi?
How many of our reporters know one or more other regional languages?
How many of our reporters are conversant with both Hindi and English shorthand?
How many actually take down a given speech in full - in shorthand?
How many carry with them tape recorders to report important speeches?
How many take the trouble to check back with the audio cassettes to hake sure that their reporting is accurate?
Reporting is serious business. It is not something to be taken lightly. How many editors/newseditors/chief reporters check on whether a reporter assigned to a story has actually been present at the event and has not taken down a report second hand from a colleague working for another paper?
It is easy to sneer at the RSS or the Shiv Sena because they are easy targets. This is not to say that the leaders to these groups are not above taking a reporter for a ride. What is true of them could be true of leaders of any political party. But a special responsibility lies on our newspapers and the men who run them.
Do sneer at politicians: they are
easy targets. But professionally speaking, let us look at our own selves
and our responsibilities as reporters and editorial writers. Newspaper
credibility cannot be left to irresponsible journalists.
|
||
|
||
|
||