How not to write on foreign topics

BY Darius Nakhoonwala| IN Opinion | 09/02/2008

You don¿t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

One of the enduring issues in edit writing on foreign topics is how to go about it. What does one dish out to the reader: analysis so that he or she can make sense of what¿s going on or opinion as to what should be, elongated by a regurgitation of tiresome facts?

Some leader writers and editors never seem to remember that Indian newspapers rarely comment on foreign political events, never mind even if it is the US. So not only are they themselves out of practice, they also forget that the reader may know even less.

These dilemmas and shortcomings came into sharp focus earlier this week when several papers thought it their duty to comment ton the US Super Tuesday primaries. Typically, though, not one bothered to explain what these are, except the Indian Express which erred on the other side, going on and on about them.

"The process of primary elections to select nominees emerged out of a desire, a century ago, to minimise manipulation by political bosses…This year-long process has been applauded as a purer democracy than any, for engaging every citizen in the high-stakes business of choosing a president. Candidates are tested across everything, policy minutiae thrashed out and positions taken on each issue that matters to the electorate."

The Telegraph spoke only about the results of the Tuesday voting. "The Democrats in the United States of America are clearly confused about who they think should be their candidate for the top job in the US… both the competing candidates — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — can claim a tie." It then rambled a bit about these two choices but failed to mention whether the US was ready for either a woman or a black – that too with a middle name like Hussein!

The Hindu ruled out the latter in its heading itself: McCain Vs Hillary? Then it got into arcane detail that would not interest any but the most boring old bag with nothing else to do. It was just plain showing off.

The Asian Age said "either of them will make history for the United States: she as the first woman President, he as the first African-American President." Really? Wow! Gee, whiz!! Unlike the Hindu, it thought Mr Obama had a better chance of winning the nomination. "Mr Obama appears to be riding what is fast becoming a wave, and although he was slightly behind in the Super Tuesday results, the race remains close. Iraq is an issue on which Mr Obama has definitely stolen a lead over Mrs Clinton…" Then it went off into a pet peeve. "…the Palestinians can expect little by way of a solution to their longstanding problem regardless of who finally succeeds President Bush."

The Pioneer wrote an edit that exhibited all the above shortcomings.  It did improve the perspective, though when it wrote "Ms Clinton is keen to be seen as a mainstream, Centrist Democrat - legatee of her husband¿s presidency. Mr McCain is an old-fashioned political conservative, whose views on abortion, faith-based concerns and immigration have often had him at odds with his party¿s core. But that is where the similarities end."

How I wish the editors and their lackeys would think of what the average reader wants to be told, and not show off or peddle a  pet hobby horse.