Such amazing editorial insouciance

BY Thakore| IN Opinion | 29/07/2006

Hammer and tongs

ALOKE THAKORE

If you make a mistake, you offer a correction. If you hurt someone`s sentiments, you apologize. If you are Mumbai Mirror, you offer a clarification. In what must rank as a new low in how to deal with errors of commission in newspapers, Mumbai Mirror ran a front-page "clarification" about a photograph that they had published on July 20, 2006. The photograph that was being clarified was a shot that was supposed to be Mr Javed Miandad`s son and Mr Dawood Ibrahim`s daughter`s "smile for the camera after saying `kubool hai` in this July 2005 photograph" (Bullion Dollar Smile, 20 July, 2006). It turned out that this was a photograph of a couple from Chennai. To err is human, and there is no reason to believe that anyone occupying a corner of the Times of India building is either a mutant or an alien, though one can never be sure in these deleterious times.

The way in which the tabloid chose to address the error that it made is one with the insolence and flippancy that marks the attitude of the press in the way it handles egg on their face. The thing to say would have been "Sorry readers, we got it wrong. There can be no explanations for the error. We apologize to you and we apologize to the couple whom we mistakenly labelled as Dawood`s daughter and Miandad`s son." Instead what we got was the following, and in order to understand how the newspaper behaved it merits being quoted in full.

Headlined "Clarification" the text read: This refers to the photograph published on the front page of our issue dated 20th July, 2006, under the caption "Photo Exclusive". We have now been informed by one Ejaz Anwar of Chennai that the photograph is of him and his wife taken at their wedding in Chennai. On receiving the photo from our usually reliable source, we did some verification since the pictures of either Junaid Miandad or Mahrukh Ibrahim were not published at any time in the Indian media. We, therefore, searched some Pakistani websites and found that the very same photo had appeared on one of the Pakistani websites in June 2006, identifying the couple as Junaid and Mahrukh. That led us to believe our source and we carried the photo in our paper. On receiving an oral complaint from Ejaz Anwar, we have apologised to him and his family. We believe that Ejaz and his family as well as our readers will understand the strange circumstances under which this error occurred. We once again apologise to Ejaz and his family for unintentionally causing embarrassment to them. Editor

Let us parse this for what it is. Clarifies comes from the Latin clarus meaning clear. One clarifies that which is confusing, confounding, impure, muddied, or in a word that which is unclear. One does not clarify a mistake. An error is corrected and its effects need an apology. Let us continue with the clarification. The editor informs the reader that on receiving the photo from their "usually reliable source" they did "some verification." The choice of the gerund, "usually", is touching. This source, from whom a photo of none other than the master fugitive from Mumbai`s daughter is taken, is "usually reliable". I guess we must surmise that there have been times when the source has not been entirely reliable. Do we as the readers have a right to know at least the background of this source? Was this source someone from the police, investigating agencies, underworld, an invitee at the wedding, a photographer, a cyber hack who possibly intercepts mails, a postal department worker, a family friend, or was the source just someone in the office doing a web search for "Mahrukh" and "Junaid." We are told the source is "usually reliable" and one must assume then that s/he is someone usually relied upon. Dear Editor, why not at least tell us something about this source just so we know when to be wary the next time such sources are usually relied upon.

Read further. The verification was done because the photographs of this couple had not been published in the Indian media. Presumably the way the verification process works is that if the media, and we know what levels of verification they follow, had printed it there would not have been any need for verification. But pause. This verification was done by going on the web and doing a website search. Is the editor really not ashamed putting this in print? It reminded me of my sixth standard teacher who would tell us boys to pull out our shirts and hide our faces in shame when we did something that was puerile by sixth grade standards. Reliance on websites for the veracity of photographs would be jejune, one had hoped, even in the babble-book of the newly minted tabloid from the TOI stable. Then there is the "therefore". Since the photograph was supposed to be of Miandad`s son and Ibrahim`s daughter, where could the search have been if not on Pakistani websites. Armed with such an illuminating logic, Mumbai Mirror found the photograph on a Pakistani website and believed the usually reliable source.

When an "oral complaint" was received by the newspaper they apologized to "Ejaz" who we need to assume, after this oral complaint, is now on first name terms with the newspaper and its editor right after they told the world that he was Miandad`s son and his wife was Ibrahim`s daughter. Not content they would have the reader and Mr Ejaz believe the "strange circumstances under which this error occurred." Strange is a queer word because the standards that the newspaper is sharing in this clarification belong to the realm of sloppiness and stupidity.

As for the "clarification", it belongs to the realm of editorial insouciance that the readers seem to be condemned to suffer for while understanding is asked of the reader for the "strange circumstances" there is nary a word of correction or a word of apology.   

 feedback: hammerntongs@fastmail.in