You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
You may find that hard to believe, perhaps. But believe me, so many leader writers (and, of course, their bosses, the editors) write so much so badly that my job--of pouring scorn on the purveyors of editorials--becomes very easy.
I can spot hypocrisy, laziness, poor fact-checking, and attempts to pad the edit without any difficulty. I know which editor will say what and how about an issue even before he starts to type. If ever there was someone who could editorialise on editorials, it is me. There is no trick in the game that I don`t know. After all I used to be a regular leader-writer once and I have written nearly 10,000 edits during the last 30 years or so. I still write one or two occasionally, just to keep my hand in.
Someone sent a mail once asking why I insisted on soiling my own nest. I told him it was best I did it rather than someone who had no clue as to how the game was played. Mostly, though, at the risk of some immodesty, I must say that my fans, around 7 in all, have all been very kind and even complimentary. They seem to enjoy my cattiness which, however, is not unwarranted.
Consider, for instance, editorial inconsistency which depends on the political needs of the paper. Thus, when K R Narayanan became an activist president, The Hindu praised him fulsomely because it didn`t like the BJP against whom the President was activating himself. But when President Abdul Kalam did the same thing over the office of profit issue, the paper was scathing in its criticism. Don`t subvert the Constitution, it said.
We saw a similar thing happen over the Cauvery waters issue. The Hindu, which is Chennai based, was all praise while the Deccan Herald which is Bangalore based, took the opposite view. Both have pretensions to being national newspapers.
Another example: when the Bihar government was dismissed by the Governor, Buta Singh, the Supreme Court took him to task for it. Everyone knew that the real culprits were Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh without whose instructions to the Cabinet the Bihar assembly would not have been dissolved. But the leader writers all asked Buta`s head.
Sometimes when they have nothing to say, leader-writers can turn poetic. After the Mumbai deluge in 2005, it was a free for all. It was verbiage of a rare order. It shames even me to give you some of the quotes.
Then there is that awful thing, economics. As if the pink papers are not bad enough, we have the general newspapers also trying to sound economics-literate. In the process they forget that the ordinary reader neither cares nor wants to know about how much jargon the leader writer knows. He only wants an explanation to what is going on, and this rarely forthcoming. Does he get it? No sir.
The woolly liberal edit writer takes the cake, however, because he can never decide which side he is on. The Afzal Guru death sentence showed how silly the leader-writers and their bosses can be. Only a handful took a clearheaded view, namely, that if the Supreme Court had decided surely that was the end of the matter.
Finally, there is sycophancy. Here is an example from the Hindu. "…it would be grossly unfair to attribute Ms. Gandhi`s iconic image in the party today to anything other than her own sterling qualities and inner reserves. Her political career is the stuff of fairy tales. Who could have guessed that the awkward, tentative Gandhi daughter-in-law who came to the rescue of the Congress at a critical moment would grow into a figure of such standing and importance? Or that one day she would enter history books as that rare politician who, offered the crown, turned it down?" Wow! This from a newspaper that called her husband some very nasty names in 1988.
The point I am trying to make is this. An important function of the editorial is to present to the reader an alternative view to the received wisdom on the subject. But that requires not just digging into the files on the day when you write but constant updating and thought on a whole range of issues. Few leader-writers do this because most are not intellectually equipped for it. And even when they are, their editors are not, which makes things even worse.
Leader-writers also need to know the history of the subjects they specialise in. They need to know the complete background, and not just what they find in the files. They need to know why something happened in a particular way and not in any other.
That requires constant hard work in the form of reading and talking to people. Only a few make the cut.
Nor are the editors much better, I am afraid. I know several of them and have no hesitation is saying that they should never have become editors. An editors` job is of great responsibility, both professional and moral. Only a handful is up to it.
Nor do many people realise that many of our best-known editors have been editors for far too long. Just see how many editors have been there for well over 15 years and you will see what I mean. Why do we not see younger people becoming editors just as they had done in the 1980s when Indian newspapers underwent such massive change?
Should there not be a fixed tenure for editors as well, say, ten years at most, which is a long, long time. If not, someone should explain why not. And the reasons had better be pretty damn good because this sort of longevity has bred amongst many editors, insufferable complacence and arrogance, not to mention links with politicians and political parties that doesn`t serve the reader well at all.
The situation gets worse when you see the preference for the so-called "hands-on editor" who thinks being that way obviates the need to read and think. The result is a devaluation of the editorial.
And that devaluation is what this column focuses on. So read on McDuffs. You have nothing to lose but your innocence.
Contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com