Protecting editors
The Role and Status of the Editor
A meeting of The Editors Guild of India was held in
As an association of print and broadcast editors, Members of the Guild were understandably concerned at these developments and felt that the matter merited further study and deliberation. To this end it was decided to set up a committee consisting of B.G. Verghese, Kuldip Nayyar and Pran Chopra to report on the status, role and responsibility of the Editor.
In order to elicit a wider and more considered range of views and experiences, a brief questionnaire was sent out by me on behalf of the Committee. This sought responses on the following matters:
1. What is the role and responsibility of the Editor in relation to (i) the proprietor; (ii) his/her colleagues and staff as a whole; (iii) readers/viewers/listeners and society generally; and (iv) the law and the Constitution.
2. Should he/she have any contractual security/guarantees.
3. Do the organisation and structure of media houses /Boards of Directors offer the Editor any protection? If not, can this be introduced in any manner without fettering legitimate proprietorial rights?
4. What is your experience regarding these matters?
5. Are there any other issues or aspects that should be considered?
Mr Nayyar and Mr Chopra were requested to add to these queries to elicit additional information and views. They did not do so. Thereafter, since neither was available despite several reminders, possibly for good reasons, I had no option but to proceed on my own.
Sunita Narain forwarded me correspondence addressed to the Guild by Prof. Dinesh Mohan of IIT,
Separately, reference was made to the removal of a broadcast editor but no material was forwarded.
A newspaper, journal or news channel is a complex organisation with both editorial and managerial functions and responsibilities. While the editorial function is at the heart of any news organization, it requires management support in varying degrees in relation to finance and revenues, advertising, circulation/transmission, personnel, stores and accounting. In earlier parlance this marked the division between the Publisher (the owner or prime funder) and the Editor. Very often the role of publisher and editor were combined, and remains so today in the case of some small or family-owned establishments. But with the growth of news organisations from being a family business or mission to becoming an industry, a separation of functions and powers has become increasingly necessary, though at the end of the day it is the publisher who is supreme.
However, news organizations derive their mission and mandate from the right to freedom of expression, which is most often constitutionally guaranteed though it is essentially an inalienable and precedent universal human right. Governments may at best regulate but do not bestow freedom of expression. In a news collective, print or broadcast, the publisher may exercise the right to publish or broadcast words or images, but the professional custodian of that right or freedom is the Editor who exercises the responsibility to gather, select, edit and publish/broadcast "all the news that’s fit to print".
This responsibility is reflected in the imprint line of newspapers and carries with it a legal responsibility for everything that appears, including advertisements and pictures. In any modern news organisation imbued with the technological capability instantly to reach audiences anywhere, such responsibility has increasingly and necessarily to be delegated under the Editor’s overall oversight. All newspersons are, each in their own way, editors, gatekeepers, reporters. They report to their departmental heads who report to the Editor, with whom the buck stops. He/she is the collective conscience of the media organization. The Editor is appointed by the Publisher and is accountable to him/her but the relationship, apart from contractual and legal obligations, is one that is expected to be governed by principles of mutual respect and trust, natural justice and fair play.
The Editor should in turn recognize and respect the legitimate rights and interests of the management and the editorial staff. He/she should regard himself/herself as being first among equals, avoid being overbearing and be open to discussion and persuasion while reserving the last word in the interests of overall discipline.
Readers, listeners and viewers have a right to objective, fair and balanced presentation, reflecting all legitimate points of view and the right to correction and reply without delay. At the end of the day it is the media’s credibility (integrity) and moral standing that is its shield and anchor. There is a legal obligation to keep within the ambit of "reasonable restrictions" prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Arbitrary restraints are subject to appeal.
The Press Council has built up a code of conduct which has been codified and published from time to time. This is a useful guide. Unfortunately, the broadcast media is as yet without a regulatory mechanism and has not as yet come up with an accepted code of conduct. Some media organisations have fashioned their own internal codes of conduct and have established internal ombudsmen. The Hindu has a Reader’s Editor who assumes that function and critically reviews errors and omissions that are regularly published. The Indian Express has recently started a "Corrections" column that takes note of readers’ comments. But the major channel of communication and feedback is the traditional Letters/Reader’s Views column. Broadcast organizations have no corresponding slot and would do well to consider providing time for listeners’/viewers’ comments on a regular basis.
Do or should Editors have contractual guarantees for security of tenure? It is difficult to see what these might be and how effective they might prove. Some journalists have qualms about contracts and take comfort in wage board protections. On the whole, these make for lazy journalism and weaken the position of the Editor to reward or punish as the case may be. The principle of hire and fire has its negative aspects but total security breeds indolence and evasion of responsibility.
Part of the weakness and vulnerability of news organisations is that Boards of Management give exclusive or excessive weightage to family/proprietorial interests. The appointment of men and women of standing as public interest directors would introduce a level of participation that would normally be expected to prevent narrowly partisan policies, excessive bias and unfair practices. These Directors would be custodians of the public interest as opposed to purely family/corporate welfare, if and when these collide. Trusts are a different proposition Few exist and while the Tribune Trust, for instance, is a model, the Statesman’s experiment in the 1960s with twin boards of management and editorial trustees proved abortive.
The real problem lies in the steady growth of market driven media, all fiercely competitive and anxious to grab readers or eyeballs. With honourable exceptions, this has sometimes led to a spiralling down of standards and values, catering to the lowest common factor with a fare of sensation and infotaianment. The reach of the media has enhanced its power and political clout, with mass viewerships and circulations bringing in huge income flows. The change over from mission to market has also impacted on the relationship between Proprietor/Manager and Editor, the latter often being content to assume second place. Horizontal expansion, with multiple editions and channels in multiple languages, multi-media conglomerates, local/district editions and multiple sections with different editors has resulted in dilution of top editorial control. Managers and "Response" Departments have cosied up to business houses and brands. Advertising- for-equity bargains have been reported as well as the sale of editorial space and sponsoring of supplements. At the other end of the scale, reporters and, particularly, stringers have sprouted and have been known to use their media calling cards as negotiable instruments to build or mar reputations, facilitate or obstruct business transactions and clearances or act as piece-work lobbyists. Such elements have little contact with Editors and operate under another chain of command.
Some well known media organizations have no Editor but only page or section editors. In other cases, Editors appear to have abdicated their authority, spending more time outside their offices during critical hours, attending seminars, appearing on channels or writing columns, delivering lectures, appearing in the company of the big and the beautiful, acting as brand managers. This appreciation is perhaps exaggerated but is sufficiently true to be cause for anxiety.
The decline of the Editor is by no means universal. There are excellent Editors and very good deputies. But a few rotten apples tend to affect the quality of the basket. Many have allowed themselves to be trampled over.
Mr Akbar and Mr Kalbag did not formally represent their cases as perceived by them. Nor did the respective managements vouchsafe any explanation to the readers for the sudden editorial changes at the top. There was, moreover, little internal or public protest or sense of media outrage. Maybe this signals the need to introspect on the role and responsibility of the Editor in the wider context of public concern over what is happening to media values and standards in the country as a whole.
The Guild should consider preparing a Code for Editors as a guide for the future. Some elements of that might be found in this note. But a wider discussion could help fashion a Code for general discussion and adoption. This is best produced by some of the Guild’s currently working Editors.
B.G. Verghese
The Editor’s Guild