|
|
By:
T R Jawahar trjawahar@vsnl.net |
|
|
|
About
the Columnist |
|
|
Friday, 05 February, 2010 ,
10:20 PM
The overwhelming response to our ‘Talk to us, please’ request is indeed quite heartwarming. Kindly keep the flow going because it is turning out to be a one-of-the-kind mass feedback exercises that is most educative and enlightening, not just to us in Talk but to the media profession itself. It is also a humbling experience to realise what a cocoon we, the ‘all-knowing journalists’ revel in. But it also raises a question, in a pervert way, maybe: Where were all of you all these days? Like all papers, Talk too has a ‘Letters to the Editor’ section, Voicemail. The residents clearly have not been using this space fully. Of course, this may not be the right time for me to solicit letters. What with Valentine’s Day round the corner, an Editor is the last person one would want to write an epistle to, unless the E is an eligible bachelor, which is not the case here. Sure, these days, age and marital status are no bar for some eager Valentines, like say Governors, but such schemes too are beyond this Editor’s orbit ... currently. But then I am drifting. My point is it is the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section that consummates the media’s claim as a watchdog and fourth pillar. If a newspaper is the ‘medium’ or catalyst through which the ruled connects with the ruler and the aggrieved appeals to the aggressor, nothing exemplifies this role as the feedback columns do. In any case for a newspaper, the reader is the most favoured Valentine, even as we wink at the advertiser, and there is no greater pleasure if the love is reciprocated. The ‘Letters to the Editor’ section (make it LTTE or LTE, though it sounds ominous, but then that’s how most respondents sound as they should) has a history that is as old as newspapers. In fact, early newspapers published news, opinions & prime content in the form of letters. Discerning readers made the newsprint a veritable and vibrant platform for political and public debates in America and Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries. Naturally, the LTEs were long and scholarly. But as the scribe tribe took over along with their pretensions of intellectual superiority, under the guise of ‘objectivity’ and ‘professionalism’, the LTEs were gradually relegated to obscure print locales and reduced in size too. That said, but for the fonts and some cosmetics, this is one column that has changed very little over time in terms of presentation. Now, should not readers reclaim what is rightfully theirs as much as possible? That is provided, I am not asked to vacate! Now, over to some insights from experience, liberally aided by downloaded www wisdom. Needless to say, space is the constraint. Despite the readers’ aforesaid legitmate inheritance of newspaper pages, journos today have the advantage of adverse possession and are unlikely to clear off from the area they have trespassed. In any case, if so many of us are put out of work and let loose on society, it would be a catastrophe. So it is in public interest for our ilk to stay put where we are so that the reader at least has the option of skipping our unsolicited opinions. Now, wait please ... exempt me till I am through. Brevity indeed is a key virtue of LTEs. But no SMS please ... not that brief, I mean! A typical LTE should not exceed 200 words, for, not just the print space but the mind space of your reader, the editor or sub-editor here, too is limited. In any case beyond 200 words, you become a journo yourself, a profession I would not recommend in due consideration of your physical and mental health. There are other conditions and etiquettes. To be effective, the LTE writer should confine to just one or two points and not try to pack too many thoughts which may lead to dilution. The language and grammar are important, for it means less work for us and easy passage for you. Originality is vital; in these internet times, cut and paste plagiarism will show up as fast. Also, tone matters most. The right to be offensive is reserved solely for journos and is taboo for LTE writers; we are quite capable of getting into trouble on our own without any aid from you! Personal attacks and libellous allegations too are our birthright. Ditto for controversial issues although what is controversial is very subjective. Publication of LTEs in such cases is also subject to certain conveniences, compulsions and policy constraints. But it works in the reverse too. There are cases where newspapers use the readers’ voice to deliver some inconvenient truths or ideas that they themselves would not want to officially associate with. Many publishers restrict letters from the same reader — in fact, there are readers who are more prolific than most editors — but we at Talk welcome the practice. Another key issue is Anonymity. Many readers, writing on sensitive issues, send anonymous letters, fearing retribution. Newspapers routinely shun such nameless letters even if the issue referred to is legitimate and print-worthy. But I learn some papers have tried their hands at an ‘Anonymous Letters’ column. Of course, there is no way of checking if the reader is using a false name. In times of political oppression like during the Emergency days shackles on press freedom get extended to readers’ mail too. The LTE also lends itself to misuse, by newspapers, readers and certain vested interests. A Wiki search yields some interesting and comic episodes. There is this famous phrase ‘Disgusted of Turnbridge Wells’ (I heard of it only yesterday). The editor of Turnbridge Wells Advertiser, upset at the lack of readers’ mail, coaxed his staff to write a few. One frustrated bloke signed as Mr Disgusted and hence the legend! Again, there are cases where politicians and organisations use proxies to write letters against an opponent or competitor and gullible papers have fallen prey. Admittedly, all these leave very little room for the ardent LTE writer, but the tribe has still held and must actually swell. Growing literacy, rising comfort with many languages, particularly English and e-mail leave a reader no excuses for shirking his democratic right and duty: Voice and vote have to be necessarily exercised even if they fall on deaf ears or help dumb candidates, respectively. Also, there is no dearth of provocations for the common man and written public articulation might after all bring some succour. Let me assure you, most civic authorities and many politicians read the LTEs and quite a few take them seriously. In any case, we are running out of fresh ideas and new issues, and the reader might do well to come to our rescue. For the non-writer I say this: Your name in print, is a nice ego tickler at the least, I guarantee. So strike while iron is hot and soft. Also, I have no mind to invent a Mr Disgusted! PS: The rules of brevity and tone do not apply to the suggestions we have invited. So fire without fear of publication! e-mail the writer at trjawahar@vsnl.net |
