The setting: The
newsroom of an English daily in Chennai, shortly after two English papers — The Hindu and
The Times of India —
were served notices for publishing “incendiary” reports on Tamil
Nadu CM, quoting various opposition leaders as saying.
News Editor: Editor, we have a crisis.
Editor (rolling his eyes):
About time I am told if it is to do with editing a trainee reporter's copy or modifying the page
layout to accommodate more advertisements.
NE: Neither; it's about a
political news report. As it is, we have had a stream of phone calls
from our management and circulation departments, warning us on how to
edit it and present it on our page. Last told, the publisher wants to
know what it is.
E: So, everyone in our
establishment knows of it before us. I hope we are still the
editorial. Or, have we been transported magically to Siberia?
NE: Must we worry over
such subtleties?
E: Did you just smirk? I
dare you to retain that expression when we stare at our pink slips.
NE: Ok, ok. But a few
sentences in this report set the alarm in me.
E: (looks up,
quizzically)
NE: For starters, this
one: “The opposition leader roundly criticised the chief minister
for her wrong policies in administration.”
E: (looks up again)
What's wrong with it?
NE: I suggest that we do
away with “round”. Other publications have only faced lawsuits;
we may enter the wrong books of the Women Rights' Commission. And I
haven't even started on us getting the sexist tag. Let us leave it to TN's Opposition parties to describe the CM.
E: (Groaning) I
wish I had stocked on my BP pills. Let the statement, then, run as,
“The opposition leader was said to have criticised the chief
minister for her alleged wrong policies in administration.”
NE: But that would mean the CM’s policies were “allegedly” wrong.
E: And I thought I was the
editor around here.
NE: I could not agree
more. But that won't make a difference if the lawsuit comes calling.
E: (Voice
raising) Pray, just what on Fort St George do
you expect me to do? (Takes a sip of water... then a gulp and empties an
entire bottle)
NE: You've hit the nail on
the head.
E: Fine, then just make it “The
opposition leader criticised the chief minister.”
NE: Editor, we still have
a problem with it.
E: Aren't you stretching
this a bit too far? Do the words free speech and freedom of
expression mean anything to you?
NE: I only wish
we'd be on the safe side (examines cellphone after it beeps). It's
our legal advisor, he wants to know if he could help with editing the
copy if it involves legalese.
E: (Takes
a deep breath and then cuts loose, mouthing some expletives)
You could tell him we need an expert in Swahili, (reacts when he sees
the NE texting the same). Wait, that was a sarcastic comment; can't
you tell apart hyperbole from facts?
NE: I've ceased to ever
since I examined our publication's circulation figures for the last
quarter and the advertisements for the same.
E: (In
a resigned tone) But we digress. I'd rather
we do away with the first sentence.
NE: This could be me
speaking. This sentence too set the hair on me standing. “He also
demanded an inquiry into all the wrongdoings of the schemes initiated
by the government.”
The two exchange a
cursory glace as the sentence is deleted.
“The CM also seeks to
muzzle the press by filing cases against them for carrying news that
do not kowtow to her. This is nothing but a brazen act of
arm-twisting.”
The keys Ctrl+X make
the all-too familiar click noise.
NE: I suggest that we do
away with this one, too: “We are confident that the public will
take note of such ham-handed actions, and deliver the verdict during
the next elections.”
The sentence gets wiped
off the face of the LCD screen.
NE: That leaves us with
only the details of the protest; it doesn't make sense carrying it alone.
E: Need I tell you what do
(smiles)? Take a bow, news editor, we just did the national censor
board and our Parliament proud!
Comments
Post a Comment