Jiwendra Simkhada, editor of the Annapurna Post, called me after the article was published and said that I had made an unfair comment because the paper had “corrected” its story the next day. He also told me that it was unfair of me not to have called for a check before writing the piece.
It was one of those dreaded moments in the life of a journalist when someone tells you that you have made a mistake. My reaction therefore was to promise a full and unconditional apology. I also suggested that he send a letter to the editor to put the record straight. This newspaper published the letter on June 5.
Firstly, here’s an admission. Yes I had not called the editor, as I should have, because I assumed that there would be no correction the next day.
Had I called, I would have – as discussed in the letter to the editor – discovered that the power plant in question was repaired after the paper went to press and hence there was little the editors could do about what was published. (For those who did not read the last column it was about a story that said power generation at the Kali Gandaki had stopped following a breakdown and that there would be additional power cuts as result, which did not happen because the plant was repaired).
I would also have been informed that there was a story on May 9 that said the plant was operational again. But this story had no references to earlier one. Therefore, had I read only the so-called ‘clarifying story’ I would not have known that it was even related to one that had appeared the day before.
Something else to admit: Yes I did not read the newspaper the day after the first story was published. I tried getting hold of a back issue and could not. It was here I needed to take a call and did it and that was what the article was about – a story that stood uncorrected.
After reading the rebuttal to my article by the editor of the Annapurna Post, I reread the story in question and the claim of the newspaper of having published a clarifying story. It was the paper’s version of a correction but I am not convinced and therefore have decided that there is no need for an unconditional apology that I was intending to make this week.
Newspapers are expected to report facts irrespective of whether or not their deadlines end after the ads have come in. (How in the world I as an outsider – or a “mass media expert” for that matter – know when a particular paper closes its pages for the day?)
Here’s what the follow up story and the letter said. The letter pointed to the fact that I did not call up the editor to check out the story. Point taken, my mistake. Sorry! Had I called, however, I assume I would have received the explanation that was there in the letter, which was anything but a correction. Instead it was another story, headlined, "Electricity production from Kali Gandaki A resumes after repair, load shedding decreases." What I have failed to understand was when load shedding had increased in the first place.
The letter said being a “mass media expert” I should have known better about their deadlines, which the letter suggested was why the first story was published as it was.
To put the record straight, I am least concerned about their deadlines because as a reader what I pay for is a paper that brings me the news – not excuses. And if a daily newspaper goes to bed at 11 pm as was suggested in the letter, it is strange for someone who also worked the nightshift many years ago when our paper used to be put to sleep well past after midnight. Assuming times have changed since and much more is happening in the world these days, it is difficult to come to terms with the fact that the pages are closed at 11 pm.
Further, my concern was the desire to see a simple, straightforward correction the next day, which of course was not there. Even the story that the paper said it had published “with emphasis” the next day did not refer to its earlier story to help readers make a connection. The only slant reference to the earlier story was a seemingly explanatory line justifying its earlier story that said, “If the repairs had not been done on time it could have extended load shedding by six hours.”
Well, there can be no end to ‘ifs’ in the real world and running after them rather than admitting an oversight can go on forever. For example, what ‘if’ the power plant had broken down again the next day? Would the newspaper have said something like, ‘we told you so the day before that there was a chance of increased load shedding?’ And what if the plant had been repaired at 1.27 am again the following day? Perhaps we would have seen another story like the one that appeared on May 9.
The point here is that newspapers are expected to report facts irrespective of whether or not their deadlines end after the ads have come in. (How in the world I as an outsider – or a “mass media expert” for that matter – know when a particular paper closes its pages for the day?)
When one attempts to defend the indefensible – that there was no correction – one is but forced to resort to conjecture, and statements including those on the right of anyone to say what they want (Guaranteed, by the way of the constitution, and where there are excesses, there is a mechanism to redress through the legal system). The letter also questioned on my “moral ground to give sermons”. Well on this one, I decide my morals and not the Annapurna Post, which also accused me of “selectively target(ing) competitors of Nagarik, a sister publication of Republica”.
This statement seems oblivious of the fact that I have been writing about newspapers almost on similar issues for quite some time now. Therefore, it is opportune here to assure the Annapurna Post that I will also write about Nagarik (and have also written about Republica in my earlier columns). Also the day Nagarik and Republica cannot take criticism will be when I will actually stop writing this column.
That said here’s a gem some readers of Nagarik online had forwarded to me some time back. It was story on a literary award that appeared on its online version on June 5 – and was quite extraordinary that it was used as a Facebook status by an acquaintance abroad. The story said former king Gyanendra had been awarded the Chinnalata prize 2067. However, rather than admit it had made the mistake and correct it, the paper quietly purged the version of the online story as if no one knew. (A similar story is still available on some Internet news portals).
It was naughty (even cheating) on the part of Nagarik to blame the news agency that had sent the news for the mistake (June 6). Rather than admit the mistake it also resorted to a line that said, “The Rashtriya Samachar Samiti had said that G Shah had been awarded the prize, based on which some media had reported that G Shah had been awarded.’
It did not say that ‘some’ media mentioned in the story also included Nagarik online!
bbhattarai2006@gmail.com
Related story
Press Chautari Nepal condemns arrest warrant against Journalist...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
