By KEWAL VARMA
Editors can be broadly divided into two categories: those with substantial circulations spread over large areas of the country; and those with regional circulations. The latter, naturally, have smaller circulations, though there are exceptions (the best example being the Ananda Bazar Patrika). However, both kinds of editors have trouble with two sets of people: the Government and the managements. The views of Government and owners are not necessarily the same, but on one point most owners of publications seem to agree: that their editors should not take criticism of Government too far. And they agree on this because most owners are vulnerable: having business interests apart from news papers, they are aware that if Government wants to, it can create significant barriers between them and their profits from other factories.
No one would deny the owner of a newspaper group the right to choose his editors, but at what point does this begin to hurt the fundamental duty of the Press, and how does one prevent an owner from crossing this point? No one, equally, can deny the right of a management to remove an editor but is there any recourse for an editor if he is removed on unethical grounds? The editor’s job may look glamorous, and indeed it has its rewards, but it is also one of the least protected jobs in the publishing industry. (Would it be more honest if all owners simply became the editors of their publications too? These tensions often find their worst expression when an editor has to leave. The best and most enlightened of managements have often behaved atrociously with departing editors. We think that- this subject should be discussed frankly, without prejudice to anyone, with honesty. And for this reason we have decided to name names. We would welcome it if the managements named here would reply: we will publish their rep
lies equally prominently. We would be happy if SUNDAY became a vehicle for a public debate on this important, crucial, issue.