Jousting with newspaper editors

I am often asked, sometimes asked, somebody asked me once – why I do not write more often in leading newspapers and other online publications. The operative phrase here is ‘more often,’ meaning thereby that I have contributed to newspapers and online sites, but infrequently. There are several reasons for this and rather than list them out in a prosaic manner, the following correspondence / exchanges, which are representative samples of my interactions with editors and sub-editors of varying hues, will better enable the reader to understand my predicament in this regard. To those of you who may not have sampled my light-hearted offerings before, let me state that I go for gentle satire and humour such that I steer clear of being hauled off to court for libel or defamation. That has never stopped well-meaning friends from cautioning me to be careful as Big Brother might be watching me. I am aware that George Orwell had his beef with Big Brother (ref: 1984), but I let him pass me by as the idle wind. Big Brother that is, not George Orwell.

As and when the creative juices flow and the spirits soar, I decide to make bold and dash off a column or two to the powers-that-be in the print media in the fond hope that said columns will see the light of day, as the broadsheets reel off those giant offset machines at the crack of dawn. In fairness, I must state that I have had sporadic success in this regard, but they have been few and far between. Which is a very good reason why I fall back on my own blog site when all else fails. Let us now look at some of these friendly exchanges, shall we?

To the Editor of a leading newspaper.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am attaching a humorous piece on ‘Politicians I would love to have lunch with,’ for favour of publication in your esteemed daily. Your early response will be appreciated.

Yours sincerely.

Dear Mr. Subrahmanyan,

Thank you for sending us your article. We regret this piece cannot be carried as there are references to living politicians which are not complimentary and could be taken amiss. Thank you for showing an interest in our publication.

Yours regretfully.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Perhaps I could attempt a flattering column on dead politicians? Would that be more in line with your paper’s policy?

Yours sincerely.

The correspondence ended abruptly here as I received no reply.

To the Sub-editor of a leading newspaper.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am pleased to submit a 1200-word article, in humorous vein, the subject headlined ‘Are we being fleeced by our doctors?’ I am sure you will find it worthy of publication.

Yours sincerely.

Dear Mr. Subrahmanyan,

We hold the medical profession in the highest esteem and it is not our policy to publish material, humorous or otherwise, that could show our doctors in poor light. We wish you well.

Faithfully yours.

Dear Sir / Madam,

It is clear to me that your medical bills are being taken care of by your company. Otherwise, you would be laughing on the other side of your face.

Yours disappointedly.

To the Editor of a leading newspaper.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am attaching a satirical piece on ‘Politicians I would love to have breakfast with,’ for favour of publication in your reputed daily. Your early response will be appreciated.

Yours sincerely.

Dear Mr. Subrahmanyan,

We have been through this before. Simply by changing the meeting with politicians from lunch to breakfast will not cut much ice. What do you take us for? We would request you to refrain from suggesting dinner or tea with politicians next time round as no response will be forthcoming.

Yours irritably.

To the Sub-editor of the Opinion page of a leading newspaper.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am keen to make my debut in the Opinion page of your admired paper by contributing a piece on the subject titled ‘Are Carnatic and Hindustani classical music strictly comparable?’ A 1500-word piece is attached for favour of publication.

Yours in anticipation.

Dear Mr. Subrahmanyan,

We accord the privilege of contributing to our Opinion pages only to a limited number of empanelled writers. As such we are sorry, we cannot accommodate your contribution. Thank you for writing in.

Yours etc.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Did you even read my piece? And what does it take to become an empanelled writer? What does that mean anyway? At the risk of being rejected outright in the future, I must say this clearly smacks of a ‘cosy club’ culture. May I remind you that London’s Decca record label rejected The Beatles in 1962 and have been eating their hearts out ever since.

Yours in high dudgeon.

Naturally, the scent on that trail went irrevocably cold.

To the Sub-editor of a leading newspaper.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am delighted to submit a laugh-out-loud 1200-word piece on the subject of ‘Laughter is the best medicine,’ an appreciative nod to a column of the same name that adorned the much loved, now virtually defunct, family magazine, ‘Reader’s Digest.’ I trust you will find it worthy of publication. Kindly let me have your assent.

Yours in hope.

Dear Mr. Subrahmanyan,

We admire your persistence and feel you should be given an opportunity to have your piece carried in our paper. However, we do not have room for 1200 words. If you can edit the article down to around 500 words, we might be in business.

Best wishes.

Dear Sir / Madam,

While I am overjoyed at your first-time positive response, I can’t help feeling that it is but a false dawn. I was quite proficient at précis writing in school, but to redact 700 words from the original version is tantamount to, if you will pardon a cricketing analogy, asking a team to score 75 runs in three balls to win the game. No way José, is my answer. Thanks for nothing. Do you pay your contributors by the word? Just asking.

Yours very miffed.

Lest you get the wrong impression, dear reader, there have been a couple of editors who have shown great faith in my efforts and taken in my articles unquestioningly, but I can count them on the end of two fingers. For the most part, it has been an uphill struggle. However, the wooden spoon should go to one national daily where our exchange of words went like so.

To the Editor of a leading national daily.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have published several books of my blogs and columns and these have been well received. I am sending you a copy for you to get an idea of my oeuvre. Can I interest you in considering a fortnightly regular column, the sort of stuff Art Buchwald was celebrated for? If I am not being presumptuous?

Awaiting your positive response.

Dear Mr. Subrahmanyan,

You are being presumptuous. Art Buchwald, indeed! We already have a columnist who contributes a humorous piece every week. Regret we are therefore unable to consider your ambitious suggestion which will be surplus to requirements. Thank you for the book, which promises to be most engaging. If our present humour columnist should, for any reason withdraw from his assignment or be gored by a bull, we shall certainly approach you.

We wish you only the very best.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your prompt response. I have no ill will towards your current humour columnist and should he cross paths with a raging bull, I am sure he will have the presence of mind and adroitness to avoid a fatal collision which you, rather tastelessly, seem to foresee. I wish the present incumbent a long life and many more witty columns. I also note that you accepted the gift of my book with alacrity. That said, why you cannot entertain more than one writer to provide some light relief to your readers ‘is a riddle wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in an enigma,’ to quote Sir Winston Churchill.

Yours mystified.

As I conclude this circumlocutory rant, I hasten to add that there are no sour grapes involved. Once in a rare while, when my article has been carried by the newspaper, my emotions have been mixed. Happy that the blessed thing went into print. Mortified that the piece had been hacked beyond recognition, apostrophes unilaterally and generously scattered about in places where none should exist, paragraphs merged or excised to meet space requirements and more such disasters. I put this down to some junior, wet-behind-the-ears sub whose command of the English language can be gauged by watching some breathless, young reporter on our television news channels who cannot distinguish between ‘few’ and ‘a few.’ His / her grasp of the language is clearly ‘very less.’

All said and done, I am happy with penning my own blogs. At least the responsibility for errors will be down to me, and me alone. As that peerless wit Oscar Wilde put it, ‘Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.’