---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sri venkat
Subject: Reasons why S Varadarajan was sacked from The Hindu
To:
from sans serif blog
The "professional" editor may have been eased out by redesignating
him; the services of the "professional" CEO may have been summarily
terminated; and the front page of the paper may have returned to its
past.
But The Hindu saga is not over yet.
After six board members on the 11-member board of Kasturi & Sons (K.
Balaji, K. Venugopal, Ramesh Rangarajan, Lakshmi Srinath, Vijaya Arun
and Akhila Vijay Iyengar) wrote to the other five against the removal
of Siddharth Varadarajan and Arun Anant, the chairman of the board N.
Ram has responded in kind through a seven-page response, with the
operative paragraphs on pages 3 and 4.
"The discussions on the performance of Mr Siddharth Varadarajan as
Editor of The Hindu was in fact a continuation of the discussions in
the Board meeting held on August 20, 2013 as reflected clearly in the
minutes of the meeting approved unanimously at the meeting on October
21, 2013. Not a single Director had any words of praise for or defence
of his performance. Mr Siddharth Varadarajan had been informed in
detail by me as Chairman of the previous meeting Board meeting of the
view of the Board and some Directors had raised such issues with him
periodically. Mr N. Murali, Mr. N. Ravi, Ms Malini Parthasarathy, and
I referred to many instances of gross and continued violation of the
binding Code of Editorial Values in terms of editorialising in the
guise of news coverage, unfair and exaggerated reporting, banning or
downplaying coverage of certain personalities with personal preference
and prejudice, overriding professional news judgement, unsatisfactory
coverage in the in main Chennai market, frequent absences from
Chennai, and inadequate time and commitment to the overall task of
editing the newspaper. Some of you wanted these issues address with Mr
Siddharth Varadarajan. I pointed out that these issues had been taken
up with him repeatedly to no effect and Mr. N Ravi expressed the view
that the situation had become irremediable.
"Mr. K. Venugopal made the suggestion at the meeting that the Board
should vote on reposing confidence in the then CEO and the erstwhile
business and editorial arrangement. I then put the following
resolution to vote: "Resolved that the present structure be retained".
Mr K. Venugopal declared that he was voting for his resolution and
five others voted in favour. As rightly noted in your letter, six
Directors opposed the resolution and the motion consequently failed in
the absence of a sufficient majority. It was therefore evident that
the erstwhile management structure had become untenable and the
Company could not continue to repose trust and confidence in the then
Editor and the then CEO. Of necessity and solely with a view to
preventing the newspaper's activities from coming to a grinding half,
the managerial supervision of the business and editorial affairs of
the Company had perforce to be reorganised.
"It was in this vacuum that I circulated the draft of a resolution of
the new structure and allowed the Directors time to go through it
before starting discussions on it. The main elements of the proposed
structure had been discussed repeatedly in Board meetings as well as
outside. Thereafter, discussions on the proposed structure followed
with some Directors expressing support and others expressing
opposition to it. When the draft resolution assigning that I, in my
capacity as Chairman, out of necessity and in the interest of the
Company, exercised my casting vote to approve the resolution. Failing
this, not only would an unacceptable crisis have arisen in leadership
but the very citadel of the newspaper built over more than a century
would have been grievously threatened. Such a situation would
certainly have been exploited by the Company's competitors to the
obvious disadvantage of the newspaper's loyal readers. Consequently,
the management of the Company who undoubtedly have tremendous
experience and credentials in this regard...."
From: sri venkat
Subject: Reasons why S Varadarajan was sacked from The Hindu
To:
from sans serif blog
The "professional" editor may have been eased out by redesignating
him; the services of the "professional" CEO may have been summarily
terminated; and the front page of the paper may have returned to its
past.
But The Hindu saga is not over yet.
After six board members on the 11-member board of Kasturi & Sons (K.
Balaji, K. Venugopal, Ramesh Rangarajan, Lakshmi Srinath, Vijaya Arun
and Akhila Vijay Iyengar) wrote to the other five against the removal
of Siddharth Varadarajan and Arun Anant, the chairman of the board N.
Ram has responded in kind through a seven-page response, with the
operative paragraphs on pages 3 and 4.
"The discussions on the performance of Mr Siddharth Varadarajan as
Editor of The Hindu was in fact a continuation of the discussions in
the Board meeting held on August 20, 2013 as reflected clearly in the
minutes of the meeting approved unanimously at the meeting on October
21, 2013. Not a single Director had any words of praise for or defence
of his performance. Mr Siddharth Varadarajan had been informed in
detail by me as Chairman of the previous meeting Board meeting of the
view of the Board and some Directors had raised such issues with him
periodically. Mr N. Murali, Mr. N. Ravi, Ms Malini Parthasarathy, and
I referred to many instances of gross and continued violation of the
binding Code of Editorial Values in terms of editorialising in the
guise of news coverage, unfair and exaggerated reporting, banning or
downplaying coverage of certain personalities with personal preference
and prejudice, overriding professional news judgement, unsatisfactory
coverage in the in main Chennai market, frequent absences from
Chennai, and inadequate time and commitment to the overall task of
editing the newspaper. Some of you wanted these issues address with Mr
Siddharth Varadarajan. I pointed out that these issues had been taken
up with him repeatedly to no effect and Mr. N Ravi expressed the view
that the situation had become irremediable.
"Mr. K. Venugopal made the suggestion at the meeting that the Board
should vote on reposing confidence in the then CEO and the erstwhile
business and editorial arrangement. I then put the following
resolution to vote: "Resolved that the present structure be retained".
Mr K. Venugopal declared that he was voting for his resolution and
five others voted in favour. As rightly noted in your letter, six
Directors opposed the resolution and the motion consequently failed in
the absence of a sufficient majority. It was therefore evident that
the erstwhile management structure had become untenable and the
Company could not continue to repose trust and confidence in the then
Editor and the then CEO. Of necessity and solely with a view to
preventing the newspaper's activities from coming to a grinding half,
the managerial supervision of the business and editorial affairs of
the Company had perforce to be reorganised.
"It was in this vacuum that I circulated the draft of a resolution of
the new structure and allowed the Directors time to go through it
before starting discussions on it. The main elements of the proposed
structure had been discussed repeatedly in Board meetings as well as
outside. Thereafter, discussions on the proposed structure followed
with some Directors expressing support and others expressing
opposition to it. When the draft resolution assigning that I, in my
capacity as Chairman, out of necessity and in the interest of the
Company, exercised my casting vote to approve the resolution. Failing
this, not only would an unacceptable crisis have arisen in leadership
but the very citadel of the newspaper built over more than a century
would have been grievously threatened. Such a situation would
certainly have been exploited by the Company's competitors to the
obvious disadvantage of the newspaper's loyal readers. Consequently,
the management of the Company who undoubtedly have tremendous
experience and credentials in this regard...."
sent from samsung galaxy note, so please excuse brevity
No comments:
Post a Comment