My approach is as follows. Neither I nor Outlook are infallible, therefore we should correct errors (like our Gujarat Opinion Poll where we predicted N. Modi's defeat) we occasionally commit. Since Outlook can damage a person's reputation, the aggrieved party has every right to return equally strongly. Note Mr Abhishek Verma's letter from prison where he accuses me of being a "slimy yellow journalist" because we had linked him to the navy war room leak and the Scorpene scam. Earlier, Shashi Tharoor wrote from New York charging we had printed lies on behalf of unknown persons in the mea regarding his defeat in the UN race. I believe we behaved entirely professionally in both cases, but that is besides the point. If Outlook can "malign" Messrs Verma and Tharoor, these gentlemen are entitled to "malign" Outlook. I resist altering or softening their language. They don't edit my copy, why should I edit theirs.
Finally, debate and dissent are the lifeblood of Outlook. If I take these out of the Letters Page, I'd have to do the same in the rest of the journal. Nevertheless, in my office I've framed some good advice courtesy American journalist James Reston. "If you spend your life as a hatchet man, you'll find everybody is out to lunch when you call."
