We turn not older every year but newer every day

That quote of Emily Dickenson applies equally aptly to an institution and even a newspaper as it does to a person. And that is the realisation I have been seized with since the preparations for celebrating the Silver Jubilee of The Daily Star was conceived almost a year ago. 

And Emily Dickenson could not have been more prophetic when she uttered those words. Given the huge transmogrification of the print industry that commenced in the last decade, devising ways to appear with a newer look to the readers and in newer forms from time to time, has became the major preoccupation of the planners in newspapers; we are no exception. 

Twenty-five years is a long count in a man's life, although it may not be so in a nation's or newspaper's life. But it is as good a time as any to introspect on the 25 years that we have left behind in order to set our compass for the next 25. 

In the path that we have traversed since January 14, 1991, the paper had to face trials and suffer tribulations. We have faced trials to establish ourselves since our gestation coincided with the very resuscitation of democracy in the country after almost a decade and half of being in captivity. And the guiding principle, or the load star, so to say, was set by our late lamented founding Editor Mr. S M Ali and which merits repetition. He had said, "We will be anything but neutral in conflicts between good and evil, justice and injustice, right and wrong, regardless of position assumed. No one will be able to take this paper for granted, but no one will be given the cause to doubt our fairness." 

In other words, a newspaper which deems the task of keeping the public informed as its most important duty, cannot afford not to be objective, since neutrality mandates one to equidistance oneself from the right and the wrong, from the truth and the falsehood. In the last 25 years, we have chosen to be closer to the right and the truth and the good. And to fulfil that objective we chose for ourselves the motto "Your Right to Know," which had placed on us an onerous responsibility, since ensuring people's right implied the fulfilment of certain things on our part. Have we been able to fulfil them?

At the risk of appearing immodest, we can take justifiable pride in proving many sceptics of the newspaper wrong. For example, we feel we have been objective enough to prove those who think that a "newspaper isn't here to tell you what happened. It is here to tell you what it wants you to hear or what it thinks you want to hear," completely wrong. Both soft peddling and embellishing news has been anathema to us and will continue to be so. 

And those who, like Mark Twain, think that, "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed", have been proved wrong too. We feel truthfulness has been our forte and many international media agencies have at times fallen back on us to verify news carried by other agencies. And that speaks too about our reliability, and perhaps people like the late Christopher Hitchens, who, by his own admission, became a journalist because he did not want to rely on newspapers for information, would like to review their opinion. And we feel we have been able to prove even the most inveterate of sceptics like Oscar Wilde -- who thought that, "By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community" -- wrong. We have, we hope, not failed our readers in offering them insightful and scholarly opinions without making, "the crazy crazier and ignorant more ignorant." We hope we have passed the trials in the judgment of our most valued readers. 

However, our journey has not been without tribulations. Because living up to the motto with the subtext of 'Journalism without Fear or Favour' has not been without the attendant consequences, as in the process some sensitive toes were stepped upon, and we make no apologies for that. But we can say with utmost satisfaction that we were in the right in fulfilling our duty since we have had to incur the wrath of the ruling party, irrespective of which party was in power, in equal measure. And we say this without feeling sorry about it, since to us it is more important to be for the people and the country than for any particular political party. 

However, at the end of the day, it is the reader who is the best judge of our performance. He or she can say how well we have fared and whether we have been able to redeem ourselves. But whatever may be the verdict, we would like to feel, as we step in our 26th year, that we have not given anyone the cause to doubt our fairness. 

The writer is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.