Since The Asahi Shimbun in Tokyo established a committee in 1922 to receive and investigate reader complaints, there has been a tussle between reporters and ombudsmen in newspapers. This uneasy relationship becomes pronounced in the use of anonymous sources. Ombudsmen, as a rule rather than an exception, are wary of anonymous sources. Daniel Okrent, the first public editor of The New York Times , 11 years ago shared a reader’s observation: “Whenever I come across a phrase like ‘according to a high official’ I translate it to mean ‘I’, the reporter, will now state my opinion and disguise it as news’ …”
This week, The Hindu carried an article “Raking up the MQM-RAW link for brownie points”, (July 2, 2015) in which Subhir Bhaumik questioned the BBC’s reliance on a single anonymous Pakistani source. He wrote: “Several key questions arise. Do the Pakistani sources have access to U.K. authorities who are investigating the MQM? Has the U.K. shared such details with the MQM? If the U.K. has got clinching evidence about MQM money-laundering, has it moved against their U.K.-based leaders? But most important — why can’t the BBC, of all organisations, get authentic U.K. sourcing on such a sensitive story? In subsequent paragraphs, the whole story is made to hang on Pakistani sources.”
Earlier, I got a mail from one of the regular writers to this section, M.D. Ravikanth, about the increasing reliance on anonymous sources in this newspaper. Citing a column that appeared two years ago, “When readers deserve more” (July 1, 2013) he wondered “if the columns of the RE are just for the readers to cherish and not for The Hindu ’s reporters and correspondents to read and follow”. Following Mr. Bhaumik’s article, we got two more calls referring to a couple of other columns on this vexatious topic, “Sources: where to draw crucial lines” (August 12, 2013) and “Means and ends matter” (September 22, 2014). The arguments were the same. Why is there a pronounced increase of anonymous sourcing while covering sensitive political stories?
The stories questioned by the readers include the ones that dealt with internal discussions within the Bharatiya Janata Party on the fallout of L’affaire Lalit Modi, the tussle in naming the National Democratic Alliance’s chief ministerial candidate in Bihar, and the Home Ministry sources on the security clearance to Sun TV.
Let’s look at this issue from the reporters’ point of view. What will a reporter do if he or she comes to know that a source who is demanding anonymity has also spoken to other media outlets that have agreed to grant anonymity? Can he or she afford to kill the story by refusing to grant anonymity? How do you cover events as they are unfolding where the political and bureaucratic leadership is mulling over the exact course of action, and where a range of internal discussions are taking place but no one wants to be officially cited? What happens if ministers and bureaucrats think that they are under a gag order, sometimes real and sometimes perceived, from the leadership? If The Washington Post did not recognise the value of an anonymous source, Deep Throat, what would have happened to the Watergate Investigations? Isn’t it true that people who have access to power and information are also under pressure? Isn’t it true that they tend to talk more freely and candidly if anonymity is offered?
Reporters point that they work in a situation where there are no weekly Cabinet briefings, no weekly party briefings, no periodic press conferences on either crucial decisions and how they are going to be implemented or about the political challenges. Leaders grant formal interviews when in opposition, but become inaccessible once they come to power. Reporters say that they have to be content with party spokespersons talking generalities or getting into a comparative narrative, listing the acts of similar omissions and commissions of the other political party. They say that substantial information is shared only on an anonymous basis. They contend that to even persuade an informed source to talk off-the-record needs enormous legwork, cultivating the source and winning their trust to effectively shoe-in to extract relevant information. If the unwritten code of anonymity is broken for whatever reason, reporters argue, they are in danger of losing newsworthy contacts forever.
There is no denying the fact that many individuals in the position of informing the public are not prepared to be quoted. There is a climate of comfort in anonymity starting from the local bodies level to the national level. It is true that reporters, collectively, have conceded too much space for anonymity. Will the political and bureaucratic leadership insist on anonymity if the media as one entity refuses to entertain such a request? Don’t they also gain by dissemination of information? Isn’t it a fact that leaders need the media as much as the media needs them? If we grant anonymity, do we have a mechanism to sift through all the details to draw the line that divides political spin from genuine information? I am not arguing for the total elimination of anonymous sources from journalism. I recognise that there are reports of immense public interest that rely on confidential sources, where anonymity is vital for the safety and security of the sources. The only way to pay respect to worthwhile confidential sources is to demand attribution from a regular provider of routine information.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
