Reading newspapers is often a trying affair these days. This is because some reporters, particularly those based in the capital, resort to the indiscriminate use of anonymous sources, particularly in political stories which are rarely challenged. And mind you, these stories can hardly be described as falling in the category of ‘great public interest.’
The only explanation that I can
think of is that there is a wide-spread belief among reporters that resorting
to this “little trick” lends mystery to their stories making people wonder who
those unnamed sources could be. These reporters are convinced that stories
attributed to “sources” not only reveal their close proximity to the founts of
information but also lend them authenticity. Remember Watergate and the
anonymous ‘deep throat’ that eventually led to the ousting of an American
president. The reporters (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein) of the Washington
Post achieved celebrity status and are the most commonly quoted examples when the conversation veers around to investigative reporting. Perhaps our home-grown humble reporters too dream of becoming
heroes who eventually write books and hopefully have films made after them.
But the ‘poor fools’ don’t realise
that far from raising credibility, the gimmick of using anonymous sources gets
exactly opposite results. I remember one colleague who had earned the nickname
of “planter” due to his penchant for using “highly placed sources”. I suspect
these sources could be any of the following: the fevered imagination of the
reporter himself. Or misplaced and mischievous people who want to achieve private ends from the safety of anonymity- essentially using the shoulders of the reporter and the news
organisation to fire their guns!! There is, of course one more possibility which I think is highly
unlikely: that the source was sitting on the top storey of the Empire State Building
or the Eiffel Tower!!
Many years back, when I was less aware of the
ways of the world, I started a small newspaper. The flame of idealism burnt
bright in me and inspired me into a path that I later discovered was full of
pitfalls, not the least of which was financial. However, to get to the nub of
the matter, one interesting incident occurred during the short life of that neighbourhood newspaper. One of my neighbours who was perhaps feeling neglected
submitted to me a piece attacking his rivals accusing them, in sum of grave
irregularities. I published it, but with his by-line. As soon as the paper was
out, the very upset author paid me a visit demanding why I had given it under
his name instead of using the term sources. In other words, he was grumbling about
me not offering my shoulder for his dirty work. No doubt he had received a
mouthful from those he had attacked.
