For a reporter, sources are sacrosanct. Finding the right sources, nurturing and retaining them is an important component of the job. Sometimes, in the enthusiasm to retain a good source, a journalist may go a little too far, which could have consequences. The world of journalism is full of such stories.
Everyone has their own methods of finding and retaining sources. Being a teetotaller and a non-smoker, I have always found myself at a disadvantage compared to my peers, who manage to build a rapport with people over a shared cigarette or a drink.
Editorial | A Nuh model: On Haryana and the determination of the political executive
However, I make up for this by striking a personal note with my sources. I am a patient listener. As I am not very social, I sometimes push myself to attend gatherings, functions, and condolence meetings, to make my relations with my sources seem less formal.
On occasion, however, this friendliness is misconstrued by the source as an approval of their ideology or perspective on a subject. And sometimes, when I am asked to take a position, I am forced to make a choice between keeping the source and protecting my individuality.
I found myself in this situation recently while reporting on the clashes between two communities in Nuh, in southern Haryana. The conflict began during a religious procession and quickly engulfed other parts of the State, claiming six lives.
A few days after reporting on the riots, I found myself being added to a group on WhatsApp one morning. It had been formed to seek donations for the “martyrs” of a religious community who had died in the riots. Confused, I scrolled through the list of participants in the group and found that one of my sources was the group admin.
I was stuck. If I did not make a donation, I would alienate my source, who had probably taken into consideration my friendliness, my religious identity, and also perhaps the name of my organisation to make assumptions about my beliefs. If I did make a donation, I would have to espouse an ideology that was contrary to my beliefs. Though no one would have known if I had made a donation, the act, however small and secretive, would have stayed with me forever.
For me, it was clear that some people had died while baying for the blood of members of another community. They could, at best, be called “rioters”. But they were not “community saviours” and certainly not “martyrs”. Making a donation was out of the question. Had it not been for my source, the choice was simple. But his presence made the situation tricky.
As I pondered the situation, the tone and language of the messages turned communal. Those who had not still not made donations were being called “traitors” and those who had left the group were being targeted mercilessly. I clearly could not delay my decision for long.
As I wondered how to make a graceful exit without annoying my source and without compromising on my beliefs, a day went by. The next morning, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I had been removed from the group. I still don’t know the reason. Maybe the group admin had given up on me or maybe he thought that it was inappropriate to have a journalist on such a group. Whatever his reason, I was relieved.
After this incident, I was quick to change the settings on WhatsApp. Now, it is mandatory for anyone to seek my consent before adding me to a group. I was keen to avoid being in such a situation again.
A day later, another source, a 78-year-old retired professor, sent a WhatsApp message requesting me for an article on how yoga was the secret of his good health. This, he said, would be a perfect “birthday gift” for him. It left me wishing for settings that could help me filter these peculiar requests too.
ashok.kumar@thehindu.co.in
