For the lack of a name

Last night I and my brother had a discussion regarding the reporters  using anonymous sources in their stories.

He was of the opinion that reporters are using fake sources or else putting in their own quotes with attributions like ‘name changed’ or ‘declined to be named’.

Even I would have thought the same if I were not in journalism. And I believe that most of the readers too feel the same.

But in reality, it’s not that.

Reporters usually avoid anonymous sources in the articles unless forced by exceptional circumstances.

In my journey as a reporter, I have met many sources who are or may be media-phobic.

Being reporters, we need to respect our sources and maintain professional integrity. Therefore we always land up quoting anonymous names one time or the other.

I had a conversation with a politician who too felt that such statements would be   fake or the reporter’s view itself.

One of my friends went to the extent of saying that he would give newspapers to the doma seller for free.

But most creative and highly intellectual civil servants are bound by civil service rules so they cannot make their voices heard.

We live in a society where information is restricted and hence intellectual freedom.

It’s sad. Just for the lack of a name, a story is lost and just for the sake of a story a paper is lost.

Check Also

Kharang: a sensitive issue

The glaring headlines of the 14 April issue almost elevated unconfirmed toxicity of Kharang to that of “radiation exposure” …


  1. I strongly disagreed la. I really hate anonymous in newspaper…..

  2. That is why the RTI bill is importnat la

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *