The elephant in the room in any media column is the Cyril Almeida story.
Situations like these — where the media itself becomes the story — lend themselves to a lot of “meta” thinking; a lot of debate within the media about its methodologies and protocols. And that is what would have happened here.
But it didn’t. Why? Because the government carpet bombed the nuanced debate that could have followed the situation by putting the journalist’s name on the Exit Control List. That united most of the journalist community in condemning the decision and standing by him. In the English press, one paper after the other (including the one you’re reading right now) started publishing editorials that strongly condemned the incident. And rightly so.
Supporters of Mr Almeida — and I count myself as one — would say there is no need for introspection here. He did nothing wrong. But they aren’t so charitable when journalists from the other side of the divide file similarly unsourced stories featuring angry militarymen fuming at subdued civil leaders. Even in relation to this very incident, listen to ARY’s Sabir Shakir (online viewers can view below) talking about how the military leaders have given a “shut up call” to the civilian leadership and have given them five days to find out who is leaking out all this “behuda propaganda.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up2Vmg1i9TI&sns=fb&app=desktop
Clearly, there is need to think about some protocols of sourcing, vetting and reporting.
Papers, as a rule, try to minimise the anonymous sources in their reports. Minimise being the operative word; a lot of the times, despite trying hard, you would still have to let in one or two “sources, on condition of anonymity, said..” in a report. On very rare occasions — rarer still for a paper as credible as Dawn — a story would be run that has no named sources at all. Zilch.
Papers take a decision like that only when the scoop is significant enough to jettison certain protocols.
In the classical model of journalism — one that any kid who has seen a movie or TV series about journalists would know — you don’t reveal your sources to anyone, except, perhaps, the editor.
The problem arises, however, when someone sues you for libel. A reporter can’t “stick to his story” and shrug off the lawsuit. Is it at that point that the reporter is bound to reveal his or her source? To the court, that is? Well, no. Reporters can still stick to their guns but that means going to jail or paying the fine. And when that happens, it can’t be called suppression of the free press. It would have been open season on everyone had that not been the case.
Now he hasn’t been sued, yes. But, as the interior minister said, there are some legal formalities to be fulfilled. Details of a meeting regarding national security that was supposed to be secret were leaked and, making things worse, those details were fabricated, as per the government. Therefore, reasoned the minister, they had to investigate the issue. They put Almeida on the ECL only because they thought he was leaving the country. An incorrect argument but at least one that was internally consistent. We in the news media should be ready for such eventualities in the future when running unsourced stories.