Hammer and Tongs
ALOKE THAKORE
Many years back in a classroom in the United States of America, the country of first-name calling, shorts wearing, and gum-chewing students, I had heard a senior professor say that he preferred being called Professor or Mister. Not doctor because it is a word that ought to be restricted to medical doctors and not doctors of philosophy, and certainly not by his first name since presumably he did not, as yet, share a personal relationship of friendship or acquaintance that merited such easy informality. It was not entirely surprising since one is schooled in being careful about calling people by their first names till such time that there is a mutual acceptance of endearment or when the age difference, and put it down to traditions, allows one to call a younger person by his or her first name.
But how to address sources? And what does the form of address on-air tell us about the relationship that the journalist shares with the source.
I was reminded of that schoolroom conversation recently when I accidentally stopped by at NDTV 24X7 after Ms. Pratibha Patil¿s name was announced as a presidential candidate. Ms. Barkha Dutt was anchoring a programme where the other guests were Ms. Jayanti Natarajan, Ms. Madhu Kishwar, Mr. Kumar Ketkar, and Mr. Chandan Mitra. Calling upon them to give their views Ms. Dutt was calling them Jayanti, Kumar, and Chandan. (I am not certain whether she called Ms. Kishwar by her first name. While three of them were fellow journalists, Ms. Natarajan is a politician.) There was not much substance in the talk as the different speakers took their well-worn positions, but it is the business of calling the sources by their first names that stuck.
The issue is what kind of a relationship should journalists have with sources and where on a naturally, since human, sliding scale from formality to informality should the journalist-source needle come to a stop. It ought to be clear that the relationship should be that of mutual respect with foreknowledge that one is a source and another a journalist engaged in the task of reporting and analysis, and hence there cannot be a sharing or coming together of interests. Such a position demands that there should be a distance in such relationships. It is distance that provides for distinction between roles, allows for perspective in evaluating information, and makes possible the interrogation that is necessary for a journalist to perform her distinctive role in a democracy.
A slide into informality, a practice played with ease by sources, especially those with power and pelf, to induce succumbing receptivity should be stopped. Not responding with first name endearment even when requested to do so signals the boundary maintenance of a relationship. It informs that one is there to be a questioner and seeker of information, not to engage in a collaborative performance. When journalists meet people who are otherwise inaccessible and are received with such softening gestures, the reaction should not be one of acquiescence. If journalists do not retain a bit of their adversarial spine they might as well become public relation personnel.
At the same time journalists often engage in such behaviour not because the sources have requested but because they believe that in the business of governance or running the country, they are equal partners and such close relationship ought to be the norm. It is not the source whose advances have to be refused; it is the inner impulse of the journalist as ruler or collaborator in the running of the affairs that has to be stopped. Sources are not friends or certainly should never be. And if they are, there is a conflict of interest and journalists should recuse themselves from reporting on such issues that concern friends. First names are used for friends or in some cultural contexts for those who are younger. (One is aware that this notion of hierarchy also extends to calling by first names those who are lower in the economic and social hierarchy. But that should not be tolerated, though why some channels continued calling Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav as Laloo is something worth a column). With continued interaction it may be acceptable among acquaintances. But it should never be used with sources.
And this is not merely a cultural quibble. Even in the United States and the West from whom we take such silly cues, one does not hear a leader of a political party being referred to by the first name. And if there are those who want to suggest that these are visible and serious attempts at egalitarian social relations, I suggest the journalists call their owners and CEOs by their first names, insist on having the same restrooms as everybody else in the organization, and the same lunchrooms, too. And having achieved some tokens of equality, remember that sources are not organizational resources or founts for drawing affection and admiration.