Our first deep throats?
5 January, 2008 – In Bhutan it is not just the pipes that are leaking. A few filing cabinets in Thimphu seem to have cracks in them. And papers are dropping out.
A few stories in the Bhutanese media, in recent weeks, have anonymous sources. They have come from confidential, in some cases preliminary, documents that have reached the press. The documents themselves are not outstandingly sensational but they do raise questions, particularly within officialdom.It is not a new trend, in Bhutan or anywhere else. In fact a large majority of stories in the media come from leaks, tip-offs, and unknown sources. They come from governments, private corporations and companies, the military, militant and terrorist outfits, churches, schools … from everywhere. They generally lead to stories that the organisations would rather not see in the press.
Political stories are usually the hot issues and they are leaked for numerous reasons. Governments regularly “float” stories with anonymous sources to gauge public reaction to a policy or programme or sometimes to send a message to a foreign government. If the response is good they go ahead, if not they deny all knowledge of it.
Every leak has a different motive and implication, from harmless pranks to fatal moves. They can embarrass well-known stars, move decision-makers out of office, or even drive the subjects to suicide. In the most famous leak in journalism the anonymous source, who became known as “Deep Throat”, in the U.S. Watergate scandal, brought down a president and, in the process, glamourised journalism.
In Bhutan when someone suggested, “Why don’t you write about this?”, it used to be about development activities. Then it became crime and corruption. Now it is politics. But it has always been there. And it will always be there.
Leaks cannot be stopped by rules. They cannot be stopped by punishment, including imprisonment.
Eventually, the stories that stem from any leaks will be judged on their value as news stories and on the moral implications of the issues that they cover. And the real judges are the readers and viewers.
Professional journalists do not derive satisfaction from leaks aimed at indicting people or organisations. As it is already happening in Bhutan, such information should be used only if the implications of not using it are greater.
Leaks also determine the nature of the relationships between media journalists and their sources. Professional journalists are not comfortable being obligated to sources because they will lose their objectivity. A media organization or professional that is “used” loses credibility.
In the end, if a leak serves the people’s “need to know” and their “right to know”, media organizations and the public will accept an unknown source. That is a decision that Bhutanese journalists will now have to make, over and over again. That is also a trend that official and non-government organisations will have to acknowledge.
To betray, you must first belong
Source: Kuensel Editorial