On 3 March 2015, The Indian Express published a story, ‘AAP politics: To target Yogendra Yadav, critics in party play tape of call with journalist,’ on how the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) “recorded a telephonic conversation with a journalist—without her knowledge—who wrote a critical piece on the party and that recording is now being used to build a case against Yogendra Yadav in the ongoing feud within the party.” That journalist was Chander Suta Dogra, who was working with The Hindu at the time, and is now with The Indian Express. On 4 March 2015, SP Singh—one of the reporters who was present at the breakfast meeting with Yogendra Yadav—published a piece in Vantage, ‘Why the Indian Express Row with Yogendra Yadav Stings Indian Journalism.’ Through his article, Singh outlined the ethical implications of Dogra’s decision to part with the identity of her source and elaborated on why he believed it exposed a worrying approach to journalism. Published below is the rejoinder that Chander Suta Dogra sent to The Caravan in response to the concerns that Singh highlighted, followed by Singh's rebuttal.
That brevity and clarity are the principles of good journalistic writing is something that all of us who inhabit the territory are familiar with. Long rambling pieces that say much of the same thing in different ways is usually an author’s desperate attempt to cobble together a piece at short notice, when she or he has little to say. Reading the verbose SP Singh’s laboured fulmination at my response in the Indian Express and the newspaper’s handling of the controversy about the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) using a recording of my conversation to settle scores with Yogendra Yadav, leaves one with this distinct impression.
Under the guise of raising “pertinent” questions about the ethics of journalism, Singh’s sweeping denunciation looked more like a justification for why he did not do the story himself. After all, nothing is more galling for a journalist than a fellow scribe running away with a story from right under his nose. In this case, not just Singh, but the four others who were present at the now well-known breakfast meet on 15 August 2014, are also in the uncomfortable situation where they face questions about their own journalistic rigour and integrity. Not a happy place to be in for any self-respecting journalist! His statement says it all. “I pity the other journalists representing national newspapers who were also around that table, savouring aloo parathas, since their editors would have asked them why they didn’t file such similarly explosive stories. Sir, that juicy tid-bit thali was not passed down the table to us. We were just fobbed off with aloo parathas.”
Yes, the aloo parathas were good, but Singh’s windy narrative curiously stops short of disclosing how he participated in a huddle with all of us, where we briefly discussed how best to write about what was discussed that the meet. Or, how he was at his questioning best when he prodded Yadav to share the goings on in the AAP.
Remember, the fact that Yogendra Yadav was unhappy with the AAP’s decision not to contest the Haryana election was already in the public domain at that time, as he had given vent to his angst in a couple of prominent interviews to newspapers before coming to Chandigarh. So, the line of questioning at the breakfast meet revolved around this, and Yadav readily elaborated on it. His lieutenants, namely Rajeev Godara, Professor Manjit Singh and Anupam, all of whom are entrusted to deal with the media in Punjab and Haryana, added their bit to the discussion So, it wasn’t “dirty dope” that I was reporting from some hush hush source. It was a routine kind of piece that fleshed out the Haryana decision and the chaos that exists in the party’s Punjab and Haryana units. No one knows this better than all those present that day that the talk about “revealing a source” is a non issue.
It is not for me to speculate about the pressing reasons why the others chose not to do a story that clearly required more leg work to complete what was dished out to us that day. If Mr Singh chooses to regurgitate only the memory of the parathas, can one assume that the “new face of journalism” that he talks about is plain “lazy journalism”? Or access journalism that peddles information from one source without cross checking or giving context. It is so much easier than taking the trouble to talk to a dozen people to produce a well-rounded story.
Is there a politician alive who invites journalists for a meal only to discuss the weather? As all journalists know, these are background briefings meant to be used as inputs for subsequent stories. To pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous. Mr Singh, while upholding the ethical tradition of making a full disclosure about the parathas—the only aspect of the meet he seems to remember—has conveniently glossed over his scintillating inquisition of Yadav that day. Why?
All of us had many questions and we got ready answers.
Also, when Yadav, as the chief spokesperson of his party speaks to media persons in the presence of the party’s media incharge for Punjab and Haryana, how can one assume that the party does not know of his interaction and what was said there? Back in August 2014 no one was publicly aware of the factional fight within the AAP and though differences were being aired openly, the bitterness that is now out in the open was still under wraps. For us, he was the party’s chief spokesperson, talking to us in the presence of designated spokespersons for the states. It cannot get more open than that.
Consider this: If the secretary MoD conducts a background briefing on policy which is at odds with the Prime Minister’s Office, and later an angry PMO calls up journalists to ask who told them this, how are the journalists to know that firstly the PMO is not aware of the press briefing? Secondly, that the MoD briefing does not have the PMO’s approval.
So, when Kejriwal’s office called to say that some facts in my story—that appeared in The Hindu on 29 August 2014—were not correct, there was no reason for me to avoid mentioning Yadav’s interaction with us. After receiving the call, I immediately called up Professor Manjit Singh and Rajeev Godara and apprised them of the development. They assured me that there was nothing wrong in the story, and in the evening came to my place with a laptop to show me internal mails that corroborated what was discussed on 15 August.
For all his dexterity in dealing with the media, Yadav clearly crossed his limits. It is more likely that hubris influenced by his cosy association with journalists led him to think that he could get away with bad mouthing his party leadership, at a very open interaction in the presence of several other senior party workers. He underestimated his own party colleagues who were already on to his shenanigans, which till then, we journalists were unaware of.
Then, for Singh to suggest that after doing a critical article on Arvind Kejriwal (which incidentally pleased the Yogendra Yadav camp at that time) I should deliberately spill the beans on the so called source within hours of the story making to print, just because Kejriwal’s office called to ask, does not stand to logic or reason. Surely I could not have converted into a Kejriwal camp enthusiast within hours of my story going into print? I credit my readers with greater intelligence than that, Mr Singh.
*
SP Singh's Response:
Any debate about ethics in journalism can easily slide down the slippery slope of personal allegations when actual human beings and working professionals are involved. I’ll like to keep this debate professional since that’s what it is, and should be.
Since as per Ms. Dogra, “(b)ack in August 2014 no one was publicly aware of the factional fight within the AAP” and the bitterness “was still under wraps,” one fine day over an amiable breakfast, a leader of the stature of Yogendra Yadav shared with scribes information as explosive as the fact that the party’s NEC had voted on the issue of participation in Haryana elections, and that even though 15 of the 17 people voted in favour of contesting it, Kejriwal and his associates overruled such a majority opinion. After coming to know of such explosive stuff on 15 August 2014, a journalist “running way with a story from right under” fellow scribes’ noses would perhaps have stopped by the roadside and called her paper to flash it on the website. Instead, that factoid appeared in Dogra’s analytical piece two weeks later! And midway through her story!
I certainly agree with Dogra, that if, indeed, the conversation about 15 out of 17 members of the AAP’s NEC voting in favour of contesting Haryana elections had happened around that breakfast table, “the four others (journalists) who were present ... are also in the uncomfortable situation where they face questions about their own journalistic rigour and integrity. Not a happy place to be in for any self-respecting journalist!” And I would also like to know which self-respecting journalist with a nose for news would take a fortnight to confirm whether the NEC actually voted on Haryana issue, and voted 15 to 2 with five members absent, particularly if it was, as you claim, revealed by Yogendra Yadav in person.
Dogra saya: “Back in August 2014 no one was publicly aware of the factional fight within the AAP.” But a few paras earlier in her rejoinder she has stated that “Yadav was unhappy with the AAP’s decision not to contest the Haryana election” and this fact was “already in the public domain” and that he had even “given vent to his angst” in “prominent interviews.” And before coming to Chandigarh. Make up your mind.
But then this debate is not about that. It is about a few ethical questions involved. A politician, as per the journalist’s claims, spills out dirty intra-party secrets but asks that he not be named. The journalist goes ahead and does exactly that, attributing it to sources and not revealing the name of the politician whose revelations show the party president in poor light and paint him an autocrat. The journalist later reveals the source’s identity to someone for the asking. That is a key dimension of the debate that the profession is interested in, not who is verbose or whether other scribes had the guts to do the story or whether someone ran away with a story.
Only two questions matter: should a journalist reveal his or her source? And should a political party record a journalist’s conversation and use it in a dirty intra-party turf war?
But the first is not an issue that interests Dogra, who maintains: “(T)he talk about ‘revealing the source’ is a non-issue.” Really? And then she reveals more sources in this rejoinder. Full marks for consistency. As for the second one, the response does not even make a pretence of a protest. Allow me to add that irrespective of Dogra’s position, those who recorded her conversation and made it public have harmed the cause of both journalism and politics. And I am still to see the AAP leadership apologising to Dogra and the profession, and you, Mr Yadav, have also not made that a condition as you settle your house in order.
As for journalists revealing sources, allow me to quote from Maheshwer Peri’s tribute to the great editor Vinod Mehta. Underlining the reason why stories walked into the Outlook office, he writes in the magazine’s latest edition: “Everyone knew we’d never expose a source.”
That, dear readers, is why stories walk into any media office, including The Indian Express and The Hindu, both venerable newspapers being cited in this sorry saga.