A source, a riot, and a dilemma on a WhatsApp group Premium

Friendliness towards a source can be misconstrued by them as an approval of their ideology or perspective on a subject

For a reporter, sources are sacrosanct. Finding the right sources, nurturing and retaining them is an important component of the job. Sometimes, in the enthusiasm to retain a good source, a journalist may go a little too far, which could have consequences. The world of journalism is full of such stories.

Everyone has their own methods of finding and retaining sources. Being a teetotaller and a non-smoker, I have always found myself at a disadvantage compared to my peers, who manage to build a rapport with people over a shared cigarette or a drink.

Editorial | A Nuh model: On Haryana and the determination of the political executive

However, I make up for this by striking a personal note with my sources. I am a patient listener. As I am not very social, I sometimes push myself to attend gatherings, functions, and condolence meetings, to make my relations with my sources seem less formal.

On occasion, however, this friendliness is misconstrued by the source as an approval of their ideology or perspective on a subject. And sometimes, when I am asked to take a position, I am forced to make a choice between keeping the source and protecting my individuality.

I found myself in this situation recently while reporting on the clashes between two communities in Nuh, in southern Haryana. The conflict began during a religious procession and quickly engulfed other parts of the State, claiming six lives.

A few days after reporting on the riots, I found myself being added to a group on WhatsApp one morning. It had been formed to seek donations for the “martyrs” of a religious community who had died in the riots. Confused, I scrolled through the list of participants in the group and found that one of my sources was the group admin.