We frequently receive pieces to be published in Newslaundry by writers, who want to use a pseudonym and remain anonymous, sometimes by journalists or anchors (often friends). A recent one that landed in my inbox was an excellently-written opinion piece, but the writer wanted me to carry it with a pseudonym. I know him and he is an intelligent and articulate professional.  I explained that Newslaundry does not carry anonymous pieces (exception being data crunching pieces that have no editorial positions as such). This led to a spirited debate. We finally figured this required a longer and wider discussion. Also, we at Newslaundry would put out our individual views on this issue out there and get feedback from Newslaundry’s paying subscribers to help guide us. I must make clear this is not a referendum but it is important we know what our subscribers think, so as we grow and evolve we take all such inputs on board. Because when the public pays, the public is served.

I have earlier written a piece, Our Position On Newslaundry. (It explains my view on the idea of “objectivity” and “unbiased” and other such words that are thrown around inaccurately in the context of the news media and reportage.)

I feel that while no one can achieve the ultimate “unbiased” purity of “objectivity”, we can and must attempt to achieve the ideal of full transparency and full disclosures. Also, we can attempt to be fair by putting different sides of any argument out there. Biases are inherent to any thinking individual. Where you come from, what you have been exposed to in your life, nature of profession, etc, form our worldview. With social media a certain level of transparency is clear because “tweets are personal”. So we know which journalists have a primitive-bigoted mind and which ones are pseudo-sickular and also which ones float around like dried leaves in the political winds of change.

Very importantly, full disclosures of all conflicts of interest while writing are mandatory at Newslaundry. We also have a page that explains our own ownership pattern and links to other entities. That is key to creating an environment of transparency and fairness and adds great value to opinion writing and political discourse. It is why we insist on writers giving their names – it is the most basic disclosure.  We have received, over the last few years, many pieces from journalists that their newspaper or news channel refused to carry but the reporter did not want to be named. We took a decision not to use those pieces and only carry the ones where the journalist was willing to take ownership of the piece. You can’t carry a report from a reporter who refuses to be named. A ground report must have someone stand behind the claims of the story.

I do understand that having an opinion is an asset in the news space even as one can be called a BJP toady or a Congress toady or any toady, but it doesn’t seriously damage one’s professional prospects. That’s not always the case in jobs like consulting or banking – safe, publicity-averse corporate jobs. They don’t want controversy. They don’t want to be seen as close to any political point of view. I don’t respect that aspect of our corporate world but I see where it comes from.

A friend who worked for a bank on Wall Street once shared with me how hard it was for him to succeed and grow in an office where he was the only Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican environment when the Obama phenomenon happened. It was an extremely polarised political climate and his enthusiastic pro-Obama facebook posts were a liability in his profession. I get it.

In India, in the much-abused Lutyens’ zone there was a social stigma attached to being a BJP voter. There was the unfair assumption that all BJP voters were trishul-wielding, bloodthirsty loonies (though, I do believe, that is the core base of the party) and it could affect one’s social life. I get it.

But no matter what people say, India is not (not yet anyway) a place where one can’t speak ones mind. We aren’t an Iran or a North Korea or an Egypt. Not even close. And if it is inconvenient professionally or socially to speak one’s mind or wear one’s political belief on one’s sleeve then that inconvenience is a price that must be paid. I will attach a premium to someone who is willing to pay that price in the interest of transparency. Independence, liberty and the credo of freedom of speech and expression must be backed by oneself. It’s not free. Your name is the starting point. Freedom has a price.

When it comes to whistleblowers, we’re happy to provide complete confidentiality to those who give us leads and documents and key inputs, but the story that results from that exercise will have a reporter’s name who would have done his or her fact checks, exercised judgment, run it through editorial scrutiny and injected his or her biases in it to be judged by the reader. Someone will have taken ownership of that production.

Also, an argument put to me was that as long as those calling the editorial shots know who wrote the piece and are convinced of it, their editorial judgment is enough for the reader. While I recognise the obvious logic of that position and advantages of allowing pieces that are anonymous (or with pseudonyms), however in the larger context of what we’re trying to do with Newslaundry, it may be inconsistent with our transparency war cry.

Which is why I insist that we not carry anonymous pieces or pseudonyms.  We’d like to know what you think. Leave your comments below and do vote, we really want to know what you think.  Before you vote please do read this counterview of the gentleman whose piece sparked this discussion at Newslaundry.

The voting and comments for this article are only open to our subscribers. Subscribe now to participate.

Please read both articles before voting.