Why doesn’t he reveal the name of the corrupt judge? I said as I was keenly watching the anchor of the show grilling the former Chief justice who made the accusation.
Well, he seems to have evaded a direct answer in naming the man and the Chief minister of the State, said my husband.
But he literally put words in the anchor’s mouth, didn’t he?
But when he talks about two persons who had held high places a decade ago, what’s the harm in revealing their names? I asked.
You should know better being a journalist, he said laughing.
Well, you can’t compare because a journalist is not supposed to reveal his/her sources because of the consequences , I said in defence of my tribe.
Probably the same reason applies to members of judiciary as well, He defended.
No, I don’t think I am convinced, I chuckled .
Is it important what you think? Don’t you also promise anonymity of your sources when you write about sensitive topics? He reminded.
Yes, I do because only then I get to know the Truth, I said stressing on the noun.
Ah, now you come to the point because when you write for a print medium you can take your interviewee into confidence but on a visual medium the interviewee is present right there and he/she is seen and heard by the whole world and what is said cannot be denied. Whether the anchor of the TV channel gets at the truth or not, I think this is the basic Truth journalists like you should know, he said accusing me!
n.meera raghavendra rao