A novel principle

THE Journalists’ Association of India did well at a recent meeting in recording its protest against the assertion of Sir Maurice Hayward in the Bombay Legislative Council that it was the duty of newspaper editors to disclose the names of their correspondents when desired by the Government. The principle laid down by this spokesman for the Bombay Government was not only novel, but one which no self-respecting editor, whether Indian or English, would give effect to except in one of three classes of cases. These are: (1) when the editor published the communication on the distinct understanding that the name of the writer was to be given out if and when the occasion for giving it out arose; (2) when the correspondent himself had no objection to his name being disclosed; and (3) when the editor was convinced that the correspondent was actuated by malice or some other evil motive. Except in one or other of these specified cases, and between them they cover only a very small proportion of the cases in which newspapers publish anonymous contributions, no responsible editor of a newspaper would disclose the name of his correspondent, whether it is desired by the Government or by anyone else. The reason is quite clear, and it has nothing whatever to do with the ethical merits or demerits of anonymous journalism. A newspaper editor may refuse to publish an anonymous contribution or may publish it on the understanding that he will disclose the name of the writer if ever he is called upon to do so, but when he does publish the contribution without any such stipulation, there is between him and his correspondent an implied understanding that he will not give out the latter’s name without his consent.