I look at an article as an argument that has to be put to bed. Playbacks, I consider to be peace treaties. Words, phrases, punctuations or an emphasis used during a conversation can suddenly be de-emphasised, retracted, watered down or reversed by the interviewee before the last draft is finalised. The goal is agreement, tails must wag.
All interviewees are potential sources—if the interaction is respectful till the article’s final hour, they often help with other stories and information even if they are not part of them. Playbacks are anyway non-negotiable but the cost is sometimes a good headline. At times, even the article itself.
A publisher, who usually publishes standard research-based books, had recently published some risqué books; she had also won a top French cultural award. During the playback of her quotes, I let drop what I was considering as a headline. ‘Hindi’s French Kiss’ – I admit feeling chuffed about it for a good few minutes and imagining it on the page till I heard back from her saying…well, suffice to say it was goodbye French kissing.
In another instance, “I’m drawn to Goa as part of it is a melting pot of cultures”, said a designer, who was being covered for his new campaign featuring a collection with a Goan wedding as background. “Why part of it?” I pointed out, “couldn’t we just drop that word?” as it didn’t seem to make sense. It made perfect sense to him…so I tucked it in a quote, and changed tack to clarify another point so that I could add the detail: “Aren’t the wedding plates used in the campaign made of bone china?” Yes—on that he could agree.
Then there was another team article on a community body in which we had identified someone—let’s call him Mr X—as its memory keeper. It was the day’s lead story, and it began with him. There was, for instance, a lovely quote of people of his community getting down from an express train at the New Delhi station in search of a new home, job, dreams. But it was not to be. We needed a clarification about his profession when he suddenly developed cold feet about being in the first paragraph so prominently when the association’s president had but a mention.
At the nth hour, a rejig of paragraphs and a fresh round of interviews were done with the president getting the article’s first line, “Delhi is the land of opportunities….” and we parked the train and Mr X way below in the piece— otherwise there was just a chance that he would have pulled out, and without him, the report, which was full of his remembrances, could have gone off the page.
Once or twice the playback has been crucial in ways more than one. A human rights lawyer, whom I interviewed after she wrote an account of her time in jail, had to be careful she make no mention of her case, as she was out on bail. She could just talk about her book. Along with the Q&A, she was also sent the set-up para, which is not usually done. Not all playbacks, however, have been eventful this year. Honestly, when they are not, it is a dream. But it is taken seriously; after all, the people who let us into their lives so that we can put out an abridged version of it, have every right to talk back. It is not always necessary to have the last word.
