(Sting operations in India)
There are no half-truths.
There are only bits and pieces of truth, depending on how one chooses to see it. No issue must be looked at in isolation, but must be placed in a context. I, therefore, present my arguments before coming to a conclusion on the issue of sting operations (in India).
At the onset, let me distinguish between investigative journalism and sting operations.
A sting operation is an operation designed to catch a person committing a crime by means of deception or exposing a wrong deed by a hidden camera. Sting operations are just one of the tools of investigative journalism.
Sting operations are a matter of contention because there are myriad questions of ethics, which are very subjective. Traditionally, the role of the media has been that of a ‘watchdog’. With the coming of the TV, that role has begun to change-infotainment is a necessity. The media saw sting operations as a news strategy that would fulfill their role of a ‘watchdog’ at the same time provide a sense of entertainment. Sting operations make people sit up and watch. The problem is that, somewhere the distinction between exposing a wrongdoing and sensationalizing it is lost. Stings have been a part of UK’s tabloid culture for a long time now. But in India, it is difficult to distinguish between serious and tabloid journalism, thus the situation is dangerous.
Another common contention is that sting operations are an invasion of an individual’s privacy. The problem is compounded by the lack of a commonly accepted definition of privacy. Right to privacy in India is derived both from the common law and the constitutional law (Article 21). But when we discuss Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression of the media in the same length as the privacy of an individual, we reach a deadlock. In that, there cannot be a rule to place one above the other at all times.
Therefore, the next question will be, if we accept that the sting operations uphold the freedom of speech, is it for our common good? Who decides what is common good or ‘public interest’? The media have time and again proved convincingly that they are capable of sensationalizing issues in the name of ‘public interest’.
On the other hand, our democracy has come to such a pass, that people take its evils as a given, and you need the media to use newer, innovative methods to induce the public into action. For instance, corruption in the Army/ Defense Ministry was public knowledge but the Tehelka investigation made people react to it because it was a visual document.
There is always a danger of the public taking these sting operations for granted, if they are too many in number. There are weekly TV shows full of stories obtained from hidden camera investigations like parda fash or sansani. These are, beyond doubt, sensational, and are a gimmick to draw more eyeballs.
Sting journalism in today’s time is considered to be nothing more than ‘entrapment journalism’. The media induce people to commit a crime and then cry foul. One school of thought believes that this is unethical because it could be assumed that the crime would not have been committed if there had been no ‘deception’ or ‘entrapment’.
But this argument is on shaky grounds because of two reasons. First: that the crime was committed is enough to justify that the person is guilty (assuming that the sting was authentic). Second: it is only an assumption that the crime would not be committed had there not been an entrapment. However, an expose would be on sounder ethical grounds than ‘entrapment’. Also, those who mount an entrapment story themselves commit offenses of impersonation, criminal trespass under false pretenses et al.
Sting operations break two classic journalistic traditions/ practices. One: the distinction between ‘off-the-record’ and ‘ on-the-record’ briefing is blurred. This typically happens in the case of an expose. A journalist’s responsibility towards her source is questioned here (again ‘public interest’ becomes the parameter to judge whether the story must be done or not). Second: with the coming of sting operations, not all ‘breaking news’ is topical- they are constructed and created. How many times have we seen ‘breaking news’ which are hidden camera exposes by the channels? All this makes us wonder if stings are merely sensational, done in the interests of the commercial media.
Due to the technological advancement authenticity of the hidden camera exposes are questioned. You don’t need a technologically savvy person to concoct tapes. In most cases, proving the authenticity of the tapes takes up a lot of valuable time and the public would have lost interest in the case by the time the report comes out.
The easy availability of technology has brought about the phenomenon of ‘citizen journalism’. Exposes by individuals could be another gray area. The photograph of Shahid and Kareena taken from a camera phone by a by stander was a clear case of invasion of privacy. Especially in the area of sting journalism if the lines between a journalist and a common man is blurred, it could be dangerous. However, the channels have to take utmost care while accepting tapes from citizens and check its authenticity.
To a great extent, sting operations have contributed to the change in the media-government relations. When the state tries to gag the media freedom it shows the success of the media. Hidden camera investigations have kept the politicians on their feet. This was clear when the present government tried to regulate sting operations immediately after the cash-for-questions scandal.
While politicians have been the targets of the stings very often, corporate firms, big MNCs have rarely/never come under the scanner. This tells us something about the media. They cannot take on the corporates, who form the major source of their revenue.
It wouldn’t be wrong to say that sting operations have the potential to affect a social change. But today’s journalism is fast paced. Follow-ups are not vigourous. Thus perhaps, stings end up being isolated events and have a limited impact.
Having gone over the pros and cons of sting operations, I have a few conclusions to draw. If we have to choose between the people in power and the media then, like Thomas Jefferson did, I would choose the media because Indian media is very diverse and can accommodate many viewpoints. However, the day is not far when the media is in the danger of losing this trust.
Despite all the shortcomings sting operations are a powerful tool in the hands of the media, they are justified as long as they are used responsibly.
Raksha Kumar
