Media & Ethics

“A journalist should never join the Establishment, no matter how tempting the blandishments. It is our job to hold power to account, not join it. In a world that increasingly obsesses over the gods of power, money and fame, a journalist and a writer must remain detached, like a bird on a rail, watching, noting, probing, commenting but never joining. In short, an outsider.” — Frederick Forsyth. The Outsider. My Life in Intrigue. Corgi Books. London. p. 16.  

In his famous 1921 editorial, Scott wrote that fundamentally, character

“[...] is the slow deposit of past actions and ideals. It is for each man his most precious possession [...] implies honesty, cleanness, courage, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the community...”

The Indian mainstream media was put to the acid test of character in the second week of November 2010. In any other democratic nation boasting of a free press, the revelations that surfaced in that week would have had the effect of a tsunami, causing high intensity earthquakes across the media landscape. It would have taken years for the rumblings to subside and many heads would have rolled. But nothing of the sort happened. When a herd of wild buffaloes is attacked, they form a ring with their horns pointing outwards. The Indian media did something similar. It joined hands to cover up the whole scandal. The few low intensity tremors the revelations caused, died in less than two weeks and life returned to normal as if nothing had happened.

On May 14, 2004, Piers Morgan was ‘fired’ as editor of Britain’s ‘biggest selling newspaper’, ‘Daily Mirror’ over the issue of some pictures he published in the paper on Saturday, May 1. The pictures were of British soldiers of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment abusing Iraqi civilians, more specifically one published on the front page showing a British soldier in full modern battle-gear, urinating on a hooded Iraqi. The pictures Morgan published instantly raised a furore in the political establishment as well as the media. The concern was not only about the veracity of the pictures but their effect on the morale of British soldiers in Iraq already under fire from the Al Qaeda. Alastair Campbell, Director of communications at No. 10, Downing Street advised Morgan:

“When you decide it’s no longer enough to be a national newspaper editor, and you want to be a political player […] when you decide to be a player, then sometimes you have to face up to the rules of the political game as well.” — The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade. Ebury Press, London 2005. p.9  

Even after being shown the door Morgan insisted that the pictures he published were real and were in fact provided by a soldier of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (QLR) serving in Iraq. However, Morgan had the candour to confess:

“There were times in my editing career when I was sanctimonious or hypocritical […] Journalists are notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to our own failings. But much of what we do is notable for its conceit, moral double standards and occasionally downright nastiness.” (Ibid. p. ix)

In November, 2010, two Indian magazines, Outlook and OPEN published transcripts of alleged conversations between corporate lobbyist Niira Radia and several mainstream media journalists, politicians and corporate honchos. The conversations were tapped by the Indian income tax authorities in 2008-9. In the initial days after the publication of the tapes, there was a conspiratorial hush. The mainstream media behaved as if nothing had happened. The Times of India, India’s largest selling English language newspaper, remained silent for almost two weeks before commenting on the issue in its issue of November 25, 2010. Though the authenticity of the tapes never seemed to be in doubt, there were sanctimonious explanations by and on behalf of the dramatis personae, the prime accused.

It was the power of the social media and the abhorred ‘Internet Hindus’ that forced the mainstream media to take note. They texted two million tweets in two days to focus the attention of the world’s press on the issue. According to The Washington Post, some critics accused the Indian mainstream media of resorting to ‘a seemingly orchestrated blackout’. Most media outlets cited their inability to authenticate the tapes as an excuse for the blackout. Clearly, they would not like to live up to the standards they hold for others. The usual advice they give the politicians at the first whiff of an allegation of corruption is, ‘resign and stand aside till your name is cleared by an official enquiry’. Emily Wax who followed the story, wrote in The Washington Post:

“[...] the recorded conversations have raised questions about ethics in the Indian media and its coziness with corporate and political bigwigs, especially at a time of unprecedented economic growth.” — Emily Wax. (2010). “Indian journalists accused of secretly helping politicians, businesses.” The Washington Post. November 22, 2010. Accessed from http://goo.gl/r8GKIr

Wax cited in her report the following excerpt from the report, “Paid News: How corruption in the Indian media undermines democracy” prepared by a subcommittee of the Press Council of India:

“This malpractice has become widespread and now cuts across newspapers and television channels, small and large in different languages and located in different parts of the country.”

After interviewing many experts on the Indian media, Wax had arrived at the inescapable conclusion, something that many in India had suspected for quite some time:

“Indian journalists also increasingly serve as advisers for companies and as brand strategists on five-star hotel advisory boards. They are often paid by think tanks and are alleged to be paid sometimes to write stories by interested parties, media experts say.” — “Indian media’s mighty stand exposed on wrong side of 2G spectrum scam”. International Business Times. November 23, 2010. Accessed from: http://goo.gl/FxKhET

The International Business Times highlighted the quid pro quo nature of the relationship between journalists and politicians. It suggests that they have no qualms in acting as power brokers:

“The transcripts of conversations between Radia and journalists suggest that they expect return of favours, which come in different forms from free trips abroad to free stays at suites in plush 5-star hotels. [...] Politicians also help out visiting scribes along with their families by providing government guest houses at cheap rates. Free all-expenses-paid holidays to writers and campaigners are also doled out as part of the deal. [...] — Emily Wax. (2010). “Indian journalists accused of secretly helping politicians, businesses.” The Washington Post. November 22, 2010. Accessed from http://goo.gl/r8GKIr

With the tapes out, Indian media is now running for cover, in the name of professional exigencies.” In her article in The Washington Post, cited earlier, Emily Wax cited Vrinda Gopinath whose indictment of the media was far more scathing than anyone in the Indian media. In her article in Mail Today she said:

“It’s a life of world capital-hopping, freebies, networking and seminars and summits [...] Let’s not hoodwink ourselves to believe that this morally pornographic journalism is objective, fair and exact. All of it stinks, in varying degrees of severity and phoniness.”

Daily Mirror may only be a tabloid given to purveying salacious gossip. Still the paper fired Morgan once it became known that the pictures he published were crude fakes. Morgan says that during the two weeks in which the controversy originated, peaked and climaxed he was constantly stalked day and night by newspaper reporters and TV crews shouting questions like ‘Are you going to quit Mr. Morgan?’ And that is the big difference between Britain, the ‘mother of democracy’ and India, still unable to shed its feudal past, where two different standards co-exist: one for the clichéd common-man and another for the high and mighty. Morgan insisted he was not aware that the pictures were crude fakes. He might be right but he paid the price for publishing the pictures in good faith. He was summoned to the Chief Executive, Sly Bailey’s office to be informed that it was ‘no longer appropriate’ for him to continue as editor. His security pass and handheld Blackberry computer were instantly confiscated and he was escorted out of the office by burly security personnel. The news was out in minutes. As he was driven home by his official chauffeur for the last time, Morgan’s in-car TV crackled into life and he was ‘breaking news’! He says his phone went into ‘meltdown, with calls and text messages pouring in relentlessly from colleagues, other editors, family, friends. Even the odd foe, presumably just to make sure it was true’!

In stark contrast, the Indian journalists under scrutiny returned to their positions with hardly a dent in their images. N. Ram former editor of The Hindu who was more forthright than others, said what happened was indeed strange. According to him, had it happened in the US or the UK, it would be curtains for the careers of the journalists involved. Though the two magazines published transcripts of Radia’s conversations with many people, those with two high profile journalists attracted a lot of attention, because of the nature of their conversations. They were Barkha Dutt a familiar face on NDTV and Vir Sanghvi, a former editor and Hindustan Times columnist. In her conversations Dutt reportedly agreed to mediate between the Congress party and its regional ally the DMK, for the inclusion of the latter’s A. Raja in the union cabinet as Telecom minister. Her and NDTV’s defence was that she was ‘stringing along for a story’ and it was quite a normal practice for journalists to cultivate contacts in various spheres. Manu Joseph, editor of OPEN magazine felt that had she disclosed the lobbying that was going on between the Congress and the DMK, it would have been a big scoop. The implication was that by not disclosing it she was disloyal to her viewers to whom she was primarily accountable. She claimed that it was ‘an error of judgement’ for not doing so and the rest of the media let go giving her the benefit of doubt. Sanghvi’s conversation could not be dismissed as easily as that. The WSJ blog, India Real Time reproduced this excerpt from the transcripts published by the Indian magazines:

“What kind of story do you want? [...] The message will get across, but what other points do we need to make? [...] So, what point do you want me to make.” — Beckett, Paul. (2010). “Oh Vir, What Can The Matter Be?” India Real Time. The Wall Street Journal India Blogs. November 22, 2010. Accessed from http://goo.gl/EaWvJn

At one-point Sanghvi advised Niira Radia that a proposed television interview with Mukesh Ambani was to be ‘fully scripted’ and offered to rehearse it with him. At first, Sanghvi did not question the authenticity of the tapes. In fact no one in the media did. He and Hindustan Times announced that he was retiring his column. He went on a holiday for months. By the time he returned, the Indian media was in the ‘horns outward mode of defence of the wild buffaloes’. That was when he defended himself in Outlook magazine. Sanghvi for the first time questioned the authenticity of the tapes. There was no explanation as to ‘who might have doctored the tapes’; ‘what was the motive for doctoring the tapes’ and ‘why his tapes alone were doctored’. The defence appeared weak and the explanation about the tapes being doctored, rather specious. As the targets of the tapping were not (high or low profile) journalists but the corporate lobbyist and her clients. The conversations were recorded by the income tax department to investigate possible tax evasions.

Excerpted from ‘Twisting Facts To Suit Theories’ And Other Selections From Voxindica. 2017. Authors Press. New Delhi. pp. 102-108