Media is reliable as a credible source when it is objective in its reportage and conveys a message from the scene of action with due fidelity. Tamper, tinker, manipulate -- and that reliance, respect and credibility are gone. Worse is when the mediaman is tempted to hog the limelight in a contrivance of his own creation -- when he is hoist on his own petard.
Recent headlines are replete with news of purported clever reporting of mediamen engaged in “covering” targeted persons “caught in the act” of accepting money for some dubious purpose with the underscored message reflecting the credit to the reporter.
The tragedy is that the “catch” was scripted by the journo himself and the dramatis persona was provoked, persuaded, induced, seduced or pressured into such performance.
In recent times, policemen have imitated the technique to act as heroes “caching shady transactions” in filmed episodes. The policemen doing a “great job” catching cricketers accepting gifts or cash were hailed as Smart Alec heroes. But such adulation was rather short lived.
The cops were lambasted by the court and the accused granted bail. It was evident that the “heroes” were out to provoke, persuade, induce, seduce and pressurize the accused into a contrived situation where the targeted persons acted the way they did.
Left to themselves they would not have acted that way if they were not so induced by the “heroes”. That was the benefit of doubt granted by the court. The policemen or the journalist inducing the act is as much guilty of illegal solicitation as the accused they tried to frame.
A litany of headlines and “breaking news” have sought to grab eyeballs and soar TRP ratings taking advantage of the surprise and discomfiture of the targets. The “Cash-for-questions affair hits Britain” was a recent headline. It was to prove to be just another worn out deadline. The Sunday Times, posing as a South Korean solar energy company, filmed Lord Cunningham, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Laird as they supposedly revealed their readiness to wield their influence in the halls of power to paying clients. Spicy news indeed!
Cunningham, privy counsellor who led the joint committee of Lords’ reform under then Premier Tony Blair, asked for a fee totalling £1,44,000 a year to provide a personal lobbying service, the newspaper claimed. Not only that, he told reporters, posing as representatives of a South Korean solar energy company, that he would advise them on parliamentary affairs and become their advocate at Westminster. Cunningham was also caught on camera saying he could host receptions on the terrace for the reporters and their fake client so they could “mingle” with politicians.
Mackenzie, Tony Blair’s former law and order adviser, who was once a chief superintendent in Durham police, explained how he had devised a ruse that allowed him to host events for paying clients, including on the terrace, according to the newspaper. Mackenzie was also happy to ask questions and approach ministers in the House of Lords to “bend their ear”.
Similarly, Laird, former prominent Ulster Unionist, told the undercover reporters that he swapped the task of asking parliamentary questions for paying clients with other Lords.
According to the British newspaper, he laid bare all the ways he and a “coterie” of friendly Peers could help the undercover reporters lobby for new laws. But in a statement sent to a newspaper, Lord Cunningham said: “I deny any agreement to operate in breach of the House of Lords’ code of conduct
and, in fact, recall that I made it clear that I would only operate within the rules.” He added that his reference to “a fanciful £12,000 a month payment” was made to test his suspicion that he had been talking to journalists. Lord Mackenzie, when asked if he had done anything wrong, told BBC: “Not at all.” “There is nothing in the rules to prevent a peer hosting a function, as long as he has no financial interest. I was being interviewed in connection, I thought, with a position as consultant for this energy company… not as a lobbyist,” he said.
No doubt, the scandal is set to intensify even further as BBC prepares to air the allegations from a joint investigation with the Daily Telegraph newspaper later this month. Cut to India. Remember the cash for questions scandal which broke out in 2005, leading to the landmark termination of 11 MPs by voice vote in Parliament. The MPs were allegedly caught on camera agreeing to ask questions in Parliament for money after undercover reporters approached them. Or, the more talked about “cash-forvotes” scandal. Tehelka sting operation of BJP leader Bangaru Laxman and Jaya Jaitly “accepting” money?
India has done it ages ago! Big deal! But before we gloat, let us look deeper, learn more about the legal and ethical issues involved. They are fraught with such concerns over whether they constitute genuine entrapment and ensnarement or an induced situation. That is the crux of the issue. Nothing else. Law enforcement or “intrepid journalism” have to be careful not to induce or provoke the commission of a “crime” by someone who would not otherwise have done so. Again, in the process of such operations, the police and the journos often engage in the same claims. In common law jurisdictions, the defendant may invoke the defence of entrapment. In a typical sting operation, a law enforcement officer or a neutral member of the public ought to play a role to make it credible of evidenciary value. They are illegal in many countries, including Sweden and Netherlands.
How many of you know that the term ‘sting’ was coined after the Robert Redford and Paul Newman movie of 1973 ‘The Sting’, although it was not about a police operation?
Feedback: abatra@exchange4media.com
