It is just coincidence that when ‘King of Sting’ Tarun Tejpal himself is in trouble, it has become necessary to examine the perils and also promises, if any, of Tehelka-style sting journalism. It is necessary because in India, some journalists equate sting journalism with investigative reporting, ignoring the elements that make them different. They forget, or in some cases don’t realise, how big a responsibility they have when they carry out sting operations and how careers can be finished forever if things go wrong.
Most investigative reporting can be done without any sting operation, and the biggest example of that is the unearthing of the Watergate scandal. In-depth investigative reporting of the scandal forced an American president to resign, mid-term, from office. But at no stage did the two reporters — Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — do any sting operation or use any kind of deceitful tactics to get the information to establish the involvement of President Richard Nixon in organising a break-in at the headquarters of the rival Democratic Party. They relied on building the case from scratch, and their editor Benjamin Bradlee kept them on the side of caution needed in such reporting by putting them through all the tests of objective and unbiased investigative journalism.
Indian journalists should realise that sting journalism is the easy way out, and can make the media lose its credibility and legitimacy, especially these days when the media has been accused of indulging in ‘paid news’.
Some problems are inherent in the very nature of sting operations. Editors have no way to verify the information collected by reporters in case they have resorted to deception. They have to rely totally on the honesty and credentials of the reporters, which, at times, can be risky.
But the biggest problem with such shady operations is that they have elements of deception and entrapment right from the planning stage. If some little detail goes wrong, the journalistic scoop can easily turn into a case of entrapment. There is a very pertinent example of such a sting operation going awry in the United States. In that case, police set up a sting operation against Washington DC’s mayor Marion Barry. They wanted to get to him because of rumours that he was a drug addict. One of his old girl-friends was brought from California to Washington, DC to entice him to smoke cocaine. The hotel room in which she was staying was equipped to shoot a video with a hidden camera. But when the mayor came to her room, he was more interested in having sex with her than smoking cocaine. She was seen insisting again and again that he should smoke. Ultimately he did, but her insistence was so obvious that the sting turned into a case of entrapment and became totally ineffective. The video made with the hidden camera was widely televised and although people saw the whole episode on TV again and again, years later they still voted for the man because they felt that the mayor was trapped. Also, if a target is honest and the reporter offers bribe to trap the target, he or she can turn the table and report it to the police and get the reporter arrested. In that case, the only person who can testify in the reporter’s favour will be his editor, who can easily be bought, influenced or compromised. Also, offering bribe in cash to test someone’s integrity can easily be described as entrapment.
If a sting operation is against a particular political party, as was the case in the Tehelka sting operation against the BJP-led government, it can easily be described as political bias. Also, overall, stings destroy human trust. If they are used too frequently to check who is honest and who is not, there is nothing to stop all people from trying stings. These days, surveillance cameras are cheap and anyone can become a sting journalist – as the Aam Aadmi Party found out in the recent sting by a media outfit.
Investigative reporters themselves can be in trouble because too many stings can create an atmosphere of distrust and dry up their sources. Earlier this year, we also saw how a business magnate conducted reverse stings against journalists belonging to Zee TV in order to save his skin. What will happen if corporate officials and journalists start stinging their bosses and colleagues upload damaging videos on YouTube?
The only situation in which stings can be legitimate is when they are done with the permission of a neutral responsible group of editors who are told in advance why a sting is absolutely necessary in a certain situation because the cause is noble and overwhelmingly in the interest of the people. Otherwise, Indian media should train its reporters not to accept whatever is said, look deep into the motives, how to chase a story relentlessly, and cover it by using well-tried methods of investigative journalism.
(Author/news analyst Ravi M. Khanna is now freelancing from New Delhi after his 24-year stint with Voice of America in Washington DC as its South Asia bureau chief)
Feedback: ravimohankhanna@gmail.com
