A not quite water-tight story

IN Media Practice | 13/08/2008

The ‘sting’ing tapes are at  last in the public domain after much conjecture and grandstanding for a full 20 days. Conjecture on the part of political parties, especially the BJP,  and grandstanding by the CNN-IBN channel which did the sting. The stand of the channel on 22^nd July, the day of Trust vote in Parliament, was that the investigation was not complete and any premature telecast would hamper the investigations. The editor-in-chief of the channel also made his noble intentions behind the reluctance to telecast the tapes known to everyone on the same day. "We do not want to be drawn into political battles", he said and added that the channel reserves the right to telecast the tapes whenever it felt it necessary.

To air or not to air is certainly the prerogative of the channel if we delink the inconvenient media ethics from such a decision. But the timing of the telecast on 11^th August is something which is not very convincing. It appeared as if the channel was on the defensive or under pressure, especially when it had to invite four experts – three legal luminaries and one very senior and highly respected journalist – to support its decision and to give a "clean chit" to the channel. Mr Harish Salve, while participating in the panel discussion said: "Telecasting the tapes ‘prematurely’ may have impaired the investigation being conducted by the Parliament panel. CNN-IBN has done a sensible thing by waiting for a while and telecasting it now though a bit of time has elapsed".

Incidentally, Mr Salve gave a legal opinion to the channel on the issue of withholding the tapes. In fact, the sequence of events was like this, if I am not wrong.  The channel decided not to telecast the tape immediately after the BJP MPs preempted the channel and when there was criticism over its decision, legal opinion was sought. Normally, what happens in any newspaper or channel is that whenever an investigative story is filed and the editor has reason to fear that the story may attract libel or defamation or parliamentary privilege or contempt of court, he may get the story cleared by legal experts from within or outside and mostly from within. But in the present case, the legal opinion was only to support the decision already taken by the channel. This was unnecessary as no one can question the channel’s prerogative strictly from a legal point of view. May be, the decision can come under the scanner of media ethics.

Be that as it may, timing of the telecast raises a few inconvenient questions. As claimed on July 22^nd, did the channel probe further into the bribe episode when it telecast the tapes on August 11? It had nearly three weeks time. What was submitted to the parliamentary panel subsequently as evidence was nothing but the interviews of Amar Singh and Arun Jaitley and the positions these politicians had taken were on the expected lines.

Further, the parliamentary panel’s investigation is not over and the channel’s deposition before the panel on 11^th August does not mean the probe is over. Therefore, the decision to air the tapes on  Monday also amounts to ‘premature’ telecast and thus, as opined by Mr Salve, may impair the investigation. This also goes contrary to the claim of the channel on July 22^nd. Is it a sense of guilt that made the channel to do a flip flop on the issue?  

Interestingly, the channel says it is not drawing any conclusion and leaves it to the judgment of the viewers. The panelists also did not discuss the contradictions in Amar Singh’s statements nor the mystery behind Sanjeev Saxena’s disappearance nor Arun Jaitley’s bravado. Saxena played a crucial role in the entire episode and therefore becomes a star witness to throw light on the "cash for votes" scam. A major part of the discussion revolved around the channel’s decision. "I think the CNN-IBN was right in withholding the tapes because its investigation was incomplete…The matter became ‘privileged’ when the Speaker announced a panel would investigate the MPs’ allegations and when Parliament does that it is incumbent upon the media to defer to its judgment", Mr Verghese said. But the point that was glossed over, in the panel’s enthusiasm to defend the channel, was that the parliamentary probe is still not over and crucial witnesses like SP leader Revti Raman Singh, Sudheendra Kulkarni and one more BJP MP are to be examined. Therefore, if we take a strictly legal view, telecast of the tape on 11^th August, before the completion of the parliamentary probe is also ‘premature’ and may attract privilege.

What is a bit astonishing is the statement of the channel that it leaves it to the judgment of the viewers. Is it not its job to pinpoint the contradictions in the leaders’ versions for the viewer to draw his own conclusion? Has it not editorialized its stories in the past? What about its  role in the Arushi murder case? Besides, there is a marked difference between the presentation of its earlier stings and the ‘cash for vote’ sting. When the same channel did a sting on the then UP chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav’s ministers and the Samajwadi party ‘goons’ attacked the IBN crew, it did not leave the matter to the viewers’ judgment. When a channel does a sting operation there is a purpose and a logical end to which it has to take its investigation instead of leaving it to the viewers to draw their own conclusion.

The channel had made this assertion on its website:

Credible journalism is based on accuracy not speed, facts not sensationalism, reportage not allegations and assumptions. Our rigorous editorial protocol demands that even a hidden camera shoot is absolutely water-tight. In this particular story, there were many loose ends that needed to be cross-checked, corroborated and investigated further before the story could be aired.

So was the story they have now aired water-tight?

There are missing links in the ‘cash for vote’ sting. For example, Amar Singh is not to be seen in the tapes, though there is a reference to him. But, there are enough clues in his contradictory statements. When the scandal broke out, Amar Singh was in the denial mode and blamed the BJP for stage managing the sting. Now he says it was the BJP MPs who were after Revti Raman Singh to join the SP on the eve of the Trust vote. This would mean there was a meeting between Revti Raman Singh and the BJP MPs. Sanjeev Saxena’s disappearance also does not give the benefit of doubt to Singh. It is not in BJP’s interest to "hide" him.

At the same time, Revti Raman Singh’s opening dialogue when he met the BJP MPs might give the impression that Amar Singh was right when he said that it was the BJP MPs who were after Raman Singh. This is how the conversation begins in the tape.

Revti Raman Singh: "Kya baat hai batao (What is it, tell me)

If Raman Singh was sent by Amar Singh, he would not have opened the dialogue in the manner he did.

In the absence of clear evidence as to the source of the cash, one can draw a number of inferences from the conversations and the visuals. Since the parliamentary panel is on the job, we can probably await its verdict. But this does not mean there was a justification for the CNN-IBN to withhold the tapes on July 22^nd, subsequently armed with legal opinion, nor for its sudden decision to telecast it on August 11, when the parliamentary probe is still on. Eminent jurist Fali S Nariman aired similar views on the channel. He said: "This particular episode could have been released immediately and if it was not released immediately on legal advice then I believe it should have awaited the results of the Parliament committee’s investigation".