Media as police

The "sting" operation carried out by a TV channel on a Delhi school-teacher who was allegedly inveigling schoolgirls into prostitution, unleashed a sudden bout of anger and street violence. The school-teacher is in police custody after she was beaten up by irate parents and by-standers. But the girl who she had supposedly forced into prostitution has now said that she is neither a schoolgirl nor a prostitute. So, are there questions to be asked about the nature of this "sting" operation?

The episode once again puts a question mark on the increasing resort to such "sting" operations. Given the editing technology that is available, it is hard to be sure about the complete authenticity of what is broadcast. This is not to say that much of what we have seen up till now "" the president of the BJP taking a wad of cash, a defence minister's associate instructing a supposed arms agent to hand over money to a colleague, a sub-inspector demanding a bribe by threatening to not release the body of someone who had committed suicide "" was not genuine. But that genuineness cannot be taken for granted. And there lies the problem for the media.

The libertarian argument would be that the different arms of the state are not doing their job, so the media should be allowed free rein to expose wrongdoing. It is well known that the police, to whom a citizen would turn, often refuse to register a complaint so as to doctor the crime statistics. Many would argue, therefore, that the only way to bring public pressure for change is to air the problem on television. This line suits the TV channels, who are looking for ratings in a bitterly competitive market for eyeballs. Add to this the new phenomenon of "citizen" journalists, armed with a phone camera, who are being encouraged by news channels to "file" stories, and who then indulge in unprecedented invasions of privacy, and the core issue becomes more difficult to frame.

Some ground-rules should be set, and that is best done by the TV channels themselves, because the government's attempt (as through the Broadcast Bill) will be ham-handed and its motives suspect. One rule that commends itself would be for the media to make a distinction between persons in public life and private individuals. This is the dividing line that is used in the US when it comes to defamation, and it works quite well. But given the high level of corruption here, the definition of those considered fair game will need to be broadened, and should cover anyone paid out of the exchequer. In an environment where even the government employee selling wood in the cremation ghats takes a bribe (for providing customers dry wood), it is hard to argue otherwise. The second question concerns the authenticity of what is telecast, in terms of whether the editing has distorted what happened or deprives it of context. The only remedy here is an effective law for defamation and libel, which also means a quick judicial process and not one that drags out a case for years. Even one case of punitive damages will make the TV channels conscious of the risks involved in this game.