Of stings and scoops

FREEZE FRAME

The 'sting' on the casting couch syndrome in Bollywood on India TV perhaps has once again brought to the fore the debate on media ethics.

There have been other exposes, both in print and on TV screens. There have been other instances of provocative material being transmitted through mobile phones and of course, several indecent proposals on the net.

Reality shows on TV and movies based on real life incidents are stirring a hornet's nest. The classification of private and public space is changing. The problem is compounded by the fact that we do not have an adequate legal framework to tackle this change.

While individual morality is an entirely personal matter, societal behaviour, however subjective, tends to have benchmarks. There are a number of questions that arise out of this.

Who, for example, is a public figure and what constitutes public space? Are these two interchangeable or mutually exclusive, depending upon the circumstances? What constitutes an invasion of privacy and what is the public's right to know?

How much creative licence can an artiste be given when dealing with factual stories? Is the creation of 'offensive' content a crime or is it its dissemination? Is freedom of expression an overarching fundamental human right which allows the abuse of others' rights? What constitutes libel when a person(s) is named in the course of a media report on an incident or its artistic recreation?

If there is a government regulator, what happens to reportage of political dissent? Is good intent, individual or collective, good enough to justify media excesses? And finally have we reached a point in time where it is becoming difficult to determine where to draw the line between media and communication, society and individuals?

There have been sting operations in India and elsewhere for several years. Undercover reporters have unearthed many a scoop. Only five years ago, Tehelka carried out its famous expose on defence deals.

Then came the cricket match-fixing 'scoop'. Now virtually every month, if not every week, some sting or hidden camera/mike sting is being done somewhere. With the spread of the internet and the availability of inexpensive and tiny video cameras, it has become relatively simple to record any event in a covert manner.

With proliferation of internet chat rooms - some of these blogs would shame even pornographers "� and web cams it is also becoming very easy to spread the word (and picture) around with ease and comparative anonymity.

Mobile phones, especially camera phones that are multimedia message (MMS) enabled, can also intrude into people's lives and disseminate damaging material to the public domain.

Not only is our police ill equipped to handle this new age crime but our laws are also inadequate.

In the US, for example, where one needs legal sanction before undertaking a sting, there are strict guidelines:

1. Sting operations can be mounted only against those against whom some evidence of criminality already exists and a sting operation is considered necessary for getting conclusive evidence.
2. Permission for sting operations must be obtained from appropriate courts or the attorney general. This safeguard has been laid down since those who mount a sting operation themselves commit the offences of impersonation, criminal trespass under false pretences and make a person commit an offence.
3. While the transcript of the recordings can be edited, the films and the tapes themselves should not be erased or altered.
4. The US Supreme Court has even defined what amounts to an inducement in a sting. "An inducement to commit a crime should not be offered unless: there is a reasonable indication, based on information developed through informants or other means, that the subject is engaging, has engaged, or is likely to engage in illegal activity of a similar type, or the opportunity for illegal activity has been structured so that there is reason for believing that the persons drawn to the opportunity, or brought to it, are predisposed to engage in the contemplated illegal activity."

Obviously there is considerable outrage in India every time a sting or expose is done. Some call it the moral right of journalists to publish the wrongdoing of an individual or a group.

On other hand, many find this an intrusion of privacy. There is also an issue of whether such exposes should be confined to issues of 'national importance' and not deal with the personal lives of celebrities.

Tabloid journalism has now become mainstream. TV channels too, in their fight for eyeballs, are becoming sensational in their reportage.

In the last few years there has been an even more pervasive shift toward a featurised and people-oriented approach to the news, away from traditional straight news accounts.

This tends to make the news more thematic and make the journalist more a storyteller and mediator than a reporter. Then we have the flurry of Reality shows, which range from candid camera to nerve-wracking contests. Most such shows are voyeuristic and many have a far-reaching cathartic impact on TV audiences.

This paradigm shift in attention grabbing is the reason for all kinds of stunts. It's time we realise its implications. As the world becomes more networked, we will have to constantly keep tackling increased public scrutiny of private lives even as we learn to handle smut and slander. Who will draw the line?

Amit Khanna is chairman of Reliance Entertainment. The views expressed here are his own