Journalistic values: Stinging without ethics

A. K. SaseendranWhen media coverage of ISRO spy case peaked out, a senior journalist faced some critical questions in a television programme about media coverage of the case. The correspondent explained that news reports are called ‘stories’ in English. That translates into ‘Kadha’ (fiction) in Malayalam. What we do are stories, he asserted.

The journalist was later elected as president of the Trivandrum Press Club. That leader of journalists is none other than the present CEO of Mangalam television channel R. Ajithkumar who is now in the middle of controversy over the channel’s ‘sting’ operation.

If you do not have good grasp of journalistic principles, you are bound to flounder in doing a sting operation which is a tight rope walk on journalistic ethics.  Where Mangalam television erred seriously was in misrepresentation of facts. Its story claimed that Transport Minister A. K. Saseendran’s conversation aired by it was with a housewife.

Confident of success of its manipulation, the CEO told another channel later that his reporters were not involved, only to be forced to make a retreat later. He admitted that it was a sting operation by its staff member.

It is also notable that the reporter concerned did not present the story herself as done in legitimate sting operations.  Besides, what she was telling the Minister was edited out.

Apparently, the channel was not keen to probe further to find out whether the Minister would be willing to misuse his office and grant undue favours for sexual favours. Going by the details that have come out, it was just a honey trap, and what we get is a glimpse of a side of the Minister’s character that, at best, raises questions of propriety and morality. Its prime purpose was to tickle and create a sensational debut for the channel.  There was little legitimacy for the story. Professionalism was absent.

The judicial enquiry ordered by the government is a fair attempt at fact finding though one cannot be optimistic about what ultimately would happen to the recommendations of the judicial commission, given the history of such commissions.  (Reports of several commissions are gathering dust at the Government Secretariat.)

Considering importance of freedom of the Press and larger interests of media and society, it is better for the government not to use police to probe the issues until the judicial commission submits its recommendations. However, police investigation into specific and credible complaints from individuals need not wait.

Tailpiece:  The election of Ajithkumar, whose distorted understanding of journalistic ethics was well known to journalists, as president of Press Club, which also runs an Institute of Journalism, points to the fact that the malady is not confined to a single organisation. Till now, there was hardly any peer pressure on journalists in the capital if they breached journalistic ethics. While majority of the journalists in the city are not grossly unethical, many will not mind some favours from those seeking publicity, in disregard to guidelines issued by the Press Council of India.

(Note: An edited version of this opinion piece appeared in Deccan Chronicle on April 9, 2017)

Violation of concept of open court in Kerala

Photo by Carptrash at the English language Wikipedia The continuing restrictions on the media from entering court premises in Kollam, Kochi and elsewhere in Kerala are in violation of Constitutional principles, common law and freedom of the press.

It undermines the concept of open justice which is one of the fundamental tenets of fair trial in common law. It is a venerated concept which is considered indispensable for fair trial. If some advocates and judges think that they can work the system without media, they are treading a dangerous path. Soon, the legitimacy of administration of justice itself will be in question.

The concept of open court, one should note, is just not of media access. It encompasses the right of public including lawyers not involved in the proceedings to be present in court. The media act as the eyes and ears of the public. Many courts across the democratic world are extending these rights by allowing copying of exhibits and even televising of proceedings.

It is surprising that some lawyers and judges are thinking in the opposite direction now. It is possibly an indicator of rot in the system. Many unhealthy trends are creeping into the administration of justice and presence of media is a hindrance to that. (This is not to say that unhealthy trends are absent in media.)

Many government pleaders these days are not always acting in the best interests of the government. Years ago, many people got favourable verdicts in forest cases since the government pleaders did not question fake documents and arguments presented by the plaintiffs. This forced the government to come up with a law for takeover of ecologically fragile lands. This led to another set of litigations which are yet to end. Besides, some innocents were harmed by forest officials in the process.

It was the environmental organisations and media, not necessarily those reporting from courts, which brought out developments like this. In the absence of media access to court proceedings, instances of liaison between lawyers appearing for government and plaintiffs in civil cases and accused in criminal cases are likely to grow.

Open justice is key to rule of law in democracies and any departure from that should be explained. However, some judicial officers have sought to limit media access to courts without proper explanations. The principle of open court ought to be upheld over concerns of friction or conflict. Lack of openness in court proceedings undermine rule of law. As philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham had pointed out open justice is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity.