Radia and media-Debate on ethics of journalism-29/11/10

Radia and media

by AJ Philip

Debate on ethics of journalism

IMPARTIALITY is to journalists what saltiness is to salt. Both are useless if they lose their principal attribute. A debate on this seemingly settled issue has been occasioned by the publication in two leading news magazines of India — Open and Outlook — transcripts of a few telephonic conversations Niira Radia, a woman endowed with formidable networking and public relations skills, had with some top journalists, politicians and corporate chiefs.

Radia, who heads a communication company and has such rich and powerful clients as captains of Indian industry Ratan Tata and Mukesh Ambani, is believed to have played a major behind-the-scene role in the allotment of 2G Spectrum licences in 2008 on a first-come-first-served basis that cost the exchequer a loss estimated at a staggering $38 billion.

It was the statutory auditor of all monetary transactions of the government — the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) — that estimated this loss which many consider is grossly exaggerated. It is also pointed out that while the state might have suffered a loss, the Indian consumer has gained as he now pays one of the world’s lowest call rates. Incidentally, when cell phones were introduced in the country in the early nineties, it cost upwards of $1 for a three-minute local call.

Be that as it may, India’s premier investigating agency, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is now investigating the case with periodic monitoring by the Supreme Court of India. Some obiter dicta by the Bench hearing the case against A Raja, who was the communications minister when the Spectrum licences were sold in 2008 at 2001 prices, forced the minister to quit early this month.

Unknown to Niira Radia, her telephones were placed under surveillance by the Income Tax Department, based on a tip-off by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in 2008 and 2009. (In India, telephone-tapping is permitted in certain cases.)

Transcripts of the phone conversations that have a bearing on the Spectrum scam, considered the mother of all scams, are now part of the case being heard by the Supreme Court. What the two newsmagazines have done is to publish the transcripts and provide links on their websites to the audio recordings for those who want to hear the conversations.

The question is whether it was proper for the newsmagazines to publish them, which in some cases amounted to “character assassination”. Since Radia was a PR person, it was her job to cultivate journalists, officials and political leaders. Whether, in the process, she violated any laws of the land is a matter being investigated now by the CBI. What has raised hackles is the manner in which she used journalists like veteran editor Vir Sanghvi and India’s leading television anchor Barkha Dutt for lobbying.

Journalists cannot take the line that they will not deal with the corrupt and the shady, for the profession at times demands them to gather information from them and also about them to serve the public interest. In the case of Vir Sanghvi, it was his readiness to buy Radia’s line on the dispute between brothers Anil Ambani and Mukesh Ambani for a weekly column he writes for the leading English daily Hindustan Times that caused surprise.

The column that appeared immediately after the conversation turned out to be on the lines suggested by Radia. Worse, both Dutt and Sanghvi had no hesitation in carrying messages to Congress leaders about inclusion of a leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazham (DMK), a constituent of the ruling United Progressive Alliance, in the union cabinet. “In a way, these were the people who eventually ensured Raja was given the telecom portfolio”, argued Open.

It is immaterial whether the journalists concerned actually acted as a go-between. The very fact that they knew how corporate lobbyists were working behind the scenes to promote the interests of a particular politician but did not report it raises questions about their bona fides.

Often, journalists are not able to distinguish between professional and personal friends. Politicians and corporates need the services of newspersons as the latter need the former in their day-to-day work. Sometimes they may not even know when they cross the borders of the professional and the personal. In the instant case, Radia was so close to them that she could not only call them at odd hours but even ask them to act as her conduit.

This brings up the question — what is the ideal relationship between those in power and newsmen? It should be guided solely by the public interest. Politicians and PR persons would try to manipulate newspersons to promote their personal interest. In the current case, Radia wanted Raja to head the key Telecommunications Ministry, and not anyone else from the DMK. It is for the journalists concerned to see through their game.

As N. Ram, editor of The Hindu, said during a TV discussion on the issue, the BBC would have sacked them if they were on its rolls. He was not wide of the mark, for readers and viewers expect that those who write columns or anchor television programmes to be unbiased.

In other words, the central issue is the credibility of the Press. A few months ago when it was reported that some newspapers in Maharashtra encouraged the concept of “paid news” – publishing favourable news at a price — during the last Assembly elections, it shocked the nation.

Unlike in the past when the Indian media was led by leaders like Raja Rammohan Roy and Mahatma Gandhi, who saw the media as an instrument for social and political reform, today it is a multi-billion dollar industry, controlled by businessmen and politicians.

To expect the modern-day practitioners of the profession to adhere to the exacting standards set by them may be too much. But if the Press is to remain eligible to be called the Fourth Estate and a watchdog of democracy, journalists should not become handmaidens of corporate carpetbaggers like Niira Radia.