Sting Operations

STING OPERATIONS B.Raman The advent of miniaturised audio and video technology, specially the pin-hole camera technology, enables one to clandestinely make a video/audio recording of a conversation and actions of individuals. Such equipment, costing between US $ 500 and 5,000 plus depending on quality, generally has four components-- the miniaturised camera, often of a size of a 25 naye paise coin or even smaller (pin top size), a miniature video recording device, a cord to transmit the signals and a battery cell. The use of the cord can be avoided through wireless transmissions. There are various ways of hiding the camera---inside a briefcase, or a pager or a cigarette lighter or a cellular telephone or a fountain pen or a smoke detector or in the nose frame of sunglasses or other spectacles etc. Where a briefcase is used, the recording equipment, the transmitting cord and the battery can also be concealed in it. In other cases, the remaining components are generally attached to the body of the user. In the sunglass/spectacles version, the connecting cord looks like the safety cord which some people use with their glasses. In other cases, an observant person can notice the telltale connecting cord. Most of these gadgets have either a self-activation mechanism or a mechanism which has to be activated manually. The briefcase camera gets activated when the briefcase is kept in a particular position. The visuals of Shri Bangaru Laxman recorded by Tehelka.com indicate that the camera was probably at a level higher than the waist of the journalist. The use of a briefcase, which would normally have been kept on the floor, seems unlikely. It was probably concealed in some other object of day-to-day use which he kept on the table without the connecting cord attracting the suspicion of Shri Laxman or, most probably, in the sunglasses/spectacles worn by the journalist in which case the cord would not have attracted suspicion. In Western democracies, there are no curbs on the sale or purchase of hidden recording equipment and using them in one's own house or office, but, in many countries, it is illegal to use them clandestinely against another person in his or her house or office. Watergate is a famous example of a President leaving office in disgrace and his lieutenants being jailed for trying to have a recording equipment clandestinely fixed inside the office of a political adversary. The only exceptions to this in the US are the law enforcement agencies and police-licensed private detectives, who are allowed to use them under certain circumstances under carefullycontrolled conditions. Licensed private detectives can use them for the collection of evidence, but not in a sting operation. Only the FBI can mount a sting operation. No private individual, not even a journalist, can. Reputed companies manufacturing and selling clandestine, miniature cameras generally carry the following warning in their advertisements: "Individuals, any and all entities must and shall comply with all applicable local, state, federal laws and regulations before performing or engaging in any recording, covert surveillance or any transmission of radio frequencies. Some

products require licensing prior to using these items. We will mark these items and will require your understanding prior to purchase. We shall NOT be held responsible for users' criminal or civil misuse. Be informed of the law, and it's your responsibility. A lot of these products have covert purposes. You need to be careful and aware of how you can use these items. It is your responsibility to know how and when you can use the items you want. Visit or contact your local government entity for laws and regulations on uses. It's your responsibility to be aware before you buy. Refunds will not be given due to lack of knowledge of local, state, and federal laws, or licensing requirements. Be aware of your local laws prior to using ANY covert devices." If Tehelka.com had done in the US what it had done in India, its owners and their journalists would, most probably, have been liable for arrest and prosecution and for damage suits from those interviewed for damaging their reputation through covert means, but in India there are no laws regulating the use of covert investigative/surveillance equipment by private individuals. Despite the legal safeguards in the US, there have been growing complaints of the misuse of such covert equipment not only by private individuals, but also by the law enforcement agencies, resulting in a violation or distortion of the rules of natural justice and particularly of the basic constitutional or legal guarantee that no person can be made to incriminate himself by using force or deceitful means. The Washington-based Privacy International, a non-governmental organisation, has since 1990 been drawing attention to the dangers of an uncontrolled use of clandestine video and audio equipment and closed circuit TV. It says: "In a very short time, the systems have challenged some fundamental tenets of justice, and created the threat of a surveillance society. Other more traditional approaches to law enforcement and social justice are being undermined without due process. Privacy International believes the government should immediately appoint a watchdog to investigate the industry and to recommend appropriate legislation." The FBI conducts every year about 175 sting operations to investigate complaints of bribery, extortions, narcotics smuggling, sale of cigarettes to minors, child sex etc. In two famous sting operations of 1992, involving the use of hidden cameras, it arrested 18 public servants of Chicago and a member of Mr.Bill Clinton's election campaign team in Indiana on charges of bribery. Strict ground rules for such sting operations have been laid down over the years by departmental instructions and rulings of the judiciary. Amongst such ground rules are: * Sting operations could be mounted only against persons against whom some evidence of criminality already exists and a sting operation is considered necessary for getting conclusive evidence. * Permission for sting operations must be obtained from appropriate courts or the AttorneyGeneral. 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 making a person commit an offence.

* There must be a concurrent record in writing of the various stages of the sting operation. * While the transcript of the recordings can be edited, the films and the tapes themselves should not be edited. Where there is evidence of editing, there is an automatic presumption that the recording is probably not authentic. In the JACOBSON vs. U.S. case of 1992 relating to child sex, the US Supreme Court cited the following guidelines of the US Attorney General on FBI sting operations issued on Dec 31, 1980: "...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. " In many judgements, the US Supreme Court has condemned some FBI sting operations for taking advantage of the naivety, carelessness and negligence of the possibly innocent in order to make them appear as possibly guilty. The Supreme Court has ruled: " The first duties of the officers of the law are to prevent, not to punish crime. It is not their duty to incite to and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it. Such a gross abuse of authority given for the purpose of detecting and punishing crime, and not for the making of criminals, deserves the severest condemnation... While there are those who do harbor an actual criminal predisposition, the reality is that the majority do not fit this description. These sting operations are constructed so as to take advantage of the fact that everyone makes mistakes. They refuse to discriminate between the "unwary innocent" who are legitimate victims of human nature, predisposed to eventually making a mistake and nothing more, and the "unwary guilty" who are looking for the opportunity to commit the crime, or the "unwary negligent" who just don't care enough one way or the other." There have been complaints from US human rights organisations that a number of F.B.I. sting operations have caused serious harm to innocent citizens who were the accidental victims of the make-believe criminal organizations set up by the bureau. They have pointed out that an even bigger risk, associated with sting operations aimed at public corruption, is the destruction of the public's confidence in government institutions. This concern was the central focus of a 1984 report by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights after a four-year investigation of stings. "While investigations of public corruption may be intended to restore the public's faith in the integrity of the affected institutions," the subcommittee's report said, "illconceived and poorly managed undercover operations are likely to have precisely the opposite effect." Against this background, certain disturbing questions arise with regard to the tapes of Tehelka.com:

* Was there a metal detector in any of the places visited by the journalists? If so, how was it they didn't sound the alarm on detecting the batteries and the transmission cord? * Was the activation mechanism automatic or manual? If manual, it must have been activated before the journalists entered the presence of those interviewed and the equipment must have video-recorded their conversations with others too such as the security guards, the personal assistants etc. Where are those recordings? * Was there an editing of the recordings? If so, to what extent and for what purpose? That there has probably been considerable editing is apparent to even a lay observer. Modern cameras automatically record the dates on which the shots were taken. The dates seem to have been edited. Why? * Is there a concurrent written record of the various stages of the sting operation from which one could see how many times a person was interviewed and what subjects figured during each conversation? * Has there been a morphing, interposing, substitution etc of the images/conversations and were these done manually or were they computer-generated? Through computer-generation techniques one could create a make-believe picture of something, which is far from what actually happened. It is said that in the spectacular scenes of the film "Gladiator", only 30 per cent of the shots were actually taken with a camera; the rest were computer-generated. It is possible for a person to confine the secretly-recorded discussions in one session only to individuals without reference to defence contracts and to confine the discussions in another session only to defence contracts without reference to those individuals and morphe the two in order to create an impression that the names of the individuals figured in connection with the defence contracts. The possible dangers to national security from alleged attempts of foreign intelligence agencies to use such covert and computer-generation techniques to destroy public confidence in their political leadership and administration had figured in past testimonies and statements of officers of foreign intelligence communities. Writing in the "Foreign Policy" (Fall 1997), John Deutch, Director of the CIA during Clinton’s first term, referred to the dangers of morphed images and messages being introduced into a country's radio and TV systems, spreading lies and inciting people to violence. Keeping these in view, the first step in the investigation should be for the Central Vigilance Commissioner to ask Tehelka.com to submit all its films and tapes unedited along with the camera with which they were recorded. He should refer them to a foreign expert on the examination of purported covert recordings for expert opinion on the following questions: * Were the recordings done with the equipment produced by the company? * If so, is there any evidence of editing, interposing, morphing etc and of the use of computergeneration techniques?

If the expert opinion confirms the authenticity of the recordings, stern action must be taken against those figuring in the recordings. At present, because of the admissions of Shri Bangaru Laxman and Ms.Jaya Jaitly, there is a strong presumption in favour of the authenticity of the recordings. Despite this, the entire recordings must be subjected to technical examination by experts as is normally done in other democracies.

http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper212.htm

Why sting operations are good for India December 22, 2005

Today, as I was listening at my New Jersey home in the United States to a National Public Radio program on investigative journalism in India, I could not help thinking about the motivation behind my decision nearly six years ago to enter the field of journalism, a decision that led to the creation of the Indian Institute of Journalism & New Media in Bangalore. It was during the Kargil war in May 1999 that I had come to the inevitable conclusion about India's democratic system. I was dismayed by the absence of honest reporting on the mistakes made by our politicians, the hasty and costly strategies undertaken by our military commanders, and the undercount of our casualties. Indian reporters failed to pursue anything resembling investigative and independent journalism, and the media was generally prepared to go along with the government's view of things. Accused MP threatens to sue channel Coupled with my frustration with the widespread corruption in both the government and private sector and the cynicism on the part of almost everyone towards the possibility of any positive change, I had felt then, as I do today, that a free and independent media in India is the country's best hope. Until the Indian media is prepared to uncover and report on the corruption and misuse of power by politicians, government officials and private companies, the country will not be able to achieve its full developmental potential in an equal and fair society. Without transparency in governance, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate sound policies. Listening to the NPR segment on India, I feel somewhat vindicated. IIJNM was founded with one ideal in mind -- to improve the quality of the Indian press. It was my conviction then, as it is today, that it is our journalism students -- the idealists among us -- who will bring about the necessary change that the country is longing for: An open and far less corrupt system. Cash for query: Expel MPs, says panel Today, television media has more or less taken the lead. Among the most popular programmes in India, as I understand, are those reporting on corruption and misdeeds of politicians and government officials. 'Candid camera,' as it is called here in the US, has taken hold in India. It reports with hidden camera the many true stories of the day -- the bribe that the police inspector extracts from the victim of a crime before agreeing to investigate, the 'fee' that the government officer charges for his giving the order to make an electric connection, and the 'contribution' that a company pays a member of Parliament before bringing up a legislative concern in the Lok Sabha. These stories are now part of the family entertainment offered by many television stations, and, believe it or not, those in power are a lot more careful today.

As many new television channels enter the market, there is even greater competition for viewers. These stations will have to offer something better and more informative than the ordinary. With foreign media joining forces with Indian operators, these stations have the financial backing to produce better programmes. Sure, there will be some weeds, but overall the flowers will brighten up the garden. The nation will benefit immensely. Rajya Sabha refers fresh expose to Ethics Committee Unfortunately, the print media, especially the daily newspapers, are still monopolised by a few proprietors. Foreign media is not allowed to have more than 26 per cent of the total ownership. Consequently, many newspapers do not have the financial strength to take on today's major players in the market. When this last bastion of power in the media is removed from the few proprietors, we can expect vigorous competition in search of truth. The power of the pen shall prevail. Neither the politician nor the judiciary will be able to deny the people's right to information – the truth about ourselves and our rulers.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/22guest.htm

http://news.indiainfo.com/columns/bahal/032105shaktikapur-sting.html

Truth behind the sting operations by Aniruddha Bahal In 2000 when we started Tehelka we didn't want any heavy lumber in the newsroom. It was easy doing that because we controlled the purse strings and we could plot and re-plot various editorial machinations without the breath of an accountant or a superior editorial being washing over us. It was an unaccustomed space for myself particularly. Capital, imagination, time, and the green signal all fusing together at my desk providing me with the right fuel mix to plan and execute, first, the cricket match fixing story and, later, Operation Westend. The opportunity was there just for ourselves and we used it to drive a huge, precariously balanced gig into the nation's eye. There was shock and surprise, admiration, and criticism. For 24 to 48 hours the top dog of those times (the BJP) was all drugged and stunned, and Parliament went into a spin for many days. In subsequent days and months we received in numerous ways the gratitude of a nation whose many children felt that we had gone and empowered them in no small measure. They saw us as speaking truth to the big and powerful. These truths that were for long public knowledge but hadn't bubbled up ever in grand technicolor splendour to embarrass the Goliaths of the day. Of course, the Goliaths too had their days but, strangely, though the most sinister of motives were ascribed to Operation Westend no one really got up to advance any bogus theory that the operation, if taken to be done in good faith, wasn't in the larger public interest - that compulsory shield that would justify using intrusive technology like hidden cameras and going undercover with elaborate deception and pretence. While sting operations have gone mainstream since 2001 - some with decent success like the recent Ghoos Mahal episode in Aajtak and the ones that Tehelka has continued to mount for its paper - India TV's recent "casting couch" series has to be looked upon with consternation. For me it raises four primary fears. One, a descent into voyeurism of the UK tabloid kind where even the sexual antics of minor royalty is pursued with unfathomable gusto. If public interest starts getting interpreted as the right to know who perhaps, has slept, or is sleeping, or wants to sleep with who it's untenable. Eventually, it would go to the courts and I can't see the lordships taking anything but a dim view on the episode. Secondly, it gives the Government an excuse to step in and frame some guidelines via a body like the broadcast authority, which they are planning to set up. That would be disastrous. My strong opinion is that the area is best left unregulated relying instead on the wisdom and instincts of the editors of individual media platforms themselves like it is now. But for that to continue to happen editors have to get a good safety net going.

Guidelines sting operations Special Correspondent NEW DELHI: The Government will shortly come out with guidelines on sting operations carried out by television channels. The Government would soon decide on the steps to be taken, Information and Broadcasting Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said during zero hour. The Centre would also decide on issuing a show cause notice to the channel soon, Mr. Dasmunsi said. "We will see what steps can be taken to stop this," he said. The Minister said private channels indulged in sting operations and sensationalism to increase TRP ratings. A sting operation being telecast by a private channel showed MPs sub-letting quarters. The matter was raised by Santosh Gangwar of the Bharatiya Janata Party who said that whatever was being shown had lowered the prestige of Parliament and belittled elected representatives in the eyes of the people.

www.hindu.com/2006/03/22/stories/2006032207411200.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation

In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime. A typical sting will have a law-enforcement officer or cooperative member of the public play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the suspect's wrongdoing. [edit] Examples 

Purchasing illegal drugs to catch a supplier



Deploying a bait car (also called a honey trap) to catch an auto thief

Setting up a seemingly vulnerable honeypot computer to lure and gain information about crackers. 



Posing as someone who is seeking child pornography to catch a supplier



Posing as a supplier of child pornography to lure a child molester



Posing as a child in a chat room to lure a child molester

Police arranging someone under the legal drinking age to ask an adult to buy alcoholic beverage for him or her[1] 



Police also may ask a minor to attempt to purchase liquor.

[edit] Ethical concerns Sting operations are fraught with ethical concerns over whether they constitute entrapment. Lawenforcement may have to be careful not to provoke the commission of a crime by someone who would not normally be inclined to do so. Additionally, in the process of such operations, the police often engage in the same so-called crimes, often victimless, such as buying or selling contraband, soliciting prostitutes, etc. In common law jurisdictions, the defendant may invoke the defense of entrapment. [edit] Secrecy Occasionally, a sting operation is kept secret from other associates. Additionally, sting operations may be a component of a conspiracy investigation. [edit] Sting operations in popular culture Recently, Larry Craig, a Republican senator from Idaho, was caught in a sex sting operation at a Minnesota airport. Craig was purportedly soliciting sex in a men's bathroom when he was arrested by an undercover policeman[2] In August of 2007, he filed a guilty plea for disorderly conduct. He professed to have been wrongly pressured into entering the plea, however, and on

September 10th filed a request to withdraw his guilty plea[3]. His petition for withdrawal was rejected by the Minnesota court system, although Craig remains steadfast in his insistence to finish out the rest of his term even amid the scandal and allegations[4]. A Senate ethics committee will likely be formed to investigate his behavior. Several novels and short stories by science fiction author Philip K. Dick, such as A Scanner Darkly, revolve around sting operations that have gotten out of hand. Season Three of the TV series 24 has its entire main plot focused on a sting operation and its unforeseen consequences. In the American Sonic the Hedgehog issues from Archie Comics, the Freedom Fighters were involved a sting operation against several of their foes.

OUR STING EDITOR The Casting Couch is an ubiquitous phenomenon in many industries. You, the average reader, may already know that it exists in the film industry. If you ever had any doubts after all those newspaper articles, gossip magazine stories and B-grade movies during the last couple of decades which featured the infamous Casting Couch, India TV and Suhaib Ilyasi must have definitely convinced you this week. However, there are other industries where the casting couch exists. The small-screen industry, for example. The sting operation on Aman Verma, the angelic co-host of the Indian Idol TV show, by India TV's Rajat Sharma and Suhaib Ilyasi must have convinced you about its existence in the TV soaps and serials world too. Other industries are not innocent either. Our investigations have revealed similar Couches in other places - such as the Indian Steel Industry, which has something called the Casting Steel Bench or the Internet Industry, with its WebCasting Couch - but these are boring and do not make for good visually interesting sting operations. And we know how boring most Indians look anyway, whether in bed, couch or bench. But there exists an industry where you have beautiful people, aggressive bosses and ambitious new entrants - yes, the Indian TV news channel industry! Yes, gentlemen and gentlewomen, this may shock you - some of the clean, scrubbed and Johnson and Johnson's Baby Oil'ed people who bring you your daily dosage of news, current affairs and on our Indian television channels have used the casting couch to get into the industry. Shocking but true. And we bring you this scoop / sting operation / expose only to expose the larger malaise, and we have nothing against the individuals themselves who may feel that they were better dead than alive after they read this. Yes, the intrepid editor of dancewithshadows himself decided to expose this evil in the Indian media. For this purpose, he pretended to be an aspiring television journalist and started calling up a low-rung female television program producer. The producer is for her heart-breaking stories on street-children, street-dogs and many other such street-related things. Initially the producer was reluctant to talk. The editor (hereafter mentioned as Innocent Man) mentioned as decided to try a different tack. He started telling her (hereafter mentioned as Evil Woman) that people have told him that the best way to make it into Indian TV news journalism is by approaching her. This, of course, was what the Evil Woman wanted to hear and all people in powerful positions wanted to hear. After all, she did not want some masoom bacchha from some gao with no grasp of the ways of the world meeting her. Evil Woman now knew that this could be someone willing to do anything for a job as a TV journalist, and agreed to meet Innocent Man. At the local bar called Golden Palace Beer Bar.

Now, Golden Palace is no great place for trying out any seductive moves (See, this is our Editor's first sting operation, he promises he will choose better next time). Evil Woman landed up, and after discussions on TV journalism ethics, eagerly downed the Haywards 2000 beer which was ordered by Innocent Man. Innocent man now proceeded according to plan to expose the vicious evil. He had already told a waiter who never misunderstood a food order and is known for his great memory to hang around near the table and remember everything he sees and hears. See, DWS is a website - in internet journalism, there are no hidden TV cameras and computers would look funny in a bar. So we had to use a waiter with good memory. The Evil Woman was definitely taking an interest in Innocent Man - an evil interest. She was leaning more across the table and looking meaningfully into Innocent Man's eyes. Innocent Man blushed several times, and this further emboldened the Evil Woman - she ordered more beer and promised a job in the industry. This was good, but we needed a bit more to establish the existence of the casting couch in TV journalism in India. To prove that, we wanted the Evil Woman to get lusty and talking suggestively. Now, Innocent Man tried to behave in a seductive manner and tried to get the Evil Woman to misbehave with him. This is what Innocent Man had seen on TV, so he was just putting it into practice. This is where things started to go wrong. The Innocent Man - by virtue of being a Man, was not wearing a short black dress or anything similar. His idea of being sexy was to roll up his shirt sleeves and leer and lick his lips occasionally. This was a mistake in hindsight - the Innocent Man (Editor) had done this purely in the interest of reforming TV journalism, see, and had not asked for any advice from anyone in the editorial office. They would have told him that his only chance was to ply Evil Woman with so much of Haywards beer that she would make advances to even the mailbox outside the bar. Anyway, seduction does not come naturally to everyone. Least of all Innocent Man (Editor) who does not have a hope in hell of seducing even a horny monkey. So when Innocent Man tried to behave seductively, it did not work as expected. A look of fear and horror crept into Evil Woman's eyes, and she jumped and ran out of Golden Palace Bar. The Editor (the sting operation is over, so he's now back to being Editor) had to pay the bill for all the booze, and pay the confused waiter who had memorised everything. Overall, a successful sting operation given the constraints - see, India TV had a female model to seduce and talk and breathe heavily into the phone. But the DWS office's phone produces a hurricane's noise if you breath into it. No hidden camera, but a waiter with good memory. But it was all worth it, in the interest of warning poor souls from villages who want to become television journalists. This of course goes for both men and women. Be warned, the Casting

Couch exists, and always apply for such jobs when they are advertised in the Classifieds section only.

www.hindu.com/2005/04/21/stories/2005042103571400.htm

"Sting operations" regulation under study Anita Joshua "Invasion of privacy" cannot be condoned NEW DELHI: : Faced with disquiet among the media-watchers over "sting operations" using hidden cameras, the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry is considering a regulatory mechanism to protect the privacy of individuals. Still under consideration, the view firming up in the Ministry apparently favours the introduction of a clause to address "sting operations" in the proposed Broadcasting Bill. A section of the media views "sting operations" as a legitimate way of showing the truth, but the Ministry plans to make a clear distinction between stories that amount to an "invasion of privacy" and those which expose corruption or have political implications. The view gaining currency is that "invasion of privacy" cannot be condoned and the Government ought to have some mechanism to address such cases. However, "sting operations" which expose corruption and tell stories with political implications will be allowed, as any attempt to proceed against them would be seen as an effort to stifle the media. The Ministry is particularly guarded in regulating "sting operations" as most constituents of the United Progressive Alliance had made a big issue of the Tehelka expose on defence scams. Even as the Broadcasting Bill is under consideration, the Ministry has begun exploring the possibility of bringing "sting operations" under the ambit of the proposed regulatory mechanism after India TV beamed a couple of stories that many thought were more of an "invasion of privacy" and less of an "expose."

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/media/sting-operation.asp

The Sting has Lost its Thing Touted as investigative journalism, sting operations in India seem to focus chiefly on those stories that porn movies are made of. 7 September, 2007: There’s a bee in my bonnet, and I am afraid it’s got a sting that can kill. The killing machine is out at large, in search of victims who thrive on the no-nos of the society. Yes, the bee has a mission. Only sometimes, the sting misfires like an unguided missile – losing track of why it was fired in the first place. My poor bee needs a lesson. But I am not sure how to train the supercilious sting. All right, metaphors apart, what we are talking about are the sting operations carried out by news media. In what seems to be the call of the day, sting operations have become a source for higher TRPs more than the principle on which they are conducted in the first place. The channels may defend their stand under the guise of investigative journalism, but who can explain the loose ends nearly all the sting operations seem to leave behind. Sex, sex, and more sex Sting operations first became popular with Tehelka.com in 2000, when they carried out an exposé on former several prominent politicians accepting bribes from a decoy. It’s been seven years since, the case has been going back and forth, and the Tehelka case became a mere flash in the pan. This was followed by the sting on actors Shakti Kapoor and Aman Verma. The nation went in a tizzy when the sting was aired on news channels, depicting the two (among others), leeringly suggesting a casting couch in front of the hidden camera. However, the two stings raised some ethical questions. Would a sting qualify as investigative journalism when firstly, there was no obvious relevance of the sting to the public? Secondly, how fair is a sting when there is clear ensnarement? The journalists in both the cases trapped the two actors into propositioning them. While one is not defending the two

"victims" of the sting, the issue remains that the two stings in question were motivated by attempts to sensationalize news and raise TRPs rather than highlight legitimate public interest issues. It is not just India, the recent covert mission to nab Senator Larry Craig has brought forth a debate on the hypocrisy of sting operations. The debate questions the moral grounds on which sting operations are carried out, and the thin line between consent and criminal intent. The case of Larry Craig is reminiscent of the ouster of singer George Michael from his closet, in a similar operation carried out by the police. While Larry Craig has been vocally homophobic in his views, this operation apparently fans homophobia. The focus is not so much on Craig’s double standards, but on the fact that he engaged in homosexual acts – but is that reason enough to incriminate him because what he engaged in was purportedly consensual? Seducation Among the numerous sting operations carried out since the revelation of the casting couch, the latest involving Uma Khurana stands out as one of the most disturbing. The sting alleged that Uma Khurana, a mathematics teacher at Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in Delhi, was pushing her students into prostitution. The sting, aired on the TV channel Live India, led to a large-scale riot on Asaf Ali Road. Uma Khurana was almost lynched by a violent mob. In a latest development, the police said that they have no evidence against Uma Khurana. The sting was a frame-up and was allegedly motivated by a petty dispute between Virendra Arora, a businessman, and Uma Khurana. Arora's friend Prakash Singh, the journalist with LiveIndia channel who masterminded the sting, asked a friend, Rashmi Singh, to pose as a student who was pushed into prostitution by Khurana. A study of the unedited tapes showed that Uma Khurana refused to admit to any prostitution ring or provide any students for prostitution. The police has now arrested Rashmi Singh for cheating. The whole sting was motivated by petty revenge on the part of the businessman who gave the journalist a tip-off and a desire for cheap publicity on the part of the

channel. The operation focused chiefly on the sexual angle in the whole story, which is a whole deal more glamorous than say corruption in the education system. Corruption has been the country’s bane and it starts early--right in our schools. If the schools are a breeding ground for illicit liaisons and undue favors, is it surprising then that we have not been able to do away with corruption? But, somehow, the channels do not seem to highlight such instances. Growing up in small towns in the country, I know for a fact that teachers coerce students to join their private tuitions, lest the student fail in exams. Some teachers resort to bribes to leak examination papers, while others look for favors in kind. Students oblige, parents give in. Who wants to take on a hassle for a few rupees more? There are sting operations that bring out corruption in the bureaucracy, but as the bureaucracy functions in India, these operations lead nowhere. Taking action on those found guilty is a longwinded process, and no one seems to have the patience, nor the inclination to wait for the outcomes. It’s just convenient to bring out stories that do not deserve more than a day’s worth of attention. Close on the heels of the Uma Khurana sting operation in Delhi, comes another one from down south. Professor Suryanarayan of Osmania University met almost the same fate as the math teacher from Delhi – minus the public thrashing. The charge here is the professor sought sexual favors from students in lieu of a doctorate degree. Again, the focus of the story seemed sex, and not the moral responsibility education entails. Superfluity of the sting So, while the channels are sting-happy, hopping from one operation to another, the issues they set out to address seem lost as soon as the buzz dies down. Follow ups mean a small story covered a few months down the line. If sting operations are part of investigative journalism, since when has leaving issues in lurch become acceptable to the journo community? Justifications apart, where has the idea of a proper closure to a story gone? Is the media itself a victim of attention deficit disorder, like its viewers who flip channels every two seconds? Rhetorical questions these, but getting underneath the skin of today’s journalist is not easy. It is a matter of who can cast the first stone. Sex sells – the kinkier the better. Does this take away the

significance of issues that question basic ethics of a society? We seem to be too afraid to dig out the larger monsters that work at a deeper level than purely sexual, lest we all fall down.

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/media/india-sting-operation.asp

OUR STING EDITOR The Casting Couch is an ubiquitous phenomenon in many industries. You, the average reader, may already know that it exists in the film industry. If you ever had any doubts after all those newspaper articles, gossip magazine stories and B-grade movies during the last couple of decades which featured the infamous Casting Couch, India TV and Suhaib Ilyasi must have definitely convinced you this week. However, there are other industries where the casting couch exists. The small-screen industry, for example. The sting operation on Aman Verma, the angelic co-host of the Indian Idol TV show, by India TV's Rajat Sharma and Suhaib Ilyasi must have convinced you about its existence in the TV soaps and serials world too. Other industries are not innocent either. Our investigations have revealed similar Couches in other places - such as the Indian Steel Industry, which has something called the Casting Steel Bench or the Internet Industry, with its WebCasting Couch - but these are boring and do not make for good visually interesting sting operations. And we know how boring most Indians look anyway, whether in bed, couch or bench. But there exists an industry where you have beautiful people, aggressive bosses and ambitious new entrants - yes, the Indian TV news channel industry! Yes, gentlemen and gentlewomen, this may shock you - some of the clean, scrubbed and Johnson and Johnson's Baby Oil'ed people who bring you your daily dosage of news, current affairs and on our Indian television channels have used the casting couch to get into the industry. Shocking but true. And we bring you this scoop / sting operation / expose only to expose the larger malaise, and we have nothing against the individuals themselves who may feel that they were better dead than alive after they read this.

Yes, the intrepid editor of dancewithshadows himself decided to expose this evil in the Indian media. For this purpose, he pretended to be an aspiring television journalist and started calling up a low-rung female television program producer. The producer is for her heart-breaking stories on street-children, street-dogs and many other such street-related things. Initially the producer was reluctant to talk. The editor (hereafter mentioned as Innocent Man) mentioned as decided to try a different tack. He started telling her (hereafter mentioned as Evil Woman) that people have told him that the best way to make it into Indian TV news journalism is by approaching her. This, of course, was what the Evil Woman wanted to hear and all people in powerful positions wanted to hear. After all, she did not want some masoom bacchha from some gao with no grasp of the ways of the world meeting her. Evil Woman now knew that this could be someone willing to do anything for a job as a TV journalist, and agreed to meet Innocent Man. At the local bar called Golden Palace Beer Bar. Now, Golden Palace is no great place for trying out any seductive moves (See, this is our Editor's first sting operation, he promises he will choose better next time). Evil Woman landed up, and after discussions on TV journalism ethics, eagerly downed the Haywards 2000 beer which was ordered by Innocent Man. Innocent man now proceeded according to plan to expose the vicious evil. He had already told a waiter who never misunderstood a food order and is known for his great memory to hang around near the table and remember everything he sees and hears. See, DWS is a website - in internet journalism, there are no hidden TV cameras and computers would look funny in a bar. So we had to use a waiter with good memory. The Evil Woman was definitely taking an interest in Innocent Man - an evil interest. She was leaning more across the table and looking meaningfully into Innocent Man's eyes. Innocent Man blushed several times, and this further emboldened the Evil Woman - she ordered more beer and promised a job in the industry. This was good, but we needed a bit more to establish the existence of the casting couch in TV journalism in India. To prove that, we wanted the Evil Woman to get lusty and talking suggestively.

Now, Innocent Man tried to behave in a seductive manner and tried to get the Evil Woman to misbehave with him. This is what Innocent Man had seen on TV, so he was just putting it into practice. This is where things started to go wrong. The Innocent Man - by virtue of being a Man, was not wearing a short black dress or anything similar. His idea of being sexy was to roll up his shirt sleeves and leer and lick his lips occasionally. This was a mistake in hindsight - the Innocent Man (Editor) had done this purely in the interest of reforming TV journalism, see, and had not asked for any advice from anyone in the editorial office. They would have told him that his only chance was to ply Evil Woman with so much of Haywards beer that she would make advances to even the mailbox outside the bar. Anyway, seduction does not come naturally to everyone. Least of all Innocent Man (Editor) who does not have a hope in hell of seducing even a horny monkey. So when Innocent Man tried to behave seductively, it did not work as expected. A look of fear and horror crept into Evil Woman's eyes, and she jumped and ran out of Golden Palace Bar. The Editor (the sting operation is over, so he's now back to being Editor) had to pay the bill for all the booze, and pay the confused waiter who had memorised everything. Overall, a successful sting operation given the constraints - see, India TV had a female model to seduce and talk and breathe heavily into the phone. But the DWS office's phone produces a hurricane's noise if you breath into it. No hidden camera, but a waiter with good memory. But it was all worth it, in the interest of warning poor souls from villages who want to become television journalists. This of course goes for both men and women. Be warned, the Casting Couch exists, and always apply for such jobs when they are advertised in the Classifieds section only!

http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2007/09/sardesai-and-noorani-onregulating.html Sardesai and Noorani on regulating media sting operations

Yesterday's HT features an editorial by Rajdeep Sardesai on this issue. Taking a somewhat different stance than other establishment figures in the media (see this previous post for details and links), Sardesai accepts that it is indeed upto the media to take primary responsibility. Here are extracts from his piece: "Let’s be honest: the sting has become a legitimate weapon in a journalist’s armoury, the hidden camera and its sophisticated variants are now part of the media landscape. Every channel, large or small, has used the hidden camera, often to devastating effect. Let’s also be clear: every sting involves an element of deception. Then, whether you are posing as a defence dealer or an NGO, (or, as in the Khurana case, a schoolgirl), the sting necessarily involves luring someone through false pretence: as a result, the lines between an exposé and entrapment can often be very thin. In the United States, the law and professional news organisations have stepped in to define the limits of the hidden camera. Take for example CNN’s policy guidelines on this. It clearly states, “The information or evidence to be gathered by a hidden camera should significantly contribute to a story that is of substantial value to society or of vital public interest.” Second, the expectation of illegal behaviour or wrongdoing should be strong (i.e. no fishing expedition). Third, before using a hidden camera a journalist must first try and exhaust alternatives for obtaining the interview or information. Fourth, hidden-camera shoots must have the prior approval of the senior news management. In some instances, permission of the federal authorities may also be required before the shoot. Moreover, simply because it is ‘good television’ is not a good reason to use the hidden camera. Bottomline: a hidden camera can be an important tool for solid, investigative journalism, but must be subject to well-laid out rules and procedures. India is different. We have no law that governs sting operations, no internal guidelines in most news organisations, and an unclear right to privacy. At the same time, we are a notoriously opaque society, with an history of corruption and non-accountability. In such a system, a blanket ban on sting operations, as was hinted at by a Supreme Court judge, is no solution. ... ... ... The question is who will decide what is in the ‘public interest’: the government (as it wishes to do in the Broadcast Bill), the viewers (who continue to have a Jekyll-andHyde approach to the blurred images), the courts (who see themselves as custodians of morality) or the editors (who are well paid to ensure standards)? In the final analysis,

notions of public interest must necessarily be subjective, exercised on a daily basis in a 24x7 news wheel by those who are responsible for channel content. ... .... ... Perhaps, the latest controversy provides news practitioners with a final opportunity to evolve a much-needed industry code of conduct before the government steps in. Self-regulation is only part of the answer: how would self-regulation ensure a uniform adherence to standards in an industry where everyone, from political fixers to real estate sharks, believe they can bring out a news channel? Unless there is an industry-prescribed broadcasting code of conduct with strict penal provisions for nonobservance, news journalism is in danger of hurtling down a slippery slope of normlessness, with a resultant loss of credibility." In a separate column, which was apparently published before the Khurana episode, A.G. Noorani argues that any move to ban sting operations altogether would be unconstitutional: "In recent months, many people have attacked sting operations. They are called subterfuges or misrepresentations in legal parlance. Before any minister goes about drafting a law to suppress it or a judge decides to censure it, some reflection is required. For, the sting is protected by the Constitution. The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) includes, as the Supreme Court has held, press freedom and all that is necessary to ensure it; for example freedom of circulation. It also includes the right to know, the court has repeatedly ruled citing US and UK cases. The US Supreme Court has ruled that it includes a “right to gather information” and, further, that “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.” The press enjoys a preferential right to attend courts to report trials. “In a sense this validates the media claim of functioning as surrogates for the public.” That is the test. Article 19 (2) permits on the right only “reasonable restrictions” by law only on specified grounds. A blanket ban would be unconstitutional. No Indian court would ignore the formidable material in support of the sting. No Information and Broadcasting minister should either. As far back as 1885, W.T. Stead made news for the Pall Mall Gazette when he exposed prostitution by buying a 12-year-old girl. It led to a change in the law. No judge would send him to prison today as one did then." After surveying attempts at regulating such operations in the U.S. and U.K., Noorani offers the following prescription: "It is vain to expect any help from the Press Council. Leading figures in the media, print and electronic, should themselves draw up a code of conduct as a yardstick by which the

public could judge their conduct. They might well set up a voluntary Court of Honour to monitor observance of their code."

http://hillbeat.himvani.com/2007/09/17/sting-operations-virtue-or-vice/

Sting operations: Virtue or vice? 17 09 2007 SHIKHA PATIAL for Hill Beat Shimla: Panch Nand Shodh Sansthan Shimla held its monthly discussion debate on Sunday afternoon. This time the topic of discussion was Media and Sting Operations. Some of the intellectual personalities like PTI journalist Prakash Chand Lohmi, Prof B K Kuthiala, Lecturer Journalism Department Kurukshetra University and Kamal Kant, RSS official shared their views on the topic. Sting operation being the hot topic in the media these days brought out for itself some deep thoughts by the thinkers present there. Lohmi tried to maintain the importance of sting operations and the need to use this tool in a positive manner. He said that there are many delusions about sting operations; it is a part of investigative journalism only. Though illegal itself, it is the best tool to expose those acts which are illegal. Sting operations carry visual proofs, which make it extremely impressionable leading immediate reaction. To justify his statement he struck the recent example of controversy. He said that had the recent controversy involving former transport minister G S Bali just been written or merely heard, it wouldn’t have lead to such strong reactions as that sting operation did. It shook the entire administration along with the masses and immediate investigation followed up. “Media’s role is just to shine the light and not to bring about the reform. Thus the need is to use this tool intelligently and positively otherwise the effect of same will decline,” he said. Other guests also threw some light on the issue. They said that increasing misuse of sting operations and media have declined its effectiveness. It is unnecessarily hindering with the private lives of people. Fake stings are also increasingly ruining the careers of innocent people. On the whole, power of media and sting operations is increasingly being misused. The virtue is

becoming a vice. On the brighter side, sting operations have exposed some big and shaking events also like parliamentary corruption; MPs being bribed for asking questions. This is one of the brightest example of the power and virtue of Media. Conclusion of the debate was that media and sting operations should not be outlawed but must be used in a positive manner to maintain its credibility and question the credibility of various elements of society.

http://wethemedia.blogspot.com/2005/12/dna-of-sting-ops.html The DNA of sting ops A sting operation (or two!) is one of those things that gives media consumers rare insights into the fissures within the media. Over five years after India saw its first "candid camera" expose, we the media are still debating the ethics of sting operations: or we think we are, because I have not as yet seen a cogent argument which shows exactly how and why they are unethical.

Most arguments say that sting ops are money-making TRP gimmicks. This implies that they are, therefore, not in public interest. Chintamani does not understand why they can't be both, why we haven't discarded socialism here: Profit? I don't run my channel to make profit! That's a dirty word. I worship media ethics sir, not Mammon!

Now why can't good journalism be good business as well? Better than the Medianet way of making money, I suppose. Another argument is that they "create" news rather than report it. This is a coservative stance which does not seem to appreciate that we live very much in a world of reality TV and marketdriven journalism. In any case, news is always created at news desks, it does not appear on its own like the trees in the woods. Oops, even the trees are 'planted'.

K of Presstalk writes, "While I believe that such abuses of democracy need to be brought out into public, this was clear case of entrapment, which is illegal in certain countries." He does not make clear his stance on the issue of 'entrapment'.

You decide which is worse: entrapment or the acceptance of black money by a public functionary who is supposed to be working for the people rather than lobby groups. K also links

to a DNA editorial which says, amongst other things: "It is troubling that the reporters of the website approached these MPs under false pretenses, by posing as representatives of an industry association. Why this subterfuge?" Do the edit writers at DNA know what a sting operation is?

The ethics about sting journalism are clearly debatable, and one can enter that debate only if it is shorn of the pseudo-socialist arguments about TRPs and profits. However, there are some basic media ethics which no one can dispute: like presenting both sides of a story. However, the Bombay newspaper DNA has been running a campaign against sting operations without presenting another side of the story (except one interview and one opinion piece by Prashant Bhushan). Even the tone of general reportage on Operations Duryodhana and Chakravyuh, like in this story, is negative.

Today it had Pioneer editor Chandan Mitra say, (you guessed it): "The TV shows that revealed our politicians in the raw, however, were not necessarily motivated the high ideal of cleansing the system contrary to the producers’ claims. They were primarily driven by the urge to make a quick buck or climb a few notches on TRP ratings. So, two wrongs don’t make a right."

So making money through advertisements on a TV sting operation is wrong.

He compares the breach of privacy in a sting operation showing corruption in the highest echelons of power with the ban of camera phones in a dandiya session in Gujarat! He does not mention the argument that it is impossible to "prove" an actual incident of a lobby group paying an MP to ask questions in the Parliament. What the cash-for-questions sting op showed, in my

opinion, is the next best thing: MPs taking money for asking questions on behalf of a fictitious organisation. It proves what every journalist now says he knew for years.

It's not just this opinion piece by Mitra, but many other anti-sting operations articles by DNA that take a very similar stance. Here's a DNA Sunday special against stings. Here's one by Pankaj Pachauri of NDTV. Wait till you see a sting-op on NDTV, considering uncle Roy is one of the founders of a media school that will take just three months to train you to do hidden-camera stories. DNA also reports about the sting media school, without mentioning that Alka Saxena of Zee News is also on board. Every channel worth its salt will now have a 'sting cell', and you will see a sting op every weekend. Zee will not miss the bus, I bet. In which case it will be interesting to see DNA's coverage of Zee's stings, because Zee is part-owner of DNA! You think Chintamani is bullshitting? I have evidence:

Sting suggests you can buy clearances for medical college [...] This disturbing revelation was made by a Zee News team of Vatsal Shrivastava, Pramod Sharma, and Nikhil Dube, which worked its way through a chain of brokers and agents to negotiate a deal in which it would have to pay Rs20 lakh for two medical colleges. The sting operation, which was telecast on Friday night, exposed some MCI officials, including Deputy Secretary Dr KK Arora. Though the Zee team did not take the process to its logical conclusion and actually obtain a certificate of permission, its investigation raises doubts about the functioning of the country's highest medical regulatory body.

So a sting operation by Zee does not raise questions of ethics extending to several editorial columns. One by Aaj Tak does. This example of a DNA report about a sting op on Zee belies ZEE's statement in DNA that it "has not been involved in any such operation, unlike other

channels, which use it as a medium to create sensation." Note how, in that link, there are statements from Star and NDTV but not by Aaj Tak.

As I write this and dig more into DNA archives, I find they have a column by Rajat Sharma (of India TV, of 'casting couch' fame) defending sting-ops. And I haven't even got around to unearthing their coverage of Sting II on the MPLAD scheme by Star News and 'DIG'.

Finally, don't miss this funny legal angle they have. Lawyers are another tribe. More about the media's favourite lawyers in another post, another Christmas.

Yours, Chintamani

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6076040.stm STING JOURNALISM UNDER FIRE

"Come on, don't be shy," mumbles an ageing C-list Bollywood actor to a girl on a grainy video shown on an Indian news channel last year. "I want to make love to you." This, most say, marked the nadir of sting journalism in India - an out of work actor had been seemingly entrapped by a journalist posing as a sweet talking young aspiring actress. The channel was unfazed - viewership leapt three-fold for a few days. It insisted that such stings had a salutary effect on unfaithful men. Women viewers were writing in saying their skittish husbands were returning from work in time these days. It was a far cry from five years ago when people all around India applauded a start-up news and views site, Tehelka.com, for exposing corruption in weapons deals and showing politicians and army officers taking bribes from journalists posing as middlemen. Now, with 40-odd news channels vying for viewership in India's raucous media scrum and cheap secret cameras flooding the grey market, sting operations have become essential fodder in the news mix. 'Sleaze and slime' The past year has been a never-ending sting season on television news. Parliamentarians have been caught on camera seeking cash for questions and their share of constituency funds; officials have been caught taking bribes; doctors have been filmed selling infants from hospitals; clerics shown issuing fatwas for money. A policeman was caught demanding bribes to hand over the body of a man to his family. All this and more in the public interest, or the "greater common good" as the channels never tire of reminding viewers. But concerns are already being raised about stings, which Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal calls the "greatest tool of journalistic investigation and exposure". Not surprisingly, politicians and authorities who have been at the Bollywood actor Shakti Kapoor caught in a sting receiving end of the stings are demanding some sort of legislation to rein in the news channels.

Some journalists say stings are blurring the line between journalism and entrapment, between public interest and voyeurism. Now the Supreme Court has raised concerns over freelance sting operators hawking their 'exposés' to the highest bidder. "Whether it [sting operation] is in public interest or to make money will have to be examined one day," the judges said. That observation has annoyed the country's most well-known journalist-sting operator, Aniruddha Bahal. He started out with the weapons corruption and cricket match fixing stories with Tehelka and now runs an independent production company making programmes - and sometimes stings - for news channels. "There's no thriving freelance sting journalism industry in India as the judges seem to think. Stings are serious business and not everybody has the guts to do it or telecast it. "The few people who do work on stings outside the news channels are journalists. Do you mean freelance journalists can't do stings?" asks Mr Bahal. Outsourcing Star News, a Hindi news channel part-owned by Rupert Murdoch, for example, does on occasion 'outsource' sting operations - Mr Bahal's company has produced some stories for them as have curiously named companies like Detective Intelligence Guild and Bag Films, whose website calls itself a "leading integrated media and entertainment company run by media professionals". "We do engage outsiders who work with us to work on stories. But all these outsiders are journalists, not people doing sting operations for the highest bidder. So what is wrong?" asks Star News editorial chief Uday Shankar.

Some says news television is invading the privacy of people

At the same time there has been a proliferation of crime news channels and tabloid TV that has led to what critics see as a cottage industry of sleaze and slime. One channel rigged up a husband reportedly beaten by his spouse with secret cameras and sent him back home to show how his wife thrashed him.

Last week, a man was held in Punjab on suspicion of trying to blackmail a local mayor by sending women to him and secretly taking photos of him in compromising positions with the women and then threatening to sell the photos to a local news channel. The cases indicate that not many people appear to have clear ideas about what is or is not acceptable in sting journalism. 'Appalling judgement' What seems to have provoked the Supreme Court judges to deplore alleged 'sting auctions' is a recent news channel report in which the audience could hear a taped telephone conversation between what the channel said was a junior federal minister and a man under trial in a north Indian jail. In the conversation, the minister is apparently pushing the criminal to influence a land dispute. Investigations soon found that the voice on that tape was not the minister's. The news channel said it had been fed a lemon - the recordings were put on a CD and supplied to the channel by the local police, it said. Defenders of sting journalism say that while this case was an appalling editorial judgement, it should not provide ammunition to muzzle those carrying out properly researched and credible sting operations that are in the public interest. Some channels 'outsource' sting operations Aniruddha Bahal says that when he was quizzed by a parliamentary committee on his recent cash-for-questions sting, one MP told him he should have picked an equal number of MPs from the mainline political parties before venturing out. "But that would have made it a fishing expedition which is essentially against the very ethic of sting - you sting a person only when you have some information or evidence that he is prone to a corrupt act. And how can you do a journalistic investigation based on quotas like everything else in India?" The truth, Tarun Tejpal, says is that "there may be bad, motivated and indifferent stings - but that is no different from the rest of journalism". The truth, again, he says is "if you held a referendum in the country, 90% if not 99%, would back the sting." In a country where public confidence in bureaucracy, police and judiciary is possibly at an all time low, this may well be true.

But India is a country where victims of defamation have slim hopes of any redress because of its painfully slow justice system. For that reason critics say, the news channels do have a moral duty to be more responsible carrying out a sting, no matter how big or small the target of the sting is. http://mediayug.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-effective-are-sting-operations.html How Effective are Sting Operations They're familiar sights on our TV screens these days: The grainy, curiously distorted images, the awkward camera angles, the unclear audio and the anchors promising startling revelations just ahead. They're sting operations; the exposés conducted by journalists in much the same manner as investigative agencies conduct undercover operations. And what's more, they're flourishing: Indeed, 2005 could be called the year of the sting operation.

Major Sting Operations 2005-06 Aaj Tak Tihar Jail Bani Ghoos Mahal: Officials at Tihar Jail taking bribes Ghoos Mahal: 82 employees of the Delhi sales tax office taking bribes. Operation Duryodhan: 11 MPs caught taking bribes to raise questions in Parliament. Star News Ayaash IG: Jharkhand IG suspended for sexually exploiting a tribal woman. Doctor selling infants from a hospital. Operation Chakravyuh: MP's caught misusing MPLAD funds.

Wife caught on camera beating her husband. NDTV India Delhi policeman taking a bribe to hand over the body of a man to his family. Railway policemen extorting money from passengers. India TV Bihar MLAs having sex with call girls. Holy men sexually exploiting women devotees. Operation Casting Couch: Actor Shakti Kapoor propositions journalist posing as actress. Operation Casting Couch (contd.): Actor Aman Verma takes journalist posing as an actress to his bedroom. Sahara Samay Corruption in Delhi PWD.

What sort of topics do sting operations deal with? Perhaps the most obvious target for these stings has been government corruption. However, stings increasingly deal with other topics as well. For example, India TV aired a series of exposés centering around sleaze including what came to be known as the 'casting couch' story: Bollywood personalities propositioning an undercover journalist posing as an aspiring actress.

CNBC Awaz regularly conducts sting operations on issues concerning consumer rights and private sector malpractices. Stings have also become commonplace on crime shows, though these have no wider impact. Nevertheless, the most publicized topic for stings remains government corruption. The Tehelka exposé was on corruption in arms deals, Operation Duryodhan on MPs taking bribes to raise questions in Parliament, Operation Chakravyuh exposed misuse of the MPLAD fund, while Aaj Tak's "Ghoos Mahal" was on corruption in Tihar Jail and a sales tax office. The CNN-IBN exposé showed us a UP minister willing to transport narcotics. Kairali TV also recently carried out a sting exposing a state minister. All these sting operations dealt with misuse of power by the authorities- crooked politicians, government officials and policemen. So what happened after these exposés? At least with Operation Duryodhan, the reaction was swift. All the 11 MPs caught on camera were dismissed from their respective parties. Then, less than two weeks after the scandal broke out, the 11 men were suspended from parliament in an unprecedented and somewhat controversial move. The immediate fallout of Operation Chakravyuh was less dramatic, but still noteworthy: The Lok Sabha speaker ordered an enquiry and told the accused MPs not to attend parliament until their names were cleared. The UP Minister exposed by CNN-IBN resigned from his position, as did the Kerala minister caught in the Kairali TV sting. These are all remarkable examples of the power of the media. Sting operations have unflinchingly exposed the rot in the system and brought corruption into focus. Though a lot of what they reveal is depressing, none of it is especially surprising. Stings have only confirmed what were once mere suspicions or allegations. They have also put pressure on politicians and bureaucrats to take action against their colleagues caught with their hands in the till. News channels usually insist that their sting operations are done in public interest. They point out that stings are expensive, unpredictable affairs. Large sums of money go into paying bribes; budgets cannot be fixed in advance and can increase dramatically. And after all that, there is no

guarantee of success. However, sting operations do bring some benefits for news channels. The most obvious is that they have a major, albeit temporary impact on TRPs- they are a great way for a station to get noticed. Perhaps the most important aspect of this is the footage itself- those characteristic visuals showing corrupt netas or government officials making shady deals, and wads of currency changing hands. These visuals not only give substance to the claims of the news channel, they bring in troves of curious viewers. A lot more people end up watching that particular channel simply because the footage is unavailable to competitors. Whatever the motivations behind sting operations maybe, their immediate effects are often impressive. However, some questions remain over the long-term benefits. One reason for this is that news channels usually fail to follow up on their stings adequately. This may be because of a sense that the story is 'over'. But is it really? How much did things really change after the 2001 Tehelka exposé? In 2003, a sting exposed Dilip Singh Judeo, a minister while he was apparently taking a bribe. Now, some five years after Tehelka, a series of stings have shown us that corruption is rife as ever in government. Politicians, it seems can still be bribed easily, not just to ask questions in parliament or misuse taxpayers money but to, in the case of the UP minister exposed by CNN-IBN, actually transport narcotics in his own car. What happened in all those intervening years? No matter how many stings are carried out, it still seems like business as usual among the corrupt. The story is clearly not 'over' once footage from a sting operation is aired. The Aaj Tak sting on a sales tax office may have led to the suspension of some 30 employees but it certainly does not mean an end to graft there. Unfortunately, the way stories of political corruption are treated on TV leaves little scope for follow-ups. Instead, the focus tends to be on specific individuals whom the channel has exposed rather than the systemic problems that allow for corruption in the first place. This may be because of a feeling that audiences are more interested in stories about those individual personalities rather than in analysis of systemic issues.

For example, Aaj Tak's coverage of Operation Duryodhan was dominated by myriad details of the expose- who the MPs were, how much money each of them took and whether political parties would suspend the errant parliamentarians-not the issue of widespread political corruption. After catching on camera a UP minister agreeing to take drugs in his own car, CNNIBN focused on whether he would be made to resign rather than the larger implications of it's own exposé. Yet with the novelty of sting operations fading and returns diminishing viewers are now more and more likely to question why little seems to be changing. Indeed news channels seem to be shortchanging themselves by not following up on their own audacious journalism. Armed with little more than tiny cameras and great deal of gumption, a relatively small but committed group of Indian journalists has taken the challenge of exposing corruption head on. And they have been remarkably successful so far. What's needed now is a more sustained commitment from the media to ensuring that the gains they have made are consolidated and the powers that be are held accountable. Prabhakar Singh 9891358937

http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/19/stories/2005041911690400.htm

"Truth should be guiding principle of sting operation'' Staff Reporter Journalists should work and expose wrongdoings of those in power NEW DELHI: : Asserting that sting operations should support the cause of Indian democracy, noted lawyer and former Union Minister, Ram Jethmalani, on Monday said truth should be the guiding principle of any such operation that should help in better functioning of a democracy. "The objectives and means of a sting operation should be pure that should not only educate and enlighten people but also warn government about its shortcomings." Taking part in a discussion on "The Ethics of Sting Journalism" organised by the C P Ramachandran Trust in the Capital, Mr. Jethmalani said all governments like secrecy and wanted that people should not know about their evil designs. Corrupt government functionaries might even think of incarcerating its opponents (those involved in sting operations), but journalists need to continue with their jobs. The Supreme Court has safeguarded the right to speech and expression, so under this purview journalists should work and expose wrongdoings of those in power, he added. The Editor of Tehelka magazine, Tarun Tejpal, said sting journalism was not meant for entertainment, it was a serious business. The line of sting journalism had changed with the passage of time and was here to survive. It has gained prominence recently as a sense of incredible unaccountability had crept in the Indian system of governance which was a big cause of worry. "A political system can be broadly divided into three streams - government, business class and media. While the government and business class have always complimented each other, it was only the media that has been playing the role of watchdog. It would be dangerous for democracy if the media aligned with the other too," Mr. Tejpal added. Cautioning against the misuse of cheaply available technology and manipulation of output by

media, senior journalist, Nalini Singh, said she supported expose but was against any kind of entrapment. Journalist have every right to expose wrongdoings of VIPs as leaving them unchecked would further embolden them, causing much damage to society, but the focus should be on investigative journalism. Defending the recent sting operations carried out by his news channel India TV, Suhaib Ilyasi, said they were stories based on facts and investigation. It was not at all aimed at gaining popularity, but to expose how young girls were being sexually exploited in the Indian film industry. "The fact is that in every profession and field, this menace is rampant. But instead of supporting us, people are questioning our motive. Some vested interests are even carrying out false propaganda against us", he added.

http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/about-fake-stings-and-fraudulent-journalism/ ABOUT FAKE STINGS AND FRAUDULENT JOURNALISM

The media has been full of the fake sting operation conducted by a TV reporter, a sting which was designed to implicate a female teacher (Uma Khurana) in a sex scandal. She supposedly supplied school-girls to clients for a fee. The motive for the fake sting? The reporter did it on the behest of someone who had scores to settle with the teacher. Terrible and humiliating for Khurana…can’t begin to imagine what the lady must have gone through in jail. But while this reporter’s motive for his fake sting is disgusting, journalists cooking up stories for self-aggrandizement and quick promotions are rife…in fact I even remember seeing a movie (Shattered Glass) on this subject. In the movie a young, up and coming journalist (Stephen Glass) fakes story after story and it turns out that he is psychologically disturbed. The movie is based on a real life story. But the fact is that in real life, the journalists who cook up stories do not usually have psychological problems…they are simply cheats. According to the Wiki, this is the definition of a journalistic scandal: Journalistic scandals include: plagiarism, fabrication, and omission of information; activities that violate the law, or violate ethical rules; the altering or staging of an event being documented; or making substantial reporting or researching errors with the results leading to libelous or defamatory statements. Editors are human, and can be fooled Reporters even from prestigious publications have committed these frauds as in the case of a New York Times reporter. He not just lifted material from other papers without attribution, but also invented quotes. Photographs have been faked as well, as this story from Britain shows. The reporter wanted to expose a drug selling racket outside schools, and therefore staged a scene with a ‘drug-dealer’ and a ‘receiver’ of the drug. Actually a lot of cases do not come to light at all and this must be the case in India too. This recent fake sting scandal has made the public realise just how vulnerable they are to fake news. This site gives a list of the journalist scandals that have rocked the world. The authenticity of stories are not usually checked But while cheats can fool the best editors, the truth is that editors do not thoroughly check stories submitted by reporters, at least in India. I am talking about verifying the content or truth of the story, not editorial checking. I have worked with several publications and the story is as good as the journalist. Junior reporters’ stories are looked at more carefully. Hierarchy plays a big role in

all Indian organizations, whether it is a publication, an advertising agency or a manufacturing company. But while any good manufacturer has a strong quality control department for its products, and there are often outside labs which are used to check and re-check the product, I have not seen similar levels of quality control in media organizations. The celebrity status of a journalist can often be a deterrent. In the case of Stephen Glass, he was a ’star’ journalist and that was one of the reasons why he got away with faking stories, even though some of his stories were unusual enough to raise eyebrows. Actually, all investigative stories should be verified on a routine basis by senior editors, as people’s reputations are involved. So what is the solution? Fear of getting caught and severe punishment should deter people, but will not stop this menace. Even China, where the fear of punishment is usually high, had a similar problem recently. Termed as the fake bun report, it was a story about a Beijing vendor who “soaked and used chopped cardboard as filling” for steamed buns, a popular food item in China. The buns are normally stuffed with minced pork and/or vegetables. Hidden cameras supposedly captured this adulteration. This ‘sting’ operation created public panic and people wondered whether it was safe to eat out at all! The story was picked up by the mainstream newspapers and created a big stir. But an investigation revealed that the sting was fabricated…and well, the wrong-doer is going to be in for some pretty severe punishment. Well, neither punishment nor vigilant editors can completely wipe out the scourge of fraudulent journalism, just as crime itself cannot be wiped out. That is why in this land of fake encounters and fake stings, the public needs to be vigilant! But in my opinion, denouncing sting operations in toto is not the answer. We need stings to expose public scandals.

www.telegraphindia.com/1061126/asp/look/story_7046539.asp

The Telegraph, Calcutta, Nov. 26th 2006 The practice began a good five years ago — tiny cameras hidden in handbags or pens of journalists that intruded into the dark recesses of homes and offices of people of consequence to bring out elements of truth that rocked the whole nation. Sting journalism arrived in India, and the joke was that any journalist who sought appointments with powers-that-be were checked — many times over — to ensure that he wasn’t smuggling in cameras that had the potential to tell all. Cricketers who fixed matches, defence personnel on the take and politicians who had no qualms stuffing money into their drawers were the first lot of people to fall prey to the covert operation. Soon, those from other walks of life followed. It seemed that the sting — loved by the common man and hated as much by the powerful — would spare no one who was guilty. But a move by the government to redraft the broadcast law of the country to ensure that sting operators are cut to size has renewed a long-raging debate on whether or not sting journalism ought to impinge upon privacy in order to bring out the truth. Besides, the Supreme Court of India has taken exception to the fact that sting operations have, over the years, become a ‘moneymaking venture’. Politicians also continue to question if sting journalism, as claimed by their undertakers, is always for the greater common good. A Bill, slated to be considered by Parliament in the coming months and designed to overhaul the existing Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, proposes to arm the central government with powers to even cancel the licence of broadcasters in the public interest. However, many broadcasters are viewing this with caution. ‘The government may, if it appears necessary or expedient to do so in public interest... direct the licensing authority to suspend or revoke its licence or direct the service provider to stop broadcasting... as may be considered necessary,’ it states. Besides, it goes on to list several regulations which, if and when implemented, would require those carrying out sting operations to justify that these are warranted by public interest. Many see this as an effort by ruling politicians to clip the wings of investigative journalists in an attempt to safeguard their own interests. A Cobrapost operation carried out last December, called Operation Duryodhana, which exposed members of Parliament who took money to ask questions in the house, was perhaps what set the whole thing off. Soon after, another operation carried out by news channel CNN-IBN which spilled the beans on the Uttar Pradesh house by exposing the corruption prevalent there only added fuel to the fire. “The initiative comes from those who most fear being shouted out,” argues Tehelka boss Tarun J. Tejpal. “Powerful people don’t want the sting.”

Aniruddha Bahal, a former colleague of Tejpal who now heads Cobrapost and is credited with several revealing sting operations, takes a pragmatic position on the extent to which sting operations can breach personal privacy. “Of course it would be wrong to intrude into anyone’s private space merely in the name of a sting operation. But as long as an operation does that to expose something that is detrimental to the public at large, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be done.” That, roughly, is what the government may be trying to say as well. But then, the media have concerns on how the whole issue of public interest may be defined. In the lack of a proper definition, things can only get more convoluted in the future. “I think professional journalists are in a better position to define ‘public interest’ than the government, where the notion of public interest is often shaped in partisan terms,” says CNN-IBN chief Rajdeep Sardesai. “So limitations are undesirable. Yes, we need a law on privacy, but this should be determined by the courts, not by the government. Limitations imposed by the government on sting operations will reduce their efficacy,” he adds. As for the court’s opinion that sting operations are often outsourced and become, in the process, a money-minting exercise, Sardesai has his own justification. “Yes, sting operations are sometimes outsourced, but that doesn’t invalidate the sting,” he argues. “Besides, there is little evidence to suggest that a sting increases television rating points (TRPs) for a channel. We want journalism that is impactful. If a sting can achieve that, so be it.” Not everyone, however, is ready to give sting journalism such a wide latitude. The issue of entrapment, where journalists have posed as bribers or wannabe starlets to entice people into an act that is recorded on hidden camera has invited criticism in the past. On the one hand, it may have exposed corrupt ministers with greasy palms. On the other hand, it has blown the lid off Bollywood stars with a weakness for wannabe starlets. Not many are sure if the two faces of sting journalism can be measured by the same yardstick. “In this context, it’s hard to judge the ethical aspects of sting journalism in black and white,” says Delhi-based media analyst Shubhra Gupta. “But while I might want to know what my ministers are up to, I would not even be concerned about whether a film star sleeps with nubile girls in the name of casting them in films. So if the first kind of entrapment is justified, the second kind perhaps isn’t,” she says. Supreme Court advocate Rajeev Dhawan has his own approach to the issue. “A realistic approach would be to first distinguish between public and non-public persons, and having done that, mark out the public duties and functions that the former kind carry out,” says Dhawan. “Then it would be up to media houses to narrowly structure their operations, so that they can justify them as being in the public interest. All said, the data collected through a sting operation

may not always have evidence value in a court of law, so to use it to expose personal tastes and preferences may prima facie not be justified,” he observes. How the political establishment finally tackles the issue remains to be seen. Interestingly, Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee is reported to have presented Bahal with a pen after Operation Duryodhana was aired on Aaj Tak, the Hindi news channel. Maybe it was the humanist in him congratulating Bahal, while saluting the power of the pen. Or perhaps was the politician in him telling the king of sting to stick to old-fashioned journalism?

www.hindu.com/2007/08/25/stories/2007082563501200.htm

“Time to enact law to regulate sting operations” Sujay Mehdudia NEW DELHI: The Privileges Committee of Rajya Sabha has endorsed the views of the Committee on Ethics that the time had come for enacting a suitable law for regulating sting operations on TV channels in the country. In its 50th report on the matter tabled in the House on Friday about the privilege arising out of alleged defamation of member Isam Singh by Star News channel under the programme “Operation Chakravyuh” in 2005, the commi ttee recommended that the matter should be treated as closed in view of the regrets expressed by Star News and its anchor Uday Shankar that there were other ways also for showing the programme that would have sent a different message about Mr. Singh. “The Committee is fully in agreement with the views expressed by the Committee on Ethics that time has come for enacting a suitable law for regulating sting operations,” it has recommended. “There was no proof or evidence to suggest that Mr. Singh accepted or demanded commission for MPLAD schemes. This only reflects the ‘over-enthusiasm’ of the news channel resulting in undermining the image of an MP in particular and dignity of the House in general. If the public had an opportunity of seeing the unedited programme, the impression about Mr. Singh would have been totally different from what has been created by the anchor in the telecast version.”

www.hindu.com/2007/09/08/stories/2007090856041401.htm

Broadcast Bill to be redrafted Special Correspondent News broadcasters can have their own content code: Dasmunsi Revamp bogus TRP set-up Sting operation should not be encouraged if it serves only TRP interests NEW DELHI: Amid stiff resistance from the media to the proposed Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi on Friday said it would be redrafted. The government was willing to allow news broadcasters to draw up their own content code instead of its prescribing one for networks offering news and current affairs. These assurances were given to broadcasters at a meeting the Minister convened here. Representatives of FM radio, the cable industry and consumer organisations also attended. While conceding ground to the broadcasters, Mr. Dasmunsi said that he wanted the television rating points system revamped as the current set-up was “bogus’’ and “fraudulent.” Not only was itssample size too limited but also several parts, particularly rural areas and even entire States such as Bihar were out of the system. Given the divergent viewpoints on sting operations and fears that the content code would be used to prevent the media from using this as a journalistic tool, the discussion devoted considerable time to this trend. Mr. Dasmunsi later told mediapersons, “When a sting operation serves a genuine public interest, it should not be discouraged. But, when it is only aimed at boosting TRPs, it should not be encouraged.” As news broadcasters were opposed to the government prescribing a content code, it was agreed that the News Broadcasters Association would prepare a code for news and current affairs. However, the government would prescribe a content code for all other forms of programme. Consumer organisations were keen that the Bill and the content code be put in place at the earliest as they were of the view that already too much time was lost and the media were having a free run. No rethink on DD on prime band Cable operators protested against the government’s insistence on showing certain Doordarshan channels on the prime band.

However, the Minister said there could be no rethink on this as private networks seldom did any public service broadcasting. Since Doordarshan was practically the only vehicle for public broadcasting, it would retain this concessional treatment.

Broadcasting Bill seeks to prevent cross-media monopoly Anita Joshua Restrictions proposed to ensure plurality of views  Curbs pertain to equity, subscriber base  Restrictions on number of channels in city, State NEW DELHI: The Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2006 seeks to give the Government the power to prescribe restrictions to prevent cross-media monopoly, an emerging situation in India as leading media houses consolidate their hold over different segments of the media. Drawing from the 1995 Supreme Court judgment on airwaves, which said that diversity of opinion was "essential to enable the citizen to arrive at informed judgment" and could not be provided by a medium controlled by a monopoly, be it of the State or any individual group/organisation, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has proposed cross-media ownership restrictions to ensure plurality of views. Moving in slowly, the Bill empowers the Government to prescribe eligibility conditions and restrictions on accumulation of interest from time to time as the situation warrants. While some of the restrictions under consideration pertain to equity, others seek to put a ceiling on the reach/subscriber base of channels. No content provider and its associated companies can have more than 20 per cent share of paid up equity or any other form of agreement with another such entity that would allow it to have managerial or editorial control over the latter. A similar provision is planned for broadcasting network service providers. Also, no content provider for broadcasting will be allowed to have more than the prescribed share of the total number of channels in a city or a State. However, this condition will be subject to the overall ceiling of 15 per cent of the whole country. The same applies to broadcasting network service providers. Only in their case the criteria will be subscriberbase. FM broadcasting

As of now, there is no cross-media ownership restriction in the country, resulting in the prevailing situation where several media houses — both English and vernacular — have stakes in print, radio and television. Waking up to the emerging monopoly situation in the radio segment, the Ministry in its revised policy for the second stage of FM broadcasting has mandated that no company can have more than 15 per cent of the total number of frequencies allotted. An issue of debate

If the proposed cross-media ownership restrictions secure Parliament's approval, India will join leading democracies that already have similar provisions. Among the countries with such restrictions are the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France, Italy and Greece. Still, this continues to be an issue of great debate and the Federal

Communications Commission of the U.S. last week announced that it would review media ownership rules to address the issue of media consolidation and the impact it has had on diversity of news coverage.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/27/stories/2006062708271200.htm

What is the Broadcasting Bill? While the need for a Broadcasting Bill has been talked about since 1997, it was only in 2006 that the UPA Government with Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi as the Union Information & Broadcasting Minister brought out the draft for the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill. The Bill, said the I&B Ministry, will regulate the broadcast services with several private TV channels around now. The draft bill, which calls for the setting up of a separate Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI), has covered four major areas in its ambit, which would call for major corporate restructuring by media companies—foreign and domestic—operating in India. These include content, cross media ownership, subscriptions and live sports feeds. Anubhuti Vishnoi explains

• What regulations govern TV services as of now? Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995 is the basic governing system for all TV channels related issues. However, the Ministry has been of the view for years now that the increase in the number of TV channels requires a special set of laws in keeping with the times and with provision for a regulatory mechanism. • What is Content Code? Along with the draft broadcasting Bill, the Ministry has also formulated a content code to regulate the programme “quality” being aired by broadcasters and to “protect the consumers interests”, national interests and right to privacy. • Why is the broadcasting industry against the Bill and the Content Code? The big issue is the Government’s “intention” to control or regulate programme content. The industry feels that the Government plans to infringe on their rights as a free media through the two proposed regulations and says that “draconian” laws will be applied, especially against news channels, under the ambit of the Bill if it is allowed to go through. A stringent Content Code and clauses like “national interest” and right to privacy of a citizen may spell the death knell for investigative journalism and sting operations for broadcasters. The other problem with the Bill is that in an age when citizens are bombarded with news/views through various media (newspapers, cable and satellite TV, Internet, radio and mobile phones), it seeks to enforce outdated concepts of the media and dominance as per broadcasters. The draft Bill, they point out, says that no broadcasting service provider can own more than 20 per cent of another broadcasting network service provider. BRAI is also liable to government control, say broadcasters.

• Status of the proposed Bill and Content Code While the I&B Ministry planned to take the Bill to Parliament this monsoon session, vehement opposition from the broadcasters has forced a re-think. So while the Ministry still maintains that it will definitely get in a regulation, it is consulting stakeholders. The ministry Content Code may make way for a “self-regulating content code” being chalked out by the National Broadcasters’ Association (NBA). The draft bill on which various states are also being consulted still has the ministry and the broadcasters on opposite ends.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/219641.html