MEDIA: The Gujarat killings, and the ethics of Tehelka
Below is an item about the big media news out of India, an undercover sting investigation by Tehelka into what it calls “the most important story of our time.” The focus of this post, by Arthur Dudney, is on the various journalistic issues raised. Please take a look and post your comments below.
- – - – - – - -
On October 25, Tehelka, an Indian investigative magazine, published a special feature devoted to the Hindu-Muslim riots* that took place in Gujarat in 2002, and the state government’s active role in fomenting the violence against Muslims. It refers to the gruesome events, which some have labeled genocide, as “the most important story of our time,” and in the last week it has in fact generated headlines in India and abroad (see links to coverage at the bottom). How ever, while the magazine’s editors boldly defend their sting journalism, some question the ethics of such reporting.
The magazine became famous for the necktie and handbag hidden cameras it uses for stings, but how does the magazine justify the subterfuge? “We do not like to induce, we do not like to trap, we do not like to pay. … It is a superbly clean operation,” said Harinder Baweja, Tehelka’s Editor for News and Investigations in an interview after the Gujarat story broke. “Extraordinary stories need extraordinary methods.”
From the perspective of squeaky-clean journalism, Khetan has broken two rules: Firstly, misrepresenting his identity as a journalist and secondly, making false promises about confidentiality. When a subject hesitated during an interview, Khetan said: “I won’t quote it anywhere…For that matter… I am not even going to quote you” and immediately after the reporter promised that, the interviewee made a chilling admission: Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat (picture from Tehelka), had given the Hindu chauvinists three days to do whatever they wanted without government interference. Obviously the fact that the sitting Chief Minister of a state participated in communal violence is a matter that the public must know about, but I can see no way that the story would have come out had Khetan not bent the rules.
Recently many Indian news channels have been following Tehelka’s lead by staging taped sting operations — many of them involving sex — and showing the footage, but some people question where the line between the public interest and prurient voyeurism has been drawn. It is worth considering Indian sting journalism in light of the case of former New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald, whose December 2005 expose on Justin Berry, a boy selling pornographic images of himself, basically ended the reporter’s career. Whatever public service Eichenwald considered he was doing, questions of ethics overwhelmed the story itself.
The Tehelka story will certainly have repercussions. Activists have already filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking that the Tehelka expose be entered as evidence. The Gujarat government, which is being accused of complicity in the events of 2002 and blacked out TV channels that broadcast the Tehelka piece last week, finds itself in the odd position — and it’s not clear why — of submitting the expose on CD to the commission investigating the riots. Lastly, a broad coalition of Indian-American groups has demanded that action be taken against government officials and others implicated by the expose.
Tehelka and other news outlets like it bring out a paradox in journalistic ethics: If getting the truth is paramount then don’t reporters sometimes need to bend the truth to get the story?
[*We've used the term "riots" with some hesitation. Although it is the default term that's been used for several years, and is still used by the BBC and others, it suggests a level of spontaneity that Tehelka's coverage contradicts]
No comments:
Post a Comment