A good reading on how the sting operations are conducted and how they profit from them and who are the ultimate winners and losers. Read in this blog pl.
http://amarsharma.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/tehelka-vs-tv-channel-and-the-cash-for-vote-scam/ For those of you familiar with Satyendra Dubey (yes�the IIT guy who was killed by Road Building mafia in Bihar for blowing the whistle on corruption) imagine this scenario- Dubey gets to know of corruption and shady deals in the highway project�gets in touch with a `reputed� TV channel and works closely with the channel to capture these dealings on camera�.job done, the channel promises to telecast the tapes as it is to expose corruption and help the whistleblower. With no reason to suspect the channel, Dubey gives wholehearted cooperation in unearthing the scam. He never asks them to give him a copy of what they have shot. Change of scene: With incriminating evidence in hand, the channel bosses show the tapes to the powers that be in the concerned ministry (including politicos & bureaucrats benefitting from the shady deals)�shady characters take over from here and Dubey is knocked off! The channel refuses to telecast the tapes on some pretext or the other - visual quality was bad, audio was poor, the invetigation had many loose ends�& so on. In fact, it tries to turn things on their head by claiming to be a `responsible� media house run by `respected� journalists. It then officially submits the so called original tapes to the concerned ministry even without the ministry actually asking for it. How HORRIBLE�DISGUSTING & UNETHICAL would it have been? We�d have all condemned it left, right & centre. Right! Well, this is what one TV channel seems to have done in the case of cash for trust vote scam of July 22, 2008. It has breached the faith of the three BJP MPs who approached & trusted the news channel to support their whistle blowing operations. And to feel like this one does not necessarily have to be a BJP supporter. The fact is- this entire sting operation was a collaboration between the 03 MPs and the channel and thus they all had stakes in this operation. The custody of video tapes would have been left to the news channel in good faith else the MPs could have asked for copies for their records. In my view, the MPs (individually and collectively) have as much right as the news channel over the footage shot. After all they were not paid actors who were doing all this for money given by the channel! For the channel to turn around and claim moral high ground for not telecasting the tapes and handing them over to the Lok Sabha secretariat thus amounts to breach of trust inherent in any such operation. Agreed, these MPs may have tainted pasts but that does not give the channel the right to prevent telecast of the tapes. As far as accuracy and tying loose ends is concerned, the footage should have been telecast without any editorial judegement being passed for & against the players involved. Indian viewers are mature enough to figure out the truth themselves. And even if the public at large were to get carried away by allegations of horse trading, it wouldn�t have altered the arithmetic in the Lok Sabha. Masses weren�t going to take part in the trust vote anyway. The result could well have been the same after herculean efforts put in by the ruling coalition and its well wishers. All this has seriously dented the carefully crafted image of the news channel as an `Editorially impartial & independent� media outfit. One must understand that regardless of whether a news outfit is owned by journalists or corporate business houses, they are all profit driven. Newspapers, TV News Channels and Newsmagazines today are not driven by passion for truth, ideology etc. That might have been the case during India�s struggle for freedom when such newpapers were published from all corners of the country-newspapers which never made any money as they were driven by patriotic fervour. Alas, the whole media paradigm today is dictated by quantum of readership, TRPs etc. which in turn decide the financial bottomline of any media house. And the financial concerns in turn dictate the editorial policy. When an editor fails to toe the changes in editorial policy dictated by the owner�s ever changing corporate-political objectives, (s)he is shown the exit door! Going against the ruling establishment by exposing its so called misdeeds (in buying trust votes with money) is surely not a wise thing to do as being on the right side of the government can be more lucrative�not only in India but anywhere else in the world. Just recall how the NDA govt. hounded and pounded Tehelka guys and made their life miserable for telling the truth�imprisonment of key functionaries and investors, raids by various agencies and what not. Had they also handed over the tapes to BJP president citing loose ends and poor audio-video quality, they might have been rewarded for being `sensible & responsible�. Alas, they lacked a `mature & pragmatic management, I guess. That may also explain why they haven�t grown all that big! Then there could be other consequences of helping create political instability by facilitating the voting out of an `economic reform friendly� government. What if some of the biggest corporate entities in the field of Telecom, Capital Markets, Energy, Insurance etc. stop putting ads on your channel? What if those pumping money in the channel threaten to hold back further investments in the event of the channel sticking its neck out for showing the truth?? What if various foreign media houses who�ve forged alliances with the media company threaten to pull out and marry a rival media company??? It would help to know that in this case, the media conglomerate which owns the news channel has CNN, CNBC and VIACOM as its business partners. It may be sheer coincidence that all these media companies are American and the issue which necessitated the July 22 trust vote was Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal! A mere thought of this could send shivers down the spine of any businessman (remember- News is a BUSINESS, not social service). If one looks at the concerned News Channel�s conduct in this light, some of you may empathise with its action of not telecasting the sting operation tapes. Just in case the editorial head of the news channel genuinely harboured any notions of actually having the powers to decide what�ll go on air, (s)he has now found his/her right place in the bigger picture- Editorial being subservient to Commercial interests. In all this, the people of India, as consumers of media must be grateful to this channel for providing us a window from where we can peep into the reality of the news business or the BUSINESS OF TRUTH as they call it. At least we now know that what comes on screen is a product of complex `business development� & `marketing� functions. And their relation to `truth� is at best incidental.
