"What is truth," Pontius Pilate famously asked at the trial of
Jesus Christ. It's a question that has defied a definitive answer - and
depends on which shade of grey you embrace in what many would like to
cast as a simple black and white issue.
In many ways, it's the same with "news".
William Randolph Hearst, the famous US press baron, used to say:
"News is what someone, somewhere, doesn't want reported; all the rest is
advertisement." Lord Northcliffe, the influential publisher of the
Daily Mail, once made a very perspicacious observation: "It is part of
the business of a newspaper to get news and to print it; it is part of
the business of a politician to prevent certain news being printed. For
this reason the politician often takes a newspaper into his confidence
for the mere purpose of preventing the publication of the news he deems
objectionable to his interests."
But it is in the quest for "news" - the stuff that some people
want to suppress - that the investigative journalist faces his biggest
challenge in terms of how far he is prepared to go to unearth the grisly
details of a story that someone, somewhere is going to do everything he
can to conceal.
It raises some ethical questions for the hard-nosed journalist. When
will he cross the invisible Line of journalistic ethics? Does such a
line exist at all? Will he use subterfuge and false pretences to get the
dope on a story? What place does a sting operation have in the world of
journalism? Do the means justify the end?
In the West, the raging debate today is whether it is ethical for news
organizations to pay for information, raising questions about the
ethicality of what has been dubbed "cheque book journalism".
How hard will a journalist try to protect the identity of his source? Do
whistleblowers have the right to protection when they work for the
government and violate the terms of their employment by spilling the
beans on a scandal to a journalist?
In my piece Of Journalism And Racketeering appearing in the free access
column Petro Intelligence of the March 10th issue of
www.indianoilandgas.com, I argued that "a professional journalist
will need documentary support to not only substantiate his story but
also use it to counter any counter-attack that the story might provoke. A
hard-hitting story will wound someone or damage somebody's interests.
An honest journalist will hunt for these documents and use them only to
further a journalistic cause and not peddle it for a few pieces of
silver. Journalism becomes a racket when such documents are traded."
We have been overwhelmed by the response from our esteemed readers.
Those who reacted passionately to the article include former secretaries
to the Government of India, anti-corruption crusaders, energy experts,
consultants, and eminent journalists.
We feel that their response has immense information value and should be shared with our readers.
We don't expect serving bureaucrats to respond. But we have received comments from three former petroleum secretaries: Madhav Godbole, T.S. Vijayraghavan and Dr Vijay L. Kelkar. All the three are known for their honesty and integrity. E.A.S. Sarma,
former secretary (Power), in his capacity as an anti-corruption
crusader, has been slamming the government for its lack of openness. He
was the first to respond to the article.
Dr Surya P. Sethi, India's foremost energy expert who was principal advisor (Energy) of Planning Commission sent in his comments. So did Maj. Gen S.C.N. Jattar, former chairman of Oil India, K.K. Kapoor, former CMD of GAIL, Kerala's respected journalist Thomas Jacob, petroleum trading expert Ravinder Kumar, independent consultant P. Balakrishna and Raman Swamy, a Delhi-based genuine journalist.
Here's what they said:
E.A.S. Sarma: Article 19 of the Constitution and the Right to
Information (RTI) Act of 2005 guarantee the citizen that the functioning
of all public authorities will remain transparent. Under Section 4 of
the RTI Act, all ministries and other government agencies should suo
moto make a public disclosure of all material that is of public
interest. More than 90% of the public authorities, including the
Ministry of Petroleum and other ministries, have not complied with this
requirement. On the other hand, even routine documents are unnecessarily
classified as confidential, hurting the public interest.
By not divulging information to the public that is legitimately due to
them, the various government agencies have created an artificial veil of
secrecy and created scope for corruption that has resulted in an
information asymmetry in favour of the corporates and against the public
interest. This is where the media have also been forced to pursue
unorthodox means of getting information that the ministries should have
divulged on their own, to safeguard the public interest.
On the other hand, there is information that is sensitive in the case of
Defence and other ministries that needs to be protected. Apart from
unethical intermediaries bribing the officials to secure such
information, cyber hacking has become commonplace and official data
bases are accessed with ease. I had earlier addressed the government and
also requested it to keep a vigil over private parties entering some
sensitive buildings and form an expert group to suggest adequate
firewalls to shield the official databases from hacking. There has been
no response to my letters.
It is unfortunate that the citizen has to go through the expensive and
cumbersome RTI processes today to seek information that is due to him
from the government, whereas the corporates can get it with ease either
by buying it or get it from the political executive to whom the
corporates give huge donations for political campaigning etc.
T.S. Vijayraghavan: An excellent article, especially on Lovraj.
He was a gentleman and knew when to apologise. Wahi was a good man with
visions though too much enlarged and out of focus. Yet, in spite of his
other faults and his attempt during my tenure to thrust one of his
"favourites"(?) as an "Adviser" in the Petroleum Ministry to control me
and keep him informed (which she certainly would have faithfully done)
was a good man.
Madhav Godbole: I believe that your kind of journalism, which is
so insightful and well researched, is highly necessary to keep a
counter-check on the goings on in our public life. What has come out
recently is not new. What is new is that it was ever permitted to come
out. The question is whether the investigation will ever reach the real
culprits.
Dr Vijay L Kelkar: An excellent and welcome piece after the recent happenings!
Dr Surya P. Sethi: Sasankan provides a cogent defence for
investigative journalism and what it entails. Official secrecy is
critical in a democracy but so is its fourth pillar - the press. The
Dharma of an upright journalist is to walk the thin line between
protecting public or national interest and personally benefitting from
information obtained through sources cultivated over a life time.
Crucify him/her if he/she crosses the line but celebrate his/her efforts
if the fourth pillar of a democratic society is strengthened by his/her
reporting. Selling secret documents is a crime but protecting public or
national interest is a duty of every citizen.
We cannot erupt with glee at the expose of Watergate and the doings of
Wikileaks while condemning our own brave journalists who expose
mis-governance before it happens. We should also not forget that a brave
individual, no less than Arun Shourie, laid the foundation of
investigative journalism in the post-1970 India and neither should we
forget that it required public servants of substance such as Lovraj
Kumar and Colonel Wahi to accept a mistake when one was made.
Maj. General S.C.N. Jatar: I entirely agree with your views in Of
Journalism And Racketeering, with one caveat. The leaks should not
compromise security and should be shared with all and not be sold to
selected industry houses so that they have an advantage in future
planning.
K.K. Kapoor: I wish both these examples could be taught in the
schools who teach journalism. You had verified your facts so thoroughly
that even those who were supposed to know things better, could go wrong
but not the journalist who was reporting on the subject. I also give
full credit to both the Late Lovraj Kumar and Col. Wahi who took no time
in accepting their mistake, in spite of the public embarrassment
involved.
Thomas Jacob: Your piece on temptations in journalism has come at
the right time. This should help to expose a few so-called journalists
who give a bad name to the profession. The great C. P Ramachandran once
wrote about them: most of them are agents and contractors of
businessmen.
Ravinder Kumar: No doubt that information is power. It is no
secret that stealing of information from offices and corporates for
strategic and commercial gains is big a racket and traded worldwide. The
recent news of leakage of documents from the Government offices in
Delhi has become national news, though it has been going on since ages.
The author has very rightly stated that professional and investigative
journalism cannot survive without access to sensitive /important
information. Due to trading of sensitive information, though illegally,
even journalists have to resort to dubious deals. In all fairness, it
should be available to the journalist for journalism but not for trading
without resorting to underhand practices.
It is high time to have a transparent mechanism to officially provide
information to the journalists, confidentially and in a time bound
manner. Denial on wrong and flimsy grounds, giving vague or wrong
information should be punishable.
P. Balakrishna: R. Sasankan's column makes interesting reading.
The two incidents he has related not only revives memories of colourful
personalities - the silver-haired Lovraj Kumar and the tall talking Col
Wahi who strode the petroleum sector in the eighties but also makes out a
cogent case why a journalist, if he wishes to break stories and not be
content with press releases and PR puff pieces, may need to source
original documents.
However, a journalist worth his salt would use documents so sourced
judiciously and write readable copy that conveys all the essential
information to the reader without taking the lazy route of reproducing
the documents verbatim. Unfortunately, this has become the norm
nowadays. S. Mulgaonkar once wrote that the copy should convey that the
writer knows much more than what he has revealed in his copy!
In any case, there can be no justification for a journalist who, in the
course of his work, obtains a document to sell or pass it on to
corporates or other interests.
Raman Swamy: I read your column with great interest. My first
emotion was personal - I felt a surge of pride that I have a friend of
courage and integrity like you. There are very few journalists these
days who have a clear conscience in matters of basic professional
ethics.
You have written it very well. Yes it is lengthy but it is necessary to
narrate the anecdotes in some detail in order to convey the point
effectively.
And the key message comes out strongly and convincingly. The distinction
between procuring official documents for the purpose of investigative
reporting and using such documents for information-peddling to make
illicit pecuniary gains have been brought out with clarity.