Exposé or Ethical Trap?

Sting operations promise accountability, but often blur the line between public interest and voyeurism.

The term ‘sting’ was popularized in the classic Robert Redford-Paul Newman caper film ‘The Sting’ (1973). It was released in India at a time when no one understood the meaning of the term. It featured two men who attempt to pull off the ultimate con a ruthless crime boss (brilliantly played by Robert Shaw) when one of their associates gets killed. But as many viewers (including this writer) did not quite get a grip on the proceedings, the meaning of the title term remained largely obscure to Indian viewers.

What was once a baffling cinematic conceit has since entered the everyday vocabulary of Indian journalism and law. Sting operations provide us with evidence that can be used against a particular person or organization to prove them guilty in court.

But since our legal system works only on the basis of evidence and in most of the cases due to lack of evidence, the suspect escapes punishment and is free to carry on with his or her criminal activities.

Ethical Dilemma

The central ethical question is one of integrity. How legitimate is it for a journalist to secretly record an individual who has no knowledge of being filmed precisely because consent, if sought, would almost certainly have been denied? Does such an operation not amount to a violation of the subject’s right to privacy, even when carried out in the name of public interest?

A sting operation is often presented as a hallmark of ‘new-age journalism,’ but one fraught with unresolved ethical dilemmas. It is particularly suited to television, where visuals amplify impact; in print journalism, it is more commonly described as an ‘exposé.’ In legal parlance, a sting is typically a carefully orchestrated exercise involving a journalist, a videographer and editorial sanction sometimes with the tacit approval of owners or publishers with vested interests.

The smartphone has replaced the video camera, enabling journalists to operate alone and claim exclusivity, but at the cost of verification as he absence of a second witness weakens corroboration. As a result, sting operations are increasingly vulnerable to questions of authenticity, integrity and objectivity, especially since journalists, like all individuals, are shaped by personal biases.

In practice, television channels have largely deployed stings to police what they define as ‘moral turpitude,’ often targeting public figures for private conduct. The notorious case involving Swami Paramahamsa Nithyananda and actress Ranjitha exemplifies this drift. There, secretly filmed footage was broadcast for sensational effect, triggering public outrage and mob violence, while serving no discernible public interest beyond titillation and the symbolic unmasking of a self-styled godman.

For the media in general, sting operations could be ‘manufactured’ to raise the TRPs of a news channel with falling TRPs with so-called ‘sensational’ stories with pictures that are titillating. This reminds us of the widespread television expose of the affair between Professor Matuk Nath Chaudhary of Patna University and his very young research student Julie. The satellite channels were flooded with sensational and distasteful clips gobbled up by the television audience everywhere. Did this serve any larger purpose except titillation?  What kind of journalism was this? Why should the media care about the private affairs of private people? On the aftermath of this sting exposure, the media practically played into the hands of this adulterous couple who got the publicity they were probably looking for on a golden plate. They came on panel interviews on television, giving comments on the ‘spiritual’ and ‘platonic’ nature of their relationship. What did such a ‘sting operation’ gain? In the long run, Chaudhary lost his job and the audience gained nothing. It was ‘journalism’ that gave bad taste a bad name.

Two examples would suffice to substantiate the efficacy of sting operations. BJP chief Bangaru Laxman was forced to resign after the sensational sting operation by Tehelka in March 2001 following the telecast of a sting operation showing him accepting money from fake arms dealers. Biswa Majumdar, then the news editor of a Bengali news channel NE Bangla, organized a sting operation on Mohammad Ilyas shown accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from reports posing as NGO workers in exchange for his raising questions in the state assembly. This expose forced Ilyas not only resign from the Assembly but was also suspended from the party.

Today in the present scenario where political corruption is at its peak, it is difficult to even discover which ‘sting operations’ are politically motivated, which are truly designed to cleanse the society, or, which are actually the fruits of concocted journalism funded by different political parties or their corporate sponsors, or both.

(The author is a noted film scholar who writes extensively on social issues. Views personal.)