After Radia tapes, for us journalists, #EssarLeaks is the second kick on our backsides
There cannot be better evidence of the growing self-importance of the media that in a week which saw a significant new Budget, a lively Parliament debate, installation of a landmark PDP-BJP government in Kashmir, the cricket World Cup and even Benjamin Netanyahu causing a stir in Washington, we journalists have made most of our headlines. Prashant Bhushan started it with his PIL in the Supreme Court with a bunch of internal Essar emails showing a pattern of influence-peddling, then came a journalist revealing that the Aam Aadmi Party had illegally recorded a phone conversation with her to use in their internal war, and finally one section of the media ganged up on the other, in true lynch mob-style, over a documentary featuring the Nirbhaya rapists.
These raise issues that are important not only for the future of journalism in India, but also for the larger, more hallowed idea of free speech, inquiry and purveying of news and ideas with that awful expression these days of "news trading" and "paid media", editorial intermediation.
I am treading sensitive ground, in fact a minefield. But being currently not committed to any organisation full-time gives me a sense of non-affiliation to toss around these issues. Let's start, therefore, with the curious case of Bhushan's Essar leaks which gave us two facts: One, Nitin Gadkari took a couple of days off to their yacht in south of France while on a family vacation, and two, a few journalists spread over different news organisations took petty favours like a chauffeur-driven car for one to ten days, a company guesthouse for a couple of days, and so on. The story had a short half-life, and by the time it fizzled out, particularly with Bhushan in the news for other reasons, the scoresheet showed Gadkari and the Ruias of Essar sitting pretty, but three journalists down, two of them still essentially reporters, who did not go without protesting, asserting they had indulged in no quid pro quo and insinuating that they were being made scapegoats for journalistic equivalent of traffic offences.
We need to get that out of the way first. A journalist, of whatever seniority, cadging favours from anybody, and definitely from the subject of a story she is actively covering, is committing an offence way greater than jumping a red light. Accepting any freebies is a crime and a death-blow to our business. After all, what does the establishment, government, corporates and, let me add, today even well-endowed NGOs, think of us journalists. That we may not be so easy to scare with our bloated egos, or if intimidated, we will get together and fight back, but we, with our poor wages and low self-image, will always be rentable if not purchasable. Sharp PR people will always wait for a moment when we are vulnerable: A sick parent or child, a school or college admission, even foreign travel or education. Integrity, alertness and skills to deal with these are essential to a journalist's life. If you fail that test, you can expect no sympathy.
Some issues, however, need to be underlined. First, Gadkari. He is sitting pretty with the explanation that at the time he wasn't a public servant, an MP or even the BJP president. He is also an old friend and neighbour of the Ruias, so what the hell. That story died quickly. But those three journalists! Read Prashant Bhushan's PIL carefully. On the basis of these one-plus-three instances, he draws a picture of a grand collusion of politicians, bureaucrats and media with corporate India. He wants the court now to set norms and rules of engagement for each. But the PIL mentions only one politician, who had the perfect legal alibi of not being a public servant. There is no bureaucrat mentioned. Then there are these three journalists and most important for us, the PIL even prays that the Supreme Court set norms for the media's interactions with corporate India. This is an invitation to judicial censorship and the most disturbing thing is how we journalists have ignored this, rather than implead ourselves in the case as an interested party.
As Indian journalism has grown in stature, power and wages in the past 15 years, it has also acquired a bad conscience. Which is the reason even its leaders scurry to get cover with - "Hell, at least I didn't do this, baaki sab chor hain (the rest are thieves)" kind of reaction the moment a new scandal breaks. As a result, the entire profession gets maligned and we allow abusers a free run. It started with the Radia tapes, which showed five journalists caught in varying shades of indiscretion. All of us got so intimidated we were shy of pointing out that these were just five among hundreds Radia would have talked to. And now our most successful, activist free speech lawyer has gone to court primarily seeking curbs and judicial oversight on the media.
Essar is by no means a non-story. For us journalists, it is the second kick in our backsides after the Radia tapes. But there is no evidence of a quid pro quo, no effort to even dig through the archives to check if the work of any of these journalists shows compromise. An editor is in an exalted category and must be judged by standards applicable to it. But to allow stupid, even naive indiscretions of just a couple of reporters to malign our entire business is not just self-flagellation, but utter cowardice on the part of us media leaders. I know the dangers in choosing this argument, but given how much journalism has done for people like me over these post-Emergency and reform decades, we owe it to fellow journalists to stick our necks out.
If the odd journalist is caught in a web of influence-peddling or favour-seeking, the fault also lies with editors and owners. In recent years, as the media has expanded, diversified and grown, the stature of the professional editor has declined. In the languages, now most editors are owners, so lines of business and news are as jumbled as electric cables in most of our small-town streets. Where professional editors still survive, managements/owners prefer them to be indoors people, not those who connect with the outside world or even known bylines.
Our largest media organisation actively frowns at editors writing under their own bylines. Anonymous, low-profile, and thereby non-threatening editors are the flavour of the 21st century. All our mainstream English dailies and four of our five national business dailies have either owner or non-writing editors. It leaves an awful divide in the newsrooms, between editors who live wrapped-in-Latex in their bunkers, while poor reporters go out, deal in a rough world peopled by the Radias and Ruias with bare hands. And they are supposed to bring back stories that entrenched editors have no way of verifying, thereby taking away an important element in old-style newsroom checks and balances. The same reporters also have to bring key guests for company events, now an important source of revenue for media, and increasingly even sponsorships. The declining institution, or rather the rise of the anonymous editor, makes owners more comfortable, but also leaves reporters without cover or oversight. But when reporters err, they are left to fend for themselves.
The reporter's relationship with a source is a sensitive and delicate craft, learnt over time. Even a lobbyist or fixer will have access to sources. But a reporter earns the same source's trust and respect on the strength of her integrity, confidentiality and also intellect. If editors are aloof and disconnected, many reporters will be tempted to take the easy route of leaks and plants, even inspired. The last thing you'd want is for fixers to play editors with reporters.
A reporter was always a foot soldier. But today, she is becoming the hit person for the editors and the management, charged with securing access for them in high places, to getting guests and sponsorships for events, if not land and commercial deals from state governments. In the process lines of ethics and business get mixed up and then some so-called whistle-blower escapes with a bunch of internal memos and the lynch mob descends. It's happening at a time when muck is floating in Delhi's already super-polluted air. When "source-based" journalism is a crime and file-snatching, the old-fashioned plant, a virtue. Where a reporter who knows people, cultivates sources is a pimp and a news trader, and one who sits with Google and social media, indulging in incest and cannibalism, "if what I hear is correct" journalism, a watchdog. This is the death of journalism, which is about going out, engaging with the filthy, tricky world and returning unscathed, with a great story too. Where people are the capital of us reporters' lives.
There is a major crisis in our newsrooms, and it's not merely about some freebies. It's about leadership and principles. I know a newsroom is a messy place, but it is still sacred. And there is no holier thread in our business than the trust between a reporter and her sources. How often do we see it betrayed these days. How non-existent was our professional outrage just the other day when in the cash-for-votes scam in the Lok Sabha the source, Sudheendra Kulkarni, ended up in jail. That editor showed the courage and honesty to reflect on it in his recent bestseller. He may be the last one to have done so. That is not so reassuring.