Media professionals have an important responsibility to society since they are in a position to mould public opinion. But the recent exposures of journalists taking favours from corporate groups have only highlighted once again an old phenomenon in India--codes of conduct are observed in their breach and Chinese walls are usually non-existent in media organisations. Since the 1980s, groups of journalists have tried to straddle the worlds of the media, business and politics, and in the process have damaged the functioning of democracy in the country.
Paranjoy Guha Thakurta (paranjoy@gmail. com) and Jyotirmoy Chaudhuri (jyotirmoy. chaudhuri@gmail.com) are independent journalists and among the co-authors of Gas Wars: Crony Capitalism and the Ambanis.
The corrupt nexus between business and politics in India has been facilitated by particular journalists. While it is true that this association involves other segments of society as well, including the bureaucracy, the role played by media personnel in this nexus is particularly pernicious because journalists exert influence on public opinion through what they write or say—or what they do not. The disclosures by a whistle-blower in the Essar group of companies recently have led to the resignations of at least three journalists. In another case, a journalist who ran a website on the petroleum sector has been arrested for allegedly purveying government documents.
The alleged misdemeanours of the media-persons who have been disgraced in the recent instances seem relatively trivial. At the same time, the role played by certain corrupt journalists in the business–politics nexus raises issues of serious concern because these have an adverse impact on the working of democracy in the country. It is common knowledge that many political parties and politicians receive money in an illegal manner from representatives of business groups and that politicians return favours to their benefactors in a variety of ways. On occasions, journalists and practitioners of public relations (PR)—call them lobbyists if you like—become important players in this pernicious project not merely by providing information but also by influencing opinion through what is published or uttered in the mass media.
The arrest on 20 February of Santanu Saikia, a journalist who ran websites on the oil and gas industry, and the disclosure of internal e-mail exchanges between executives in the Essar group of companies and politicians and journalists—which were first revealed by the Indian Express on 27 February and then made public the following day as a part of a petition filed in the Supreme Court by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL)—indicates the gravity of the problem, although the amounts involved and the scale of favours granted appear negligible. While the phenomenon of criminalisation of politics has been discussed at some length over the years, issues relating to the corruption and criminalisation of journalism have entered the public discourse in India only recently.
The importance of the role of an independent media in a democracy can hardly be underscored since the media exerts a profound influence in shaping the views and the political consciousness of the public at large, in particular the middle classes who are avid consumers of publications and viewers of news on television channels. Media professionals come into contact with people who are rich and powerful in the course of fulfilling their duties and obligations as reporters and analysts of news that is of interest to the public at large. These individuals can and do become important sources of information.
Delusions of Grandeur
The problem arises when journalists start suffering from what psychologists call delusions of grandeur. Some in the media who meet wealthy and influential individuals either become—or delude themselves into believing they have become—players in larger political and economic processes. It is hardly a secret that for many years now, certain journalists have doubled up as spies and fixers of deals, euphemistically described as power brokers. What had been avidly discussed in private conversations entered the public domain after the Radia conversations were publicly disclosed.
The transcripts of recordings of conversations between Radia and a variety of individuals, including heads of business groups, retired bureaucrats, representatives of industry associations, politicians and, of course, journalists, were published by two weekly magazines, Open and Outlook, and the recordings were made available on their websites, in November 2010. The income tax department recorded these conversations between 2008 and 2009 as part of its investigations into suspected money laundering and tax evasion by Radia and her companies and were subsequently passed on to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The high-profile journalists in the recordings included Barkha Dutt of NDTV, Vir Sanghvi of the Hindustan Times (HT) and Prabhu Chawla of the India Today group.
The three high-profile journalists who figured in the Radia conversations all accepted that they were indeed well connected to “those who matter.” The journalists who have been named in the Essar correspondence had, in comparison to Dutt, Sanghvi and Chawla, a lower profile. But, in this instance, heads rolled rapidly. Mail Today Editor Sandeep Bamzai and Hindustan Times Energy Editor, Anupama Airy, both resigned on 27 February, the day the Indian Express reported that a whistle-blower had leaked internal communications of the Essar group indicating that group representatives had been plying politicians and journalists with favours and gifts. Another journalist, Times Now Deputy Editor Meetu Jain was put on notice by her organisation and an internal enquiry instituted against her. Another journalist, Mayur Shekhar Jha, who had left the NDTV Profit television channel in January 2012 to join another, Headlines Today, as Associate Editor, allegedly utilised the Essar guest house located in South Delhi to entertain 15 guests for lunch, if an email included in the PIL is correct.
The leaked emails also point to a Congress leader from Chhattisgarh who is a prominent builder (Awadesh Gautam), a journalist (Dev Sharan Tiwari, Jagdalpur bureau chief of Deshbandhu daily), a senior civil servant (Durgesh Chandra Mishra, Commssioner, Bastar) and a top police officer (Giridhar Nayak, Director General of Police) to whom Essar representatives had turned to after a civil works contractor (B K Lala) had been arrested by the police for allegedly paying “peace money” to Maoists in the state. The messages indicate that the Essar group would regularly bribe journalists, including providing at least one with a transportation contract, to “manage” public opinion in the state.
Trading Documents
Was Santanu Saikia, the journalist accused in the document leak case, an unusual person in his fraternity? The modus operandi he allegedly deployed to procure internal documents through his sources in ministries and passing the documents to others, perhaps for financial consideration, may not be common. Yet, as many commentators have written in the wake of the scandal, leaked government documents are often used by reporters chasing bylines. Was Saikia merely one such intrepid journalist who wanted to become an entrepreneur of sorts by setting up four websites, indianpetro.com, energylineindia.com, indianfertilizer.com and indianpetrochem.com? Did he use his contacts to do more than merely pursue journalism? The answers to these questions are not clear.
According to T R Vivek, writing in Newslaundry, Saikia dreamed of creating the Indian version of Platts, an energy- and metals-related business information service owned by McGraw-Hill and planned to take the revenue of his group of firms up to Rs 10 crore a year within two years. The sums seem piffling. Apparently, Saikia took pride in the fact that the password of one of his websites—indianpetro.com—was selling in the “grey market” for more than Rs 20,000. The CBI had accused him in 2009 of having access to confidential government documents in violation of the Official Secrets Act, but the allegations could not be proved in court. Subsequently, he allegedly used stenographers to type out the contents of sensitive documents that were then uploaded behind paywall on his websites.
On 4 March, writing in India Today, veteran journalist and former editor of the Indian Express, Shekhar Gupta, argued that just for a few “abusers...among hundreds Radia would have talked to” the entire profession got a bad name. After the Essar leaks, a second kick at the profession of journalism, he points out that a “few journalists” took “petty favours” like cars or the use of a guest house.
Gupta writes that with all mainstream dailies and five national business dailies headed by owner or non-writing editors, old-style newsroom checks and balances have been dumped. Gupta goes on to describe the weakening position of the reporter in the scheme of things. “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 insight. When reporters err, they are left to fend for themselves,” says Gupta, adding that in the process lines of ethics and business get mixed up.
Gupta has himself been the subject of journalistic reportage. A former editor of the Indian Express, he spoke of the advantages of the contractual system of paying journalists which also makes them prone to be “hired and fired.” In a December 2014 interview with Scroll.in, he said he was not particularly concerned by the “value judgement within the media that journalists shouldn’t be paid so much.” Many look on Gupta as typifying the well-connected, wealthy journalist in the country. A detailed story on him titled “Capital Reporter” in Caravan (December 2014) reports, his annual salary sometimes exceeded Rs 10 crore, or roughly $1.6 million.
Is There a Chinese Wall?
The issue of separating the “editorial” and “business” sections of a media organisation through a “Chinese wall” has been discussed for decades and often compared with the separation of the Church and the state. But in large sections of the media in India, this separation has been deliberately narrowed. Thus, the two journalists from the Zee group who were arrested in 2012 after former Congress Member of Parliament Naveen Jindal conducted a sting operation and accused them of blackmailing him for advertisements, were editorial heads and in charge of raising advertising revenues in their respective television channels.
To be fair, the phenomenon of bribing journalists in order to plant stories in the media is not unique to India. In 2004, six global organisations—the International Press Institute, the International Federation of Journalists, Transparency International, the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communications Management, the Institute for Public Relations Research and Education, and the International Public Relations Association—announced their support for a set of principles designed to foster greater transparency in the dealings between public relations professionals and the media, and to end bribery for media coverage.
Charter on Media Transparency
The principles, embodied in a “Charter on Media Transparency” are:
- News material should appear as a result of the news judgment of journalists and editors, and not as a result of any payment in cash or in kind, or any other inducements.
- Material involving payment should be clearly identified as advertising, sponsorship or promotion.
- No journalist or media representative should ever suggest that news coverage will appear for any reason other than its merit.
- When samples or loans of products or services are necessary for a journalist to render an objective opinion, the length of time should be agreed in advance and loaned products should be returned afterwards.
- The media should institute written policies regarding the receipt of gifts or discounted products and services, and journalists should be required to sign the policy.
“It is widely acknowledged that bribing those who work in the news media robs citizens of truthful information that they need to make individual and community decisions and compromises the right to free expression that protects all other rights,” said Johann P Fritz, Director of the International Press Institute. “Courageous reporters risk life and limb every day to defend press freedom and human rights,” added Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, pointing out: “We cannot stand by while bribery mocks those sacrifices, anywhere in the world.”
Codes of Conduct in India
Over and above the international charter outlined, individual media organisations (like the publishers of the Hindu) have in place institutions like an ombudsman or a “reader’s editor” while others have framed elaborate guidelines for its employees, an example being Mint, a business newspaper from the Hindustan Times. The Mint guidelines focus on keeping the editorial and commercial departments separate. Thus, the newspaper does not pay newsmakers for interviews, nor does it pay them for taking their photographs or to film or record them. The code of conduct also enjoins upon its employees to prepare and place stories, graphics, and interactive features based solely on their editorial merits with an intention to treat companies that advertise with the newspaper in exactly the same manner as those that do not advertise. It asks its employees not to favour any company, or the subject of a story, nor to discriminate against any, for whatever reasons.
In order to ensure that these principles are honoured, the newspaper places emphasis on the fact that there is no contact (beyond social conversations) between the vast majority of the Mint’s editorial staffers and those who work in its business department. It authorises the managing editor or a designated surrogate to grant exceptions as necessary for the running of the business. The code of conduct further lays down that if any of its journalists or other employees ever feel any pressure from outside, or from the business departments of Mint itself, to compromise editorial material, including pressure to violate the code of conduct, they must immediately bring it to the notice of the managing editor and/or deputy managing editor.
The code of conduct also tries to ensure that its employees avoid “conflict of interest.” So, employees cannot write about companies where they themselves or family members own shares without clearance from the managing editor. In case of a conflict, a reporter would have to recuse herself from participating in the story. Employees are expected to disclose, in a confidential note to the managing editor, the names of companies where they, their spouse and immediate family members own shares. Any other business activities that may conflict with the employee’s line of duty in the newspaper has to be disclosed.
Turn for the Worse
Despite these sporadic attempts, it has become an extremely difficult task in India and in other countries to ensure ethical standards in journalism. On the contrary, it can be argued that the entrenched interests between the media, advertisers and political entities have become stronger and more “organised” as can be witnessed in the proliferation of “paid news,” particularly in the run-up to elections. The institutionalisation of the process of dissolving the line between news and paid-for content has taken the form of “private treaties” wherein celebrities and corporate entities pay to be featured in newspapers.
In 2013, the Election Commission of India had estimated that the market for electoral paid news could be worth around Rs 500 crore, and that up to 40% of a candidate’s expenses were attributable to publicity. In the May 2014 general elections, the Media Certification and Monitoring Committees of the Election Commission had detected nearly 700 cases of paid news and served show-cause notices to over 3,000 individuals.
In August 2010, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the regulator of the country’s financial markets, issued guidelines for media companies entering into agreements with companies whose equity shares are listed on stock exchanges or companies that were coming out with a public offer of their shares. The regulator pointed out that media companies were picking up stakes in such companies and in return, were providing coverage through advertisements, news reports and editorials. Such promotional and brand building strategies in exchange for shares gave rise to conflict of interest and SEBI suggested disclosure of financial holdings and mandatory enforcement of guidelines to ensure that the interests of investors were adequately safeguarded.
According to the “mandatory” guidelines of SEBI, media companies have to disclose the stakes (in terms of percentage of equity held as well as managerial control in terms of common directors) they hold in companies with whom they had private treaty arrangements. Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd (BCCL), publishers of the Times of India, the world’s most-widely circulated English daily newspaper, and other media companies have argued that SEBI’s guidelines are impractical to implement—for instance, a financial newspaper like the Economic Times may, on any given day, publish articles on dozens of corporate entities, some of which may be private treaty clients of the publishing company. The fact is that the non-implementation of the SEBI guidelines in this regard have so far not been challenged by anybody before the regulatory authority.
Journalists and Corporate Groups
Accounts of journalists lobbying with corporate groups are many. While some of these stories are known in media circles, many not familiar with the world of corporate journalism in India may be unaware of the scale at which it operates at a time when “market sensitive” information often translated into big bucks and companies “compete” with each other to twist and tweak policies to kill competition (read “Polyester Prince Revisited” by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta in the EPW, 13 September 2014).
The late industrialist Lalit Mohan Thapar, who also owned the Delhi-based English-language daily, The Pioneer, was once approached by a journalist offering to write a story in his favour and against a business rival when the two were vying with each other to take over a company. The “compensation” the journalist asked for was a week’s all-paid trip including air tickets and hotel accommodation in Washington DC for the journalist and his wife. Thapar said he would think over the suggestion but did not get back to him. Later, the newspaper which had employed the journalist published an article arguing why the Thapar group “should not be allowed” to take over the company in the public interest.
In 1986, when Arun Shourie (who went on to become Disinvestment Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government) was Editor of the Indian Express, a series of sensational investigative reports were published in the newspaper against Reliance Industries, then headed by Dhirubhai Ambani. The articles were authored by Shourie himself together with S Gurumurthy, chartered accountant and now co-convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, which espouses the cause of economic nationalism.
Nusli Wadia, the head of the Bombay Dyeing Group was the principal source of information for many of the articles written by Shourie and Gurumurthy. Wadia and the Reliance group were locked at the time in a bitter turf battle over competing products—Reliance was manufacturing purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and Bombay Dyeing, dimethyl terephthalate (DMT), both feedstock for the polyester industry. In 1985, the Mumbai police had accused a general manager in a Reliance group company of conspiring to kill Wadia, a charge that was never established in a court of law. Eight years later, a newspaper owned by the Ambanis would accuse Wadia of illegally holding two passports and played up the fact that he was Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s grandson.
By this time, however, Shourie had built his bridges with the Ambanis and the newspaper concerned, the Observer of Business and Politics, would carry a regular column written by Shourie. Later, Shourie said he was an ardent admirer of the founder of the Reliance group and during his term as Disinvestment Minister, in May 2002, the corporate conglomerate led by the Ambani family acquired a controlling 26% equity stake in the former public sector undertaking, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL)—thereby enabling the Reliance group to become a “dominant” monopolistic player in the Indian market for a wide variety of petrochemical products.
During the time the Indian Express was writing articles against the Ambanis, a series of reports in favour of the Reliance group appeared in the now-defunct, left-leaning Patriot newspaper that had been conceived in the 1960s as an “alternative” daily to counter the views of the newspapers run by “monopoly houses.” When the Patriot shut down in June 1996 after a lockout was declared by its owners, United Periodicals (Private) Limited, a number of senior journalists from the publication joined a think tank supported by the Ambanis, Observer Research Foundation. Among them were the late R K Mishra, who was Editor-in-Chief and Managing Director of Patriot and Link weekly for three decades and B N Uniyal.
There are many other stories of media organisations and journalists playing an active role in corporate rivalries. Many journalists become PR practitioners and seek to influence their erstwhile peers and colleagues. On some occasions, journalists who go on to head corporate communications departments of large business groups end up being accused of indulging in financial misdemeanours.
There is a curious side story to the case relating to the allocation of the Talabira-II coal block in Odisha—in which former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla who heads the Aditya Birla group and former Coal Secretary P C Parakh are allegedly involved—that concerns a one-time journalist employed by the group. The former journalist, Shubhendu Amitabh, has been accused of using large amounts of hard cash in an illegal manner. Officials of the income tax department had seized currency notes worth Rs 25 crore when search-and-seizure operations were conducted on the premises of a group company.
According to the Indian Express, the department has in its possession a communication from Amitabh to one of his colleagues which reads: We are of the opinion that we need to focus on both, polity and bureaucracy. We request you to indicate a time-frame at the earliest when a meeting with Secretary, Coal, Mr Parakh can be organised here in Delhi. As regards polity, shall look forward to discussing with you over the phone.”
The communication dated 20 January 2005 was written soon after a meeting of the coal ministry’s screening committee on the coal block allocation on 10 January that year, which was followed by written submissions by group chairman Birla to the then Prime Minister and the then Coal Secretary.
Conclusions
Across the world and also in India, journalists have engaged in all kinds of activities that have had little or nothing to do with journalism. Journalists have not just doubled up as blackmailers and fixers but also acted as spies. One of the most famous instances of this kind is that of Ambala-born Kim Philby (1912–88) who was a high-ranking intelligence officer in Britain before he defected to the Soviet Union in 1963—Philby worked for the Times and the Economist, among other publications.
Journalism is meant to ensure greater transparency in public life. But when the power and responsibility of media organisations or an individual journalist are misused to facilitate the corrupt nexus between business and politics, it raises serious doubts in the minds of ordinary people. The credibility of the Indian media to play the role of the “fourth estate” is continuously taking a knock.
