The left has pulled the plug on the government over N-deal and the congress led United progressive Alliance(UPA) faced trust vote in the house of the people on July 22.The trust vote victory was one of the most successful operation ever organised by the Congress and its allies-a neck to neck fight becomes a 19 vote majority for the UPA is a major victory for the government.But, in which manner the BJP MPs' flashed wads of Rs.1,000($20)allegedly paid to them as bribe by UPA floor managers,shocked the nation.But media experts questioned the role of the network who has claimed that it posses tapes showing bribes being accepted in exchange for their votes for the UPA.
According to media reports,on Monday(July21)afternoon,a BJP MP from Madhya Pradesh was approached by the UPA floor managers to bailout the government.He immediately informed a senior BJP leader and a plan was chocked out to entrap the UPA.TheBJP itself recorded the conversation usin a hidden camera.Then they approached a leading TV network(CNN-IBN) and the editor approved it.the whole conversation between a Samajwadi party(S.P) leader who visited the three BJP MPs'and the handover of Rs.1 crore($25,000)as advance -every details were captured by the hidden camera.Then they hand over the 'sting operation' to the channel.But,the channel made a U-turn -decided not to telecast the tapes -hand over the tapes to the speaker.Purists believe that the channel violate the journalistic ethics.they should have telecast the tapes.If they approve it then what prompted them to take this decision.Is it the desire to upkeep the sancitity of the parliament or something else, they wondered. Here, I quote an article posted in the website of India Media Centre where they questioned the decision of the network:what happened on Tuesday(July22) just two hours before the crucial vote on Dr Man Mohan Singh's motion of confidence, when three MPs disgorged bundles of cash on the table of the House, sounds a bit bizarre both on the part of the political class and the channel concerned. CNN-IBN which had done a sting declined to telecast the sting operation they carried on the attempts to bribe the BJP MPs, instead deciding to handing the tape over to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.Is it the job of a TV channel to provide proof to any Constitutional authority, in this case the Speaker, before it could telecast the news to its viewers? Does this not give handle to critics to allege that the channel was silenced? In fact, in a panel discussion in another channel, this was hinted. It is possible that the channel might have felt that it was taken for a ride by unscrupulous politicians and thus the whole episode was quite fishy. So, it was not fair to telecast the tape since the channel itself was not convinced about the authenticity of the whole operation. In such a case there was no need for the channel to hand over the tape to the Speaker. The editor-in-chief of the channel gave quite a righteous bite that the channel did not want to be part of the bitter political battle. For the last one week, politicians and the media have been making allegations that lot of money is changing hands. Politicians especially from the UPA, named parties from where there will be abstentions or cross voting to bail out the UPA. In many discussion forums on the channels, the media was taunted for not doing anything to investigate these charges and the anchors were only asking "Where are such huge amounts coming from?" When CNN-IBN did a sting to expose such dirty operations, why did they feel shy of telecasting the news, especially in the context of the channels outsourcing such sting operations in the past for an astronomical fee? A statement from the channel says "While trying to investigate deeper into this trail, we realized that the issue needed further probing and we could not at this stage telecast it without further verification". If the job was only half done, why did the channel decide to hand over the incomplete tape to the Speaker? What purpose does it serve? The statement further says: "We are also aware that as the matter involves honourable members of Parliament and involves a question of parliamentary privileges, the media needs to be extra cautious before airing or telecasting any such news". This is quite funny. The "cash for query" sting and scam involving MPs Constituency Development Fund, related to "honorable members of Parliament" and the channels that telecast these sting operations received applause from all quarters. No channel was punished for breach of privilege. Why did CNN IBN develop cold feet on this sting, especially when it claims "Whatever it takes"? Is the reluctance to telecast due to the fact that the concerned MPs preempted the channel by disclosing the "Cash for Votes" operation on the floor of the House violating an understanding? Telecast of the tape, after the operation was exposed on the floor of the house, would give the impression that the channel was in cahoots with the BJP and was trying to support the BJP in the murky political scenario. If the bribe episode allegedly by the SP was true, the channel should not have bothered about the after-effects of telecast and should have stood by the truth. Only then, their tag line "Whatever it takes" would be credible. Otherwise, it is only a verbal jugglery. "Publish and be damned" is the idiom media men are taught right from the journalism schools. How far is this relevant today? That is the crucial question. Probably, before publishing/telecasting, we have to think twice or more of the consequences or how the telecast material would hurt one set of politicians or the other.
Other TV channels should learn lessons form the entire episode.
A magazine with global outlook
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Loaded with spy-cam I met her boss
It was an extremely hot June evening,but I was comfortable inside one of my haunting grounds,a small bar in Central Calcutta.After waiting for 15 minutes, my contact, a 40-year old small time trader entered the bar and sat beside me.He is favourite among the crowd and the bartenders.I remember,three summers ago, around this time, I met him at the same bar for the first time and became my close buddy.We were chatting for a long time over a glass of vodka .After that,I didn't see him for several weeks,until I got a SMS from him ,suggesting that we meet up at a restaurant after two days.There,he came over to meet me with a chirpy young lady who was a part of a well organised sex racket.Later,loaded with spy-cam, I met her 'boss',a middle aged man in an undisclosed location.My anxiety grew when I found that he was not comfortable with me and became suspicious about my identity and ordered his armed henchmen to search my body.But,luckily with the timely intervention from that lady and others present at the room,I survived.
Here,I want to quote Ashish Kira from a piece where he described the ordeal he had faced as a undercover reporter when he extensively investigates the involvement of Hindu fundamentalist in Gujrat carnage 2002 for Tehelka.:....At the appointed time,I walked into the high-cellinged reception room of the Vadodara BJP office.Half an hour later, Dhimant Jain walked in, a sort man in his late 30s with a newly-acquired punch.He was fixated with Muslims,whom he evidently considered the root of all evil.....Struggling between pursuing files and answering a near-incessant phone calls,he was most hospitable,offering me water,then tea,then showing me the way to the toilet(where I switched on the two spy cams I wearing)....A few minutes later,Dhimant Bhatt's driver steered the car off the main road and turned into a narrow,deserted,kutcha road.As the car stopped outside a desolate,one-storey house,another car pulled up and two men got out.Bhatt and these men went into the house and told me to wait.I had two spy-cams on me and all it needed to blow my cover was a body frisk.I prepared for the worst......These are the common professional hazards we face every day.
Here,I want to quote Ashish Kira from a piece where he described the ordeal he had faced as a undercover reporter when he extensively investigates the involvement of Hindu fundamentalist in Gujrat carnage 2002 for Tehelka.:....At the appointed time,I walked into the high-cellinged reception room of the Vadodara BJP office.Half an hour later, Dhimant Jain walked in, a sort man in his late 30s with a newly-acquired punch.He was fixated with Muslims,whom he evidently considered the root of all evil.....Struggling between pursuing files and answering a near-incessant phone calls,he was most hospitable,offering me water,then tea,then showing me the way to the toilet(where I switched on the two spy cams I wearing)....A few minutes later,Dhimant Bhatt's driver steered the car off the main road and turned into a narrow,deserted,kutcha road.As the car stopped outside a desolate,one-storey house,another car pulled up and two men got out.Bhatt and these men went into the house and told me to wait.I had two spy-cams on me and all it needed to blow my cover was a body frisk.I prepared for the worst......These are the common professional hazards we face every day.
There are a wide range of high quality spy cameras.These spy-cams can be hidden in almost any object and produce high quality picture resolution.Spy camera can be easily connected to a VCR or TV. Because of it's small size, this spy-cams can also be hidden anywhere including body parts.Smaller and lighter than a cigarette lighter but records hi-resolution video via its pin hole spy camera at the touch of a button.But,as I mentioned in earlier blogs that before using hidden cameras-spy cams we should be more careful about its legal consequences.Here, I quote Robert Lissit, a former TV news magazine Producer from his article appeared in American Journalism Review(March 1995).
Some producers and reporters who use hidden cameras say they adhere to strict guidelines and cite numerous stories that couldn't have been done any other way. But unfortunately the cameras often are used as a substitute for thorough reporting. Moreover, some journalists say hidden cameras shouldn't be used at all. They say they're unethical, and can result in stories that constitute a serious invasion of privacy. Privacy law has never been as well-defined as libel, and still hasn't been conclusively established by Supreme Court rulings. However, airing audio recorded during a hidden camera investigation is prohibited in some states by laws requiring the consent of both parties to record a conversation. And in California, a judge is threatening to bar ABC News from using hidden cameras in private workplaces in the state. Had that been the law in New Jersey, CBS News wouldn't have been able to record in Joel Rachmiel's office. Some journalists fear cases like the one in California as well as the threat of lawsuits may force reporters to stop using hidden cameras altogether. The news media have utilized hidden cameras since 1928, when the New York Daily News sent a photographer to Sing Sing Prison with a small camera strapped to his ankle to secretly photograph an electrocution. Fifty years later, the famous Mirage Bar story pretty much brought an end to newspapers using hidden cameras. The Chicago Sun-Times, in collaboration with a watchdog group, the Better Government Association, set up a saloon monitored by hidden cameras to document licensing inspectors soliciting bribes. The Sun-Times was roundly criticized for the sting and Chicago papers no longer use hidden cameras. In fact, most newspapers no longer consider them appropriate. "Papers can't really show a story through pictures," explains Jeff Kumer, investigations editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "We have to show the story with words." Over the years other network and local reporters routinely shot pictures from vans with cameras hidden behind curtained windows. But the impetus for the recent proliferation of hidden camera stories came in 1989, when ABC's "PrimeTime Live," using new miniature cameras, developed an innovative reporting style. Investigative producer Robbie Gordon used hidden cameras to uncover patient abuse in a health care facility in Houston, in Veterans Administration hospitals and in a day care center . These were dramatic stories that received favorable attention from the press and attracted large audiences. Without hidden cameras, says Gordon, the stories would have been impossible to do.Gordon had used hidden cameras years before, but they were bulky and hard to work with. In the early 1980s0 she snuck a large camera into a hospital emergency room in a suitcase. "It made so much noise when it started up," Gordon remembers, "that we all had to cough to cover up the sound." By 1989, though, Toshiba and Elmo had started producing cameras the size of a lipstick. When carried in a wig, a hat or a stuffed toy, they couldn't be seen or heard. And unlike the previous generation of cameras, micro miniatures can deliver an extremely clear picture. They're also relatively inexpensive: A camera and lens cost less t0. By 1991, the success of "PrimeTime Live," the new cameras' convenience and relatively low cost, and the promise of higher ratings convinced other network shows and local stations to embrace hidden camera technology. That's when major ethical questions started cropping up again. In 1992, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies took official notice of the growing use of hidden cameras by adopting guidelines drawn up at the institute. A year later SPJ published a handbook, "Doing Ethics in Journalism," which recommended that hidden cameras be used only for stories of profound importance when there's no other way to get the information, and when the information outweighs the potential harm caused by the deception. SPJ distributed the handbook to thousands of newsrooms. Some of the "bad work" Rosen worries about includes poorly conceived stories, stories where the final result doesn't justify the inevitable invasion of privacy that goes with the technology, and ones in which stations rely on a quick hit with a hidden camera in lieu of thorough reporting.
I mention the article to make you understand the nitty-gritty of using hidden cameras-spy-cams.Here,in India even and junior and inexperienced reporters use hidden cameras.
Some producers and reporters who use hidden cameras say they adhere to strict guidelines and cite numerous stories that couldn't have been done any other way. But unfortunately the cameras often are used as a substitute for thorough reporting. Moreover, some journalists say hidden cameras shouldn't be used at all. They say they're unethical, and can result in stories that constitute a serious invasion of privacy. Privacy law has never been as well-defined as libel, and still hasn't been conclusively established by Supreme Court rulings. However, airing audio recorded during a hidden camera investigation is prohibited in some states by laws requiring the consent of both parties to record a conversation. And in California, a judge is threatening to bar ABC News from using hidden cameras in private workplaces in the state. Had that been the law in New Jersey, CBS News wouldn't have been able to record in Joel Rachmiel's office. Some journalists fear cases like the one in California as well as the threat of lawsuits may force reporters to stop using hidden cameras altogether. The news media have utilized hidden cameras since 1928, when the New York Daily News sent a photographer to Sing Sing Prison with a small camera strapped to his ankle to secretly photograph an electrocution. Fifty years later, the famous Mirage Bar story pretty much brought an end to newspapers using hidden cameras. The Chicago Sun-Times, in collaboration with a watchdog group, the Better Government Association, set up a saloon monitored by hidden cameras to document licensing inspectors soliciting bribes. The Sun-Times was roundly criticized for the sting and Chicago papers no longer use hidden cameras. In fact, most newspapers no longer consider them appropriate. "Papers can't really show a story through pictures," explains Jeff Kumer, investigations editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "We have to show the story with words." Over the years other network and local reporters routinely shot pictures from vans with cameras hidden behind curtained windows. But the impetus for the recent proliferation of hidden camera stories came in 1989, when ABC's "PrimeTime Live," using new miniature cameras, developed an innovative reporting style. Investigative producer Robbie Gordon used hidden cameras to uncover patient abuse in a health care facility in Houston, in Veterans Administration hospitals and in a day care center . These were dramatic stories that received favorable attention from the press and attracted large audiences. Without hidden cameras, says Gordon, the stories would have been impossible to do.Gordon had used hidden cameras years before, but they were bulky and hard to work with. In the early 1980s0 she snuck a large camera into a hospital emergency room in a suitcase. "It made so much noise when it started up," Gordon remembers, "that we all had to cough to cover up the sound." By 1989, though, Toshiba and Elmo had started producing cameras the size of a lipstick. When carried in a wig, a hat or a stuffed toy, they couldn't be seen or heard. And unlike the previous generation of cameras, micro miniatures can deliver an extremely clear picture. They're also relatively inexpensive: A camera and lens cost less t0. By 1991, the success of "PrimeTime Live," the new cameras' convenience and relatively low cost, and the promise of higher ratings convinced other network shows and local stations to embrace hidden camera technology. That's when major ethical questions started cropping up again. In 1992, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies took official notice of the growing use of hidden cameras by adopting guidelines drawn up at the institute. A year later SPJ published a handbook, "Doing Ethics in Journalism," which recommended that hidden cameras be used only for stories of profound importance when there's no other way to get the information, and when the information outweighs the potential harm caused by the deception. SPJ distributed the handbook to thousands of newsrooms. Some of the "bad work" Rosen worries about includes poorly conceived stories, stories where the final result doesn't justify the inevitable invasion of privacy that goes with the technology, and ones in which stations rely on a quick hit with a hidden camera in lieu of thorough reporting.
I mention the article to make you understand the nitty-gritty of using hidden cameras-spy-cams.Here,in India even and junior and inexperienced reporters use hidden cameras.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
A good Investigative reporter can not reveal his source
My sources are my friends.They trust me a lot and without any hesitation they pass vital information to me and I always prefer to go undercover for my assignment their knowledge of the darker side of the society come as a handy.I treat my sources as my friends.I chat a lot with them and try to solve their problem.I believe that a good investigative reporter can not reveal his source.He prefer to go to jail rather than reveal their identity.Few years ago,one of my source brought a young lady to me.He introduced the lady as a call girl.After that we regularly met and she revealed 'trade secrets'to me.She believed me a lot and I always protected her identity.But now she withdrew from it entirely.She formed a NGO and helping destitute children.As an investigative reporter first I try to built up confidence and then persuade persons to talk on camera.I tell them that I have nothing to do with their criminal activity or criminal background but I try to highlight their plight-they trust me a lot and openly tell their story on camera.Despite my best effort to built a co-ordial relation with them,sometimes they put me in trouble.Here, I want to recall one incident where I was compelled to take action against one of my contacts.Few months ago,my source a husky guy came over my office and struck up conversation with me and pull pranks-then he told me that he needed one of my mobile phones to capture some videos for me.As I trust him, I hand over my mobile phone to him and he promised to return it after finishing his job.But two -three days later when he didn't return my mobile, I tired to contact him,found that his mobile was switched off.I didn't remember his home address.I was at my wits end.After waiting for ten-twelve days,I informed the police.Though it was not a strong Case because I willingly gave it to him,they considered the case seriously.Rajiv Chatterjee a young officer of Lake police Station nab him from his hideout after three months and several rounds of raids.I later learnt that the guy involved in white color crime and earlier police booked him on several charges.
Despite these types of setback, I still trust my sources and regularly meet them.I follow the footsteps of Pete Shellem, a chain-smoking investigative reporter of Patriot-News of Harrisburg,Pennsylvania who meets sources in bars and knows most of the bartenders by name.When his immediate boss or any other person from his newspaper needs to find him for a question on a story they know where to find him.By his tireless effort four innocent people were freed from jail after serving several years in jail.Hats off to his temperament.
Despite these types of setback, I still trust my sources and regularly meet them.I follow the footsteps of Pete Shellem, a chain-smoking investigative reporter of Patriot-News of Harrisburg,Pennsylvania who meets sources in bars and knows most of the bartenders by name.When his immediate boss or any other person from his newspaper needs to find him for a question on a story they know where to find him.By his tireless effort four innocent people were freed from jail after serving several years in jail.Hats off to his temperament.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
She accused me of using a hidden camera to tape her
As an Investigative Reporter,I often go undercover.I admire investigative reporter,Neille Bly who preferred to went underground for her stories.Deception may play a major role in any undercover operation.But the information obtained must be of profound importance.it must be of vital interest such as revealing great system failure at the top levels or it must prevent profound harm to individuals. I keep certain things in mind before any undercover operation.
What I do if my cover is blown up?
Can I lie to maintain my cover?
What happens If I see a crime being committed?
So,I prepare myself.Few years ago,i went underground to unearthed a sex-racket.I took a job at a message parlour.For this purpose,I underwent training as a masseur.As a freelance reporter,I believe that I have to 'protect' myself.It is unfortunate that I got minimum help from my employers.As an investigative reporter,we should know how and when to use the hidden cameras-spy cams.I think when I use deception to gain access for reporting,I should maintain my cover.Therefore,I personally take some precautions such as I behave like them,learn their lingo and use my contacts to get access.I think that without preparation and proper planning we should not go into the field.I remember one incident where I interviewed a woman secretly, though she knew that I'm a reporter,sued me for defamation.she accused me of using a hidden camera to tape her.After that,I became cautious.Before any undercover operation meticulous planning is necessary -use of hidden cameras-spy cams without planning and preparation may ruined reporter's carrier and badly damage the image of TV stations.
What I do if my cover is blown up?
Can I lie to maintain my cover?
What happens If I see a crime being committed?
So,I prepare myself.Few years ago,i went underground to unearthed a sex-racket.I took a job at a message parlour.For this purpose,I underwent training as a masseur.As a freelance reporter,I believe that I have to 'protect' myself.It is unfortunate that I got minimum help from my employers.As an investigative reporter,we should know how and when to use the hidden cameras-spy cams.I think when I use deception to gain access for reporting,I should maintain my cover.Therefore,I personally take some precautions such as I behave like them,learn their lingo and use my contacts to get access.I think that without preparation and proper planning we should not go into the field.I remember one incident where I interviewed a woman secretly, though she knew that I'm a reporter,sued me for defamation.she accused me of using a hidden camera to tape her.After that,I became cautious.Before any undercover operation meticulous planning is necessary -use of hidden cameras-spy cams without planning and preparation may ruined reporter's carrier and badly damage the image of TV stations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)