Before every assignment,I feel the urge to follow the procedures mentioned by Radio &Television News Directors Association(RTNDA)such as:
What is the role of video in the story?Does it bring real value?
Is it necessary to use a hidden camera in this story?why?
Does the story involve insignificant Private matters(even if emotional)or are there matters of vital public concern,prevention of profound harm or system failure?
Is the rationale for the story simply to win a prize or beat the competition?
Do your motives involve getting the story quickly and cheaply,rationalizing that others have done it or that the story subjects themselves unethical?
Are hidden-cameras to be used primarily to create drama?Can a visible camera be used with the same impact?
Have you used all traditional means to investigate the story,including interviews and reviewing public records and documents?
What happens if the reporters cover is blown?
Can a reporter lie to maintain his cover?
What happens if the reporter sees a crime being committed?
Where will the camera be used in a public place?quasi Public? Private home?
Will the reporter enter private property without consent or owners to tape?
Will editing be allowed to alter contents?
Though this guidelines are adopted by an American organisation keeping in mind the American perspective and legal system, but I think that Investigative Reporters of other countries who use hidden cameras-spy cams regularly should follow these guidelines.
Here,I want to quote few paras from an article appeared in southasia analysis.org written by a former Indian Administrative service officer B.Raman. He asked several unpleasant questions regarding the massive use of spy cams in sting operations in India.Serious Investigative journalism is replaced by sting operation.
* Was there a metal detector in any of the places visited by the journalists? If so, how was it they didn't sound the alarm on detecting the batteries and the transmission cord?
* Was the activation mechanism automatic or manual? If manual, it must have been activated before the journalists entered the presence of those interviewed and the equipment must have video-recorded their conversations with others too such as the security guards, the personal assistants etc. Where are those recordings?
* Was there an editing of the recordings? If so, to what extent and for what purpose? That there has probably been considerable editing is apparent to even a lay observer. Modern cameras automatically record the dates on which the shots were taken. The dates seem to have been edited. Why?
* Is there a concurrent written record of the various stages of the sting operation from which one could see how many times a person was interviewed and what subjects figured during each conversation?
* Has there been a morphing, interposing, substitution etc of the images/conversations and were these done manually or were they computer-generated?
Through computer-generation techniques one could create a make-believe picture of something, which is far from what actually happened.If the expert opinion confirms the authenticity of the recordings, stern action must be taken against those figuring in the recordings.I think that investigative reporters should work quietly relying on their own instincts,their overall knowledge and their own confidence.No one feel their presence.That's the difference between a general reporter and an investigative reporter.
