Be prepare for the worst

Meticulous planning is necessary for any sting operation.It takes time -four ,five months or even more to meteralize the entire operation.First, a strong team headed by an experienced journalist closely monitor the entire operation.Review the progress every day.He must ensure that only junior or less experienced reporter will send into the field along with an experienced reporter.Legal experts should review everything from timee to time,its legal aspects,tapes of sting operation and should have the power to remove the unacceptable parts.Above all you should have a strong pretext and deception so that you can convince your subject.Your contacts should be active particaptants in the whole process and obivously a steady flow of fund to carry out the operation.But, its another point that despite all these precautions including maintaining journalistic ethics ,follow the law properly,you could still be in trouble(read law suits).Operation Duryadhan,operation Chakravuh -these are not the code name of any millitary backed operation against terrorism,but sting operations were carried out against greedy policitians.Operation Duryadhun where 11 MPs accepting money to ask questions in Parliament. Another TV channel came out with yet another expose highlighting corruption among MPs in selecting the projects for Local Area Development Scheme. Conducted by a Cobrapost.com(an online Investigative news portal headed by ex-Tehelka reporter Aniruddha Bahal) and Aajtak investigation, 10 Lok Sabha and one Rajya Sabha members were caught on camera as they accepted money from the team of a non-extistent body called the North Indian Small Manufacturers’ Assosciation (NISMA) for asking questions in the Indian Parliament.The MPs were Narendra Kushwaha (BSP), Anna Saheb M.K. Patil (BJP),Y.G. Mahajan (BJP),Manoj Kumar (RJD),Lal Chandra Kol ,Dr Chhatrapal Singh Lodha (BJP),Pradeep Gandhi (BJP),Suresh Chandel (BJP),Chandra Pratap Singh (BJP),Ramsevak Singh (Congress) Manoj Kumar (RJD).
I quote Aniruddha Bahal from his article appeared in Cobrapost.com.

The MPs submitted questions on NISMA’s behalf and some of them were selected—and their answers given—in the Parliament’s rigorous balloting system that reduces chances of questions being taken up to something akin to a raffle. Some of the questions were rewritten by the middlemen taking us to the MPs concerned before being put in Parliament, some came nearly verbatim and only certain sections of some were picked up by the Parliament staff. The COBRAPOST team also has in its possession many, original signed forms of MPs, blank as well as filled up, which weren’t submitted but set aside as evidence.From the start it was my assessment that in order for a reportorial team to remain undercover for a long duration it would be prudent to have a woman reporter as the primary asset on the field. Their biggest advantage in undercover situations is that even in an extreme atmosphere of suspicion they have greater chances to evade a search for hidden camera equipment then men and for all the right reasons. Besides Suhasini Raj, the reporter, who was inserted in the field with an alias of “Namita Gokhale”, had a past selling insurance and was a fast talker. Never at a loss for words, she ended up doing an extraordinary job on the field, surviving several anxious moments when many middlemen and even MPs got their antennae up. The fictitious front under whose umbrella the COBRAPOST team operated was NISMA, ostensibly an organization out of Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh, that lobbied and worked for the interests and welfare of Small Scale Industries (SSIs). That was, in a nutshell, our story. Even though on several occasions I was tempted to enter the field much earlier than I actually did, I held back realizing that it wouldn’t be prudent for there was a chance of somebody recognizing me. When I did eventually take the field with an alias of “Navratan Malhotra”, executive director of the ‘fictitious’ NISMA, I was armed with a ludicrous wig and even more ludicrous glasses.There were seven principal middlemen, namely, Harish Badola, Chandrabhan Gupta, M.K. Tripathi (alias Chotiwala), Mohan, Dinesh Chandra, Ravinder Kumar, Vijay, and some others. While Harish was our conduit to three BJP MPs (Anna Saheb M.K. Patil, Y.G. Mahajan and Chhatrapal Singh Lodha), Gupta introduced us to three MPs (Lal Chandra Kol and Narendra Khushwaha of the BSP and Chandra Pratap Singh of the BJP), Mohan Mani lead us to one (BJP MP Pradeep Gandhi), Vijay took us to two MPs (Ramsevak Singh of the Congress and Suresh Chandel of the BJP), and Ravinder Kumar (BSP’s Raja Ram Pal) and Chotiwala (RJD’s Manoj Kumar) to one MP each. Dinesh was the middleman who sent us across to four other middlemen—Gupta, Vijay, Ravinder and Mohan.
Another important sting operation carried out by Star News-Detective Inteligence Guild(DIG)showed a former Goa Chief Minister and Lok Sabha member Churchil Alemao, former Union Minister and BJP MP Fagan Singh Kulaste and one Samajwadi Party MP and another supported by SP involved in accepting money to allot work for the MPLAD (Member of Parliament Local Area Development) Scheme.Alemao, a Congress MP from South Goa, who discussed commisson in two meetings, is asking the undercover reporters in third meeting to open a bag full of money as commission for a project to popularise Konkani language. The former Chief Minister demands an advance of Rs. Two lakh, but on suspicion grew,he threatened the reporters at which the team backed out.The sting operation also shows Yuvraj Siingh, Personal Secretary of Fagan Singh Kulaste, a former Union Minister, taking money on behalf of BJP MP Chandra Pratap Singh, who was also exposed in the sting operation'Operation Duryodhan'.
From these two successful operations,one can understand that deception play a major role in any sting operationn.As I mentioned earlier proper planning and co-ordination between reporters and contacts is a must.An Investigative Reporter should always remember that what happens if his or her cover is blown?So,be prepare for the worst.

CNN-IBN should have telecast the tapes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

some insensitive reporters sensationalize their stories

As a freelance reporter,I have no right to comment on others but,I feel sad when I find that some 'insensitive'reporters unnecessarily sensationalize their stories.Here, I want to mention the sensational double murder case in Noida.Police had found Noida school girl Arushi's body in her bedroom on May 16 morning.Later,Hemraj their 45 year old domestic help also found dead.First, they suspected Hemraj for Aarushi's murder.Even they circulated pictures of the 'massing servant'.But,Noida Police top brass were embarrassed when the 'missing servant' they had confidently accused of killing the school girl turned up murdered .Every time media savvy top officials of Noida Police came up with new theories and murder alibi.Then, they arrested another domestic help Vishnu Sharma,having worked for Talwar's (Aarushi's parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar,both well known Dental Surgeons of Delhi) for twin murders because,according to Police,the Talwar's had angered him by replacing him with a man called Hamrej who was murdered along with Aarushi.Then,Noida police claimed that they had crack the murder mystery and arrested Rajesh Talwar,father of murdered school girl.The police said the motive was to prevent Aarushi from revealing Rajesh's affair with colleague Anita Durrani,also a dentist.Rajesh was also angry with his daughter for having an 'affair' with Hemraj.News channels blindly quote Noida police.The news channels conducted media trial of the little girl,who was not their to defend herself.Noida double murder case is the biggest crime story after Nithari serial killing case of 2006 where from 2005 to the end of 2006 at least 19 children-all from poor families went missing from Nithari,a slum in Noida,near Delhi.Repeated complaints by parents of missing children to the Police didn't help a single missing child.After the intervention of High Court, the police found skeletal remains of children buried in a drain running behind affluent businessman Moninder Singh Pandher's Noida house.Initial investigation revealed that pandher,along with his domestic help Surendra Koli,had sexually abused and killed the children.News channels have reported a jump in their viewership ever since the news of the double murder broke.People are interested to know about who killed Aarushi.From the first day, Noida police mishandled the case.Every time they arrested someone or made up a 'story',media specially News channels blindly follow the theory.In the Arushi murder case,the police made the mistake of not taking timely action and missed out vital clues.Though,news channels questioned the 'mishandling' the case by the police,they compete each other to improve their TRP.For instance,on May 23,the day Aarush's father was arrested and Police claimed it to be honour killing, the Television Rating Point of Hindi news channels jumped overnight.Noida police claimed that Rajesh killed her daughter because he had found them(Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj) in an objectionable but not compromising position.Few days back I got an e-mail from a lady.She wrote me that her 8 year old daughter asked her some 'embarrassing' questions -like Aarushi's 'affair' with Hemraj and extra-marital affair of Rajesh talwar with Anita Durrani.After CB took over the case from noida Police,they arrested Rajesh Talwar's compound er Krishna and Durrani's domestic help Raj Kumar and questioned Aarushi's mother Nupur Talwar,their friend and business partners Anita and Parful Durrani and a neighbour's servant Vijay Mondal.
In these type of cases, I always remember the advice of senior journalists.I personally avoid putting the camera and boom into someones face without asking their permission.I walk down to the person without my crew and tell him or her who am I and express my condolences.i show them how concerned or sympathetic i am.After Spending sometime with them,I tell them that though I know it's a difficult time for them but at the same time it's might helpful for others if the subject talk on camera.Here,I want to quote Veteran Photojournalist Angela Grant:I think it's a matter of convincing the person that you're trying to tell their side of the story. When I interview people who have lost a loved one, I tell them that I want to ask them questions about the person and create a sort of memorial to them. People usually like that idea ... It's an honor because you're saying their loved one is valuable, his or her loss was tragic, and the person is worth remembering.If they say no the first time, I'll sometimes ask again and just make sure that I explain what I'm trying to do. If they say no a second time, I'll say okay, I'm sorry for your loss. Then I leave them alone. Try to get another family member to talk.

Investigative reporters should work quietly

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.