The alleged suicide at the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) farmer rally at Jantar Mantar and the ensuing drama – all of which played out on national television news with much histrionics  – has brought forth the worst of the medium.

While there has been enough dissection of Ashutosh’s hysterical sobbing and Aaj Tak’s subsequent milking of it, Zee News’ video of a speech by AAP leader Kumar Vishwas during the rally, wherein the channel insinuates that Vishwas was aware that the farmer had hanged himself, seems to have escaped scrutiny.

The Zee News clip has a text blurb that reads “latak gaya” (he has hanged himself). The channel provides Vishwas’ hand gesture as proof of those words being uttered. Vishwas’ supporters, however, assert that the video has been doctored, and a voiceover was insidiously inserted. As a response to the Zee News video, another video, claiming to “expose” Zee News started doing the rounds on social media. This video employs footage sourced from AAP’s official webcast and NDTV to make its point.

Here are the original AAP webcast and NDTV videos, respectively:

These two videos indeed put Zee News’ insinuations on shaky ground, but then television is a tricky medium. It may, hence, be unfair to dismiss Zee’s claims as a deliberate attempt at mischief.  But does Zee News possess more evidence, apart from the speculative hand gesture, to support its contention?

Newslaundry spoke to Sudhir Chaudhary, Editor, Zee News, who affirmed that the channel stood by the story. Chaudhary told us that he had raw footage in his possession, which corroborates the channel’s assertions. “In fact, Delhi Police has asked us for a footage and we have submitted it to them,” he said. According to Chaudhary, the accusation that a voiceover was inserted is completely baseless. “It is not a voiceover at all, someone in the stage uttered those words,” he alleged. Chaudhary argued that the channel never claimed that it was Vishwas’ voice. “People attacking us seem to have assumed, without any fact-checking, that we are claiming that it was Vishwas who said those words. Since, the camera angle available couldn’t ascertain that it was indeed Vishwas, we simply stated that someone [emphasis added] on the stage said it and Vishwas’ hand gesture confirms it,” he said.

Although Chaudhary’s version is plausible, it is somewhat strange that the other microphones did not catch the voice, considering it was fairly loud.

Kumar Vishwas has launched a scathing attack on Zee News, calling the channel Zee Huzoor (Yes, sir) News.

Zee News is owned by Subhash Chandra, who had reportedly sought to fight Assembly elections in Haryana on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket from Hisar, Haryana. That, however, did not materialise, prompting Chandra to remark that he was “not a politician but a statesman” and would work for BJP’s victory in Hisar.

Chandra has meanwhile urged Arvind Kejriwal “not to treat Zee or any media as enemy”.

The controversy has also led to some unexpected repercussions. Singer Sonu Nigam, who had tweeted out the video that claims to expose Zee News, alleged that Zee had banned him and refused to produce or buy any music he’s associated with. Zee Music is part of the same group that that owns Zee News.

Vishwas, on his part, has sent a legal notice to Chandra, Zee News and DNA. He told Newslaundry he will send a second legal notice tomorrow, adding that Zee cannot accuse him and call him a “murderer” when a judicial probe is still underway to ascertain the facts of the incident.

This may not be the only legal proceeding that Zee News may have to deal with in the near future. In an unrelated case, the Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (IRIA) has taken offence to a report on the channel, which it claims was “false, misleading, mis-informative”. The IRIA has asked Zee News to either tender an unconditional apology or face legal action.

Cases of defamation – particularly against the media – however, hardly ever reach a logical conclusion in India, owing to the subjective definition of what exactly amounts to defamation.  Also, the line between an individual/organisation’s right to protecting its reputation and the media’s – and the public’s – right to freedom of speech is often very fine.  Speaking at the RedInk Awards in Mumbai where he was presented the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Mumbai Press Club, Co-Founder and Executive Co-Chairperson, NDTV, Prannoy Roy said:

Although Roy is right about the need to pull up our socks in terms of fact-checking and research, there is perhaps a reason that the courts have often ruled in favour of media houses. Stories that could hurt individual reputation (often hard-earned) but which are important in the light of public interest quite often fall in a zone that is not entirely black and white. Also the fact that terms like balance and defamation are rather abstract could very well result in tougher defamation laws being used by powerful organisations/individuals to intimidate the media from critically reporting on them.