By now the script is familiar: Corporate czar on the wrong side of the law threatens to expose the media that, in turn, is trying to expose him. Perhaps the most famous instance was when at the height of the Lalit Modi fiasco, former Indian Premiere League chairman declared a Twitter war of sorts against Times Group Managing Director Vineet Jain and NDTV’s Sreenivasan Jain.

The “poster boy” of bad debt, Vijay Mallya, is the latest to wave a fist at mainstream media. After launching a tirade against the editor of Times Now, he warned “media bosses” to keep in mind the “favours” he had bestowed upon them back when good times rolled.

At first, Modi and Mallya’s tweets seem nothing more than a petulant reaction to bad press and indeed betray an attempt to stop journalists from going hard on them. Label us crooks and we’ll let the world know how you sought us out, the former barons threaten only to end up sounding vaguely ridiculous.

Yet is it really bluster? Given the intense scrutiny that the media and its operations have come under after l’affaire Radia and Essar, it would do well for us to examine the implication of Mallya’s assertions.

For now, Mallya has given us no names, neither do we know the exact nature of the “favours” he’s referring to, but his comment does beg the question of whether Mallya’s proximity to journalists ensured his dubious activities stayed under the radar and out of the spotlight.

Sunil Jain, managing editor of The Financial Express, does not think so. “There could be senior journalists who’ve enjoyed Mallya’s hospitality, but I don’t think this delays a story from coming out,” said Jain. “There is enough competition to ensure that even if one media organisation’s boss wants the story buried, another organisation will carry it. In fact, the threat of someone else carrying it will ensure few would like to bury the story, including the one whose editor may have got favours from Mallya.”

Jain also pointed out that today, there are more avenues for breaking news and exposés. “The competition is not just from the media,” he said, “but from lawyers who can file PILs, from activists, from whistleblowers…”.

Mihir Sharma, opinion editor at Business Standard, however, feels the media did a terrible job of exposing any and all corporate misdoings in the period that Mallya and Modi were riding high, when banks were lending to all (insolvent) comers. “Many people who are not as close to the media as these two got away too,” he said, adding, “where were the voices of caution about Ranbaxy when it was busy conning regulators? It was hailed as an Indian national treasure instead.”

He stated that it’s too easy to report corporate PR. “The pressure for feel-good stories about Indian companies doing simply awesome is too high. The Indian corporate sector doesn’t deserve this faith or pride.”

So what about journalistic ethics and integrity? How close should you get to your source? Is it acceptable for the lines between personal and professional to blur when you immerse yourself in the beat you cover? Caravan’s political editor Hartosh Singh Bal says it’s one thing to socialise at events with important people in business or politics, but as a journalist, one must be able to write negative stories about friends if required.

Bal is one of the few journalists who insists he does not include any important politicians or businessmen among his friends. “I keep my personal life separated from my professional life,” he said.

Independent journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta says scribes can and do become friendly with the people they meet while reporting and/or analysing information, be they businesspersons or politicians. “This is hardly surprising,” said Guha Thakurta. “The problem arises when proximity to a source results in a journalist not disclosing factually correct information and/or making the information public, especially if the information can be considered significant and relevant to a particular story at a specific point in time.”

Guha Thakurta asserts that it is usually good for the professional credibility of a journalist and her/his reputation if she or he maintains “an arm’s length distance” from sources and, more importantly, does not allow a source to exercise undue influence on what the journalist puts out in the public domain.

Having known Mallya since the 1960s — the two were contemporaries in La Martiniere for Boys, Calcutta (now Kolkata) – Guha Thakurta has more than a passing acquaintance with the man of the hour. “He is, to the best of my knowledge, not very different from many (if not, most) tycoons when it comes to ‘wining and dining’ journalists,” said Guha Thakurta. “If he has — as he claims — documented information on how he has ‘favoured’ particular journalists, I think he must disclose this information.”

Such journalists should be named even if, in the process, they are not shamed, according to Guha Thakurta. “We are waiting for you, Vijay, to spill the beans,” he said.

We couldn’t agree more.

Additional reporting by Sourodipto Sanyal