Over the last two weeks, Big Media has found itself in a sticky situation. A web portal broadcast video recordings of news editors, publishers, executives and owners agreeing to publish pro-Hindutva content in exchange for money in the run up to the 2019 General Election.

This was the second instalment of the sting by Cobrapost. It named 25 news organisations, including The Times Group—which publishes the world’s largest circulated English newspaper—its competitor Hindustan Times, and other big names in mainstream media such as, India Today, Zee News, Star India, OPEN magazine and payment app Paytm, among others. The first instalment, released on March 26 this year, reported 17 news organisations that were willing to publish pro-Hindutva propaganda in exchange for money. (You can read Newslaundry’s coverage on Part 1 and 2 of the sting, Operation: 136 here.)

With nearly all the big news organisations in India in the dock, the response of the mainstream press in India is predictable: strategic silence with threats of legal action against anyone who publishes the findings of the investigation.

It is easy for the press in India to ignore the stings as it does not report on itself. Few newspapers, news channels or news websites cover media as a beat. “The fact that the media never became a reporting beat in India and there is self-censorship on that count, is partly why the print media does not police itself. In other countries it is a regular beat,” says Sevanti Ninan, a media critic and founder-editor of media watchdog website, The Hoot.

Protecting one’s own

The unspoken rule in the Indian press of not reporting on itself is both a business and an editorial decision, which adversely affects the trust in the press, the quality of public conversations, and ultimately democracy in India.

Founding Editor of Mint, Raju Narisetti, says, “There is a clear unstated agreement among media houses not to ruffle each other’s feathers, and the lack of a persistent and a consistent spotlight on this large and influential industry means a lot of bad—and good—behaviours go unreported.”

He adds, “Something as simple as transparency of ownership—which in many countries is actually a required element of media regulation—and making audiences aware of who is behind a media outfit and potential implications of that can go a long way.”

Narisetti says another widely practiced tradition is to ignore enterprise or investigative reporting of other news brands. “This has the dangerous effect of blanking out such news for millions of news consumers,” he says.

Vinod Jose, executive editor of Caravan magazine, says, “Nobody wants to flash the torch inside their own house. When Caravan did the first media issue in 2012 on Arnab Goswami and The Times of India, people loved it. In the second year, when we looked at another big company, I received a number of calls from very influential people saying Vinod, you must stop covering media. Even when doing political stories you don’t get such phone calls. I think journalists are quite comfortable protecting each others unless a particular journalist or media organisation falls foul of other press owners or the government. When everyone is swimming together, there is a lot of camaraderie.”

Are stings unworthy of journalism?

When pressed for a response on social media, the president of the Editors Guild of India, Shekhar Gupta, made public his displeasure with sting journalism and spoke of the code of ethics at his news venture The Print and his earlier workplace, The Indian Express.

Discomfort aside, his statement runs contrary to publicly known facts. The Indian Express under Shekhar Gupta did run at least one sting. Could it be that Gupta’s discomfort stems from the fact that the brother of one of his promoters, and The Print’s content partner Hindustan Times, are also named in the Cobrapost investigation? There is a direct conflict of interest here. Although Gupta has made public that the Editors Guild of India will meet to deliberate the issue, this conflict of interest should have been spelt out in his latest piece in The Print, which was in response to Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s piece in The Indian Express on the issue. An email questionnaire on these issues to Gupta remain unanswered.

Professor of media studies at the New York University and an author on multiple books on the media in India, Arvind Rajagopal says, “Conflicts of interest should lead to recusal, without doubt, and those who are able to act without compromising themselves in professional or financial matters should be appointed. Shekhar Gupta has also dismissed stings as unworthy of journalism. Truth should be the litmus test; when the guardians of truth abandon their duties, methods by which truth is arrived at are often compromised.”

Media analyst Geeta Seshu says, “It is obvious that a conflict of interest is going to affect public perception of their stance. There should have be a disclosure accompanying statements.”

Indeed the conversation on the issue has now moved away from the findings and implications of the investigation to the nature and methods of the investigation. The press in India has reduced the investigation to: 1. We are being framed; 2. Sting journalism is unethical; 3. Hindus are being targeted; 4. The media is running in losses because the consumer doesn’t pay for news; 5. We need to focus on Paytm’s data policies; and 6. The journalist who did the sting and the organisation that made it public have problematic antecedents.

Sting journalism may be a shade of grey, but the first two points are simply aesthetic arguments — they don’t prove or disprove anything, and merely point at the preferences of editors and publishers. The third point is an attempt to polarise, a trick used by politicians by appealing to base instincts. The fourth is grossly misleading — The Times of India had a revenue of over ₹9,000 crore in FY16 and Hindustan Times made a profit of ₹307 crore in 2017–18. The fifth argument, while important, is a diversion from the main issue. The sixth argument is an attempt at diversion by shooting the messenger.

In all this, the issues of accountability, transparency and ethics of the press are lost.

Past precedent

The present crisis is a crisis of paid news that was left unaddressed by the Press Council of India a decade ago despite the public backlash. Ten years ago, the press in India faced a similar crisis. News organisations, including the largest circulated English newspaper in India, carried positive news stories in poll-bound states in exchange for money from politicians and political parties.

The sub-committee was composed of two senior journalists, K Sreenivas Reddy and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. Thakurta says, “I am against sting operations unless there is an overriding public interest. In the case of Cobrapost sting, there is an overriding public interest. Since the phenomenon of paid news is a clandestine operation, the only way to uncover it is through clandestine means. The same people who are today denouncing sting operations, raised no objection reporting on the Cambridge Analytica sting.”

The abuse of self-regulation

At the heart of the problem is the abuse of self-regulation by the press in India. “ It would be good if there is public acknowledgement by editors within the press in India that self-regulation isn’t working, rather use the nominal presence of Press Council and Editors Guild to claim there is no need for any other discussion about regulation,” says Narisetti. “Using non-existent self-regulation to stonewall any serious debate about potential remedies, in light of Cobrapost or other regular instances of serious rot within Indian news organisations, prevents India’s media from regaining trust, and will be the death-spiral in time for mainstream media brands. And the corrosion of media simply erodes India’s position as the world’s largest democracy with a free press.”

Consider the fact that India slipped two places on the Press Freedom Index to 138 from 136 in the first four months of 2018. Reporters Without Borders, which maintains the index, notes threats to journalists from  Hindu nationalists and self-censorship as the reason for decreasing press freedom in India. Predictably, self-regulatory bodies reject the findings of the Press Freedom Index.

That a majority of press in India is willing to put democracy at risk in exchange for money should concern every citizen. “They couldn’t vet and stop a silly-sounding organisation putting forward lucrative deals of ₹250 crore and ₹1,000 crore in exchange for publishing content that didn’t sound normal. That in itself says India has a crumbling press infrastructure in place as media. Anyone with a big money bag in India can definitely find their way to the owners,” says Jose.

This isn’t a easy moment. With a pliant and a colluding press that is willing to sell its soul for money, self-regulation, Narisetti points, is as effective as no regulation and will prove a death knell for the free press in India. Government regulation of the press in a democracy is highly undesirable.

“If the Editors Guild of India and the Press Council of India do not re-imagine their existence and role, it will be left up to perhaps India’s rather activist Supreme Court to step in and come up with some panel or group to figure out solutions. Or worse yet, India could go the way of Turkey or Hungary where popular, elected leaders see their mandates as license to subvert independent institutions,” says Narisetti.

The road ahead

The way ahead isn’t easy nor clear. There are way too many regulatory bodies in India, both statutory and self-regulating, without any punitive powers, such that they’re reduced to being statement-issuing bodies.

This is a moment of crisis of credibility and trust in the press. Erosion of trust in the press will eventually lead to an existential moment for news organisations as the public begins questioning their intent and legitimacy. “We need greater discussions on the rot in the media in India, from the precarious job security and safety of journalists, the corporatisation of the media, the open and hidden sponsorship of news space, of events and programmes that the media is part of or organises, the ownership and business interests of media houses and of course, the allegiances and ties of media houses to political parties and organisations,” Media analyst Geeta Seshu says.

In the end, it is upto us, consumers of news, to exercise judgment and hold the press accountable as they trade away our rights and democracy for money. “When a news organisation only provides news that reinforces our viewpoint, we should be suspicious and look for other sources. It is essential to read and view media that we may regard as favouring different or opposing points of view, every now and then,” Arvind suggests.

Here’s what you can do:

-Support independent media,

-Engage with news instead of consuming it passively,

-Connect with reporters and editors, participate, volunteer and donate to organisations such as Alt-News, Boom Fact-Check, Coalition Against Disinformation, open data communities in your cities, etc.

-Pass on news tips to reporters and demand news that matters to you instead of consuming what is presented to you,

-Email editors and journalists, question them on public fora,

-Thank editors and journalists when they do a story that affects you,

-Participate in deliberations of self-regulatory bodies and demand citizen representation in them,

-Demand ownership, investment and advertiser transparency and disclosure. Journalists are mostly indifferent to their passive audience. But they sit up and take note when they realise that consumers of news are pushing back. Remember, the press exists to serve and safeguard democracy. As consumers, we have more power over news organisations than the press would like to admit. It’s time we reclaim news before it claims our democracy.