The Sting has Lost its Thing

Touted as investigative journalism, sting operations in India seem to focus chiefly on those stories that porn movies are made of.

7 September, 2007:

There’s a bee in my bonnet, and I am afraid it’s got a sting that can kill. The killing machine is out at large, in search of victims who thrive on the no-nos of the society. Yes, the bee has a mission.

Only sometimes, the sting misfires like an unguided missile – losing track of why it was fired in the first place. My poor bee needs a lesson. But I am not sure how to train the supercilious sting.

All right, metaphors apart, what we are talking about are the sting operations carried out by news media. In what seems to be the call of the day, sting operations have become a source for higher TRPs more than the principle on which they are conducted in the first place. The channels may defend their stand under the guise of investigative journalism, but who can explain the loose ends nearly all the sting operations seem to leave behind.

Sex, sex, and more sex

Sting operations first became popular with Tehelka.com in 2000, when they carried out an exposé on former several prominent politicians accepting bribes from a decoy. It’s been seven years since, the case has been going back and forth, and the Tehelka case became a mere flash in the pan. This
was followed by the sting on actors Shakti Kapoor and Aman Verma. The nation went in a tizzy when the sting was aired on news channels, depicting the two (among others), leeringly suggesting a casting couch in front of the hidden camera. However, the two stings raised some ethical questions.

Would a sting qualify as investigative journalism when firstly, there was no obvious relevance of the sting to the public? Secondly, how fair is a sting when there is clear ensnarement? The journalists in both the cases trapped the two actors into propositioning them. While one is not defending the two
"victims" of the sting, the issue remains that the two stings in question were motivated by attempts to sensationalize news and raise TRPs rather than highlight legitimate public interest issues.

It is not just India, the recent covert mission to nab Senator Larry Craig has brought forth a debate on the hypocrisy of sting operations. The debate questions the moral grounds on which sting operations are carried out, and the thin line between consent and criminal intent. The case of Larry Craig is reminiscent of the ouster of singer George Michael from his closet, in a similar operation carried out by the police.

While Larry Craig has been vocally homophobic in his views, this operation apparently fans homophobia. The focus is not so much on Craig’s double standards, but on the fact that he engaged in homosexual acts – but is that reason enough to incriminate him because what he engaged in was purportedly consensual?

Seducation

Among the numerous sting operations carried out since the revelation of the casting couch, the latest involving Uma Khurana stands out as one of the most disturbing. The sting alleged that Uma Khurana, a mathematics teacher at Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in Delhi, was pushing her students into prostitution. The sting, aired on the TV channel Live India, led to a large-scale riot on Asaf Ali Road. Uma Khurana was almost lynched by a violent mob.

In a latest development, the police said that they have no evidence against Uma Khurana. The sting was a frame-up and was allegedly motivated by a
petty dispute between Virendra Arora, a businessman, and Uma Khurana. Arora's friend Prakash Singh, the journalist with LiveIndia channel who masterminded the sting, asked a friend, Rashmi Singh, to pose as a student who was pushed into prostitution by Khurana.

A study of the unedited tapes showed that Uma Khurana refused to admit to any prostitution ring or provide any students for prostitution. The police has now arrested Rashmi Singh for cheating.

The whole sting was motivated by petty revenge on the part of the businessman who gave the journalist a tip-off and a desire for cheap publicity on the part of the channel. The operation focused chiefly on the sexual angle in the whole story, which is a whole deal more glamorous than say corruption in the education system.

Corruption has been the country’s bane and it starts early--right in our schools. If the schools are a breeding ground for illicit liaisons and undue favors, is it surprising then that we have not been able to do away with corruption? But, somehow, the channels do not seem to highlight such instances.

Growing up in small towns in the country, I know for a fact that teachers coerce students to join their private tuitions, lest the student fail in exams.
Some teachers resort to bribes to leak examination papers, while others look for favors in kind. Students oblige, parents give in. Who wants to take on a hassle for a few rupees more?

There are sting operations that bring out corruption in the bureaucracy, but as the bureaucracy functions in India, these operations lead nowhere. Taking action on those found guilty is a long-winded process, and no one seems to have the patience, nor the inclination to wait for the outcomes. It’s just convenient to bring out stories that do not deserve more than a day’s worth of attention.

Close on the heels of the Uma Khurana sting operation in Delhi, comes another one from down south. Professor Suryanarayan of Osmania University met almost the same fate as the math teacher from Delhi – minus the public thrashing. The charge here is the professor sought sexual favors from students in lieu of a doctorate degree. Again, the focus of the story seemed sex, and not the moral responsibility education entails.

Superfluity of the sting

So, while the channels are sting-happy, hopping from one operation to another, the issues they set out to address seem lost as soon as the buzz dies down. Follow ups mean a small story covered a few months down the line. If sting operations are part of investigative journalism, since when has leaving issues in lurch become acceptable to the journo community? Justifications apart, where has the idea of a proper closure to a story gone? Is the media itself a victim of attention deficit disorder, like its viewers who flip channels every two seconds?

Rhetorical questions these, but getting underneath the skin of today’s journalist is not easy. It is a matter of who can cast the first stone. Sex sells – the kinkier the better. Does this take away the significance of issues that question basic ethics of a society? We seem to be too afraid to dig out the larger monsters that work at a deeper level than purely sexual, lest we all fall down.