http://openthemagazine.com/article/voices/this-is-not-journalism-as-we-know-it

27 November 2010

SCANDAL

	Hartosh Singh Bal turned from the difficulty of doing mathematics to the ease of writing on politics. Unlike mathematics all this requires is being less wrong than most others who dwell on the subject. He is the Political Editor of Open. EMAIL AUTHOR

This Is Not Journalism as We Know It

In their response to Open’s X-Tapes exposé, Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi are defending the indefensible. Here is why.

28

TAGGED UNDER | media | journalism | Barkha Dutt | Vir Sanghvi | X-Tapes |blackout | expose

A week has passed without India’s mainstream media—print or TV, barOutlook magazine and Mail Today newspaper—following up on the story of the Radia tapes that was broken by Open. The only time the issue figured on Indian TV channels was when Times Now and CNN-IBN hosted half-an-hour shows on corporate lobbyists without mentioning the names of the two most prominent journalists who figure on the tapes—Vir Sanghvi, advisory editorial director ofHindustan Times, and Barkha Dutt, group editor of NDTV. Newspapers, bar The Hindu, have restricted their discussion to the editorial rather than news pages, and again without naming Vir Sanghvi and Barkha Dutt—the equivalent of discussing the allotment of 2G spectrum without naming A Raja. This closing of ranks betrays one of the weaknesses of the media in this country: eager as we are to hold others up to scrutiny, we shy away from the truth where our own are concerned.

Since the story broke, both Barkha Dutt, through NDTV, and Vir Sanghvi, on his website, have posted clarifications on the tapes. NDTVon behalf of Barkha Dutt has argued, ‘At every stage effective journalism involves engagement with a multitude of characters in the process of gathering news and information. To call this process “lobbying” is a serious and defamatory distortion of journalistic practices.’ Vir Sanghvi has stated, ‘While gathering news, journalists talk to a wide variety of sources from all walks of life, especially when a fast-moving story is unfolding. Out of a desire to elicit more information from these sources, we are generally polite. I received many calls from different sources during that period. In no case did I act on those requests as anybody in the government will know.’

There are various counter-arguments that can be made. One, of course, is that the very media that resorts to the court of public opinion in calling for the resignation of ministers and bureaucrats for perceived wrongdoing is ignoring the upheaval in non-traditional media such as Twitter. But there is reason to go beyond the voice of public opinion and reflect on what the Radia transcripts, which neither Barkha Dutt nor Vir Sanghvi has denied, actually say about the journalism they practise. This is necessary because they seem to suggest what they did was in the nature of the job of most journalists in this country who deal with political matters. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Take Barkha Dutt’s case first, because the case against Vir Sanghvi is even more extensive. In her own defence, she has tweeted, ‘Radia was a valid news source for DMK camp. She gave info on Karunanidhi, and sought my analysis on what Cong may do next. Valid journalism.’ Let us consider the scenario most charitable to Barkha, where, contrary to the evidence of the taps, we accept her claim that she may not have made the calls she promised to in the course of the conversations. Even so, hers is a damning admission. It confirms what the transcripts clearly indicate, an exchange of information between her and Niira Radia.

The context in which Barkha was talking to Radia is important. Negotiations were underway between the DMK and Congress for places in the Union Cabinet. Barkha makes the claim that Radia was a valid news source for the DMK camp. Among the portfolios on offer was telecom, and Radia was the top PR representative of the Tata Group of Ratan Tata, which has a major interest in the telecom sector via its firm Tata Teleservices Ltd, and also of the Reliance Group of Mukesh Ambani, which had a direct interest in the sector via Reliance Infocomm before the Ambani brothers split.

For any political journalist worth her salt, the alarm bells would have gone off at this stage, and should have led to one of the biggest stories related to government formation in this country: ‘Tata telecom PR chief handles negotiations for telecom portfolio.’ Did you happen to see this story on NDTV?
Barkha not only failed to do this story, by her own admission, she actually passed on information that she, as a journalist, had acquired from the Congress to the head of a PR agency handling two of the biggest corporate groups in the country, each with more than mere curiosity about who gets into the Cabinet. From the conversations, it is clear Barkha knew that even within the DMK, Radia was doing her utmost to ensure it was A Raja, not Dayanidhi Maran, who finally got the telecom portfolio. At this point of time, Raja was already under the scanner for the 2008 sale of 2G spectrum, and the PM did not want him back in the Cabinet. Any information that Radia got about what happened within the Congress would help her to this end. Is this what Barkha thinks is valid journalism?

Only a handful of prominent journalists have rushed to speak on her behalf, among them Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN, who has argued that ‘conversation between source and journo is legitimate. If quid pro quo is shown, expose it. Else, don’t destroy hard earned reputations’. This is a ridiculous argument; there are grave degrees of journalistic impropriety that stop short of a quid pro quo. However, in this case, the very fact that Barkha did not expose Radia’s role in this whole murky affair is indeed a quid pro quo.

Everything that has been said about Barkha here applies in even greater force to Vir Sanghvi. The case against Barkha with regard to the Cabinet applies to Vir as well, but in his case the evidence goes further.

In his clarification, he has said, ‘The second conversation relates to the dispute between the Ambani brothers. I had asked Ms Radia to explain the position of her client, Mukesh Ambani. And I also asked Anil Ambani’s side for its views.

This was recorded in the piece. I wrote: “My friend, Tony Jesudasan, who represents Anil, took me out to lunch and made out a case for Anil. I was totally convinced till my friend, Niira Radia, who represents Mukesh, gave me the other side which frankly seemed just as convincing to my inexpert ears”.’
The piece Vir is quoting from in his response is this one, which was published on 15 August 2009, while the conversation that we have reproduced took place on 20 June 2009. The piece published by Vir Sanghvi the very next day, was this one. Reading parts of the transcript along with excerpts from the piece (in italics) is illuminating:

RADIA: Yeah. But you want to say that you know, more importantly that here a family MoU has taken precedence over national interest and what the judge has done, I mean you’ll have to attack the judge here because the judge has, what he’s done, he’s given preference to an MoU. He has held on to the MoU, and said, ‘Okay, this had to be implemented.’ But he has forgotten what’s good, that’s why it raises a bigger constitutional issue.

VIR: Which is?

RADIA: Which is natural resources is really a constitutional issue. It has to do with the country and the nation.

VIR: It’s not between two

brothers and their fight.

‘Few of us laypeople understand what the recent court battle—which ended in a victory for Anil—is about but from what I can tell it relates to the purchase of gas from the government. Mukesh had paid for the gas and Anil argued that he deserved to also get it at a lower price because of some agreement with his brother.

I have great respect for the courts and little understanding of the law but as far as I can tell, the judge basically said that the MoU between the two Ambani brothers had precedence over everything else because this was a special case. They should go back to Mummy who would decide how to divide our gas between her two children.

Here’s what I don’t understand: why is this a special case? And why should an Indian natural resource like gas be sold at prices fixed according to an MoU between two brothers? I’m sure they love their mother and that she loves them but is this how gas is allocated? The Ambanis are welcome to their fight but do we have to pay the price?’

RADIA: How what has happened as far as the order is concerned is completely against national interest.

VIR: Okay.

RADIA: You know and even if we were to assume that they get gas or they get coal or they get iron ore or whatever one gets. If you look at how Tatas have always gone into those areas and done something for the people even before they have been able to extract anything out of it.

‘Honest business houses—the Tatas, for instance—struggle to get their projects off the ground while the more unscrupulous ones thrive. Last week, I interviewed L.N. Mittal, who is ready to invest billions in India but who has faced needless delays and obstacles in every single project so that the investment is still to reach India.

Most of us do not get too self-righteous about corruption, we have been brutalised by decades of it. But I think we feel differently about attempts to sell off our scarce resources.

It’s one thing for an industrialist to pay off a politician to build a factory; quite another for him to corner our gas, our coal, our spectrum, our iron ore or whatever.’

RADIA: Yeah, even ministers. You want to really look at, maybe there’s EGoM that got set and is looking at the pricing issue and natural resources should be decided not by any of this arbitrary mechanism. It has to be one for the country. And there should be some sort of a formula that Manmohan Singh has to…

VIR: Yeah, that is the message, you know. There should be a formula by which resources will be allocated in a transparent non-arbitrary sort of way. That has to be a message, no?

‘And yet, as long as allocations are done by corrupt ministers, bent regulators, dishonest chief ministers and on the basis of family agreements, this is exactly the direction in which we are heading.

Along with most of India, I have enormous respect for the Prime Minister. Not only is he an honest man, but he is also a brilliant economist. Plus, he has worked in government for long enough to understand the nuances of the system.

He must recognise the danger to our scarce resources. He must know that we cannot afford to become a land of oligarchs. And I’m sure he realises that this goes beyond corruption — it touches the core of the kind of India we want to create.

Surely, he can come up with some transparent system, which allocates resources fairly and without corruption? Anything would be better than the present system.’

Interestingly, Niira Radia made a judgment of her own about this piece. Consider this excerpt from a transcript between Radia and her colleague Manoj discussing this very newspaper article:

DATE 20 JUNE 2009 TIME 22:53:23

Niira Radia discussing Vir Sanghvi’s article with her colleague Manoj

MANOJ: I am just downloading the text, I am cut pasting it because I have to do some tigdambaaji to it, if you just…

RADIA: Ummmm, okay, rdddda, okay I can’t see it, not… I can’t see the one person, thing, oh yeah, it is one thing for an industrialist to… yeah, yeah.

MANOJ: Yeah, yeah, likha hai, boss. Verbatim.

RADIA: Another for [unclear] him to corner our gas, our coal, our spectrum, our iron ore or whatever (both laughing). Yeah, that’s right.

MANOJ: Yeh sab log samajh jainge kaun hai iske pichhe karke (Everyone will understand who is behind this).

RADIA: Haan?

MANOJ: All the people whom you have spoken to with the same argument will realise who is behind this article.

While TV channels and newspapers have remained largely silent on this issue, most journalists actually know where the truth lies. Consider this internal mail circulated by Arnab Goswami of Times Now:

‘Colleagues,

There has been news about two senior journalists from other media groups being involved in collaborating with corporate lobbyists and corporate groups on the 2G scam issue. This is a low point in the news business. It’s downright shameful. I am writing to reiterate some of the core values of the group and the channel. We believe in fierce editorial independence and complete personal honesty. Our standards have to remain impeccably high. In your interactions at any level, remember that you are ambassadors of India’s number one news channel. In an earlier edit meeting, I have said that even a pass into a stadium that’s accepted free amounts to being compromised, and today I am writing to reassert that. No gifts, no favours, no lobbying, no free dining and wining, no cash, no kind, no pass, no trip, no holiday, no promise, no passes, no special treatment, no tall or short claims, no disrespect to the organization that you represent and the group that we are all a part of, no loose talk, no flexibility on values, will be accepted. If I hear of any, we will come down hard, and no exceptions will be made...

—Arnab’

What Arnab is stating is not about an individual editor or a single news anchor; it is about upholding the basic norms of journalism. If effective journalism required these compromises, Arnab would hardly be arguing against them in an internal mail. The code of ethics framed by the News Broadcasters Association, which includes NDTV, CNN-IBN and Times Now, says, ‘The underlying principle that news channels abide by is that the intrusion of the private spaces, records, transcripts, telephone conversations and any other material will not be for salacious interest, but only when warranted in the public interest.’ This applies not only to the transcripts Open carried, but also to this internal mail.

There cannot be any possible reason for NDTV and Hindustan Times to disagree with Arnab, even if, like him, they cannot say so in public. Arnab seems to suggest that if Barkha and Vir had done what they did while working for him, he would have come down hard on them. So what stops NDTV and Hindustan Times?

2G scam sideshow: Netizens lambast high-profile journalists

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2G-scam-sideshow-Netizens-lambast-high-profile-journalists/articleshow/6984715.cms

NEW DELHI: The people are showing who the boss is. The weapon in their hands is the internet, which, in the last five days, has seen frantic activism against "power brokering" by journalists in collusion with corporate groups and top government politicians. It all began with the publication of sensational tapes related to the 2G spectrum scam by two magazines over the weekend.
Two high-profile journalists, Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi, whose names figure in the tapes, have also been internet and TV celebrities of sorts. But their images have taken a severe battering online since the Open and Outlook magazines published on their websites the tapes of their separate conversations with corporate lobbyist Niira Radia.
In the tapes, the journalists are heard promising Radia help for her cause of getting A Raja the telecom portfolio again in the UPA 2 government by talking to their Congress contacts. (The tapes can be accessed here and here .)
The tapes, said to be phone taps made by the income tax department, contain conversations that Radia, whose clients include two leading telecom companies, had with NDTV group editor Barkha Dutt and Hindustan Times columnist and advisory editorial director Vir Sanghvi, among others, in the runup to government formation at the Centre in 2009. The tapes are now annexures in a Supreme Court petition filed by lawyer Prashant Bhushan seeking the prosecution of Raja, who was forced to quit as telecom minister a few days ago.
Reacting to the tapes, both Sanghvi and Barkha have described their interactions with Radia as legitimate news-gathering activity. However, this hasn't cut much ice with the online world. The comments posted by netizens on numerous websites give a deep insight into their psychology and show how cyberheroes can be made to bite the dust overnight. Here are some examples of what netizens have been doing:
" Can you please take BARKHA off air " on Facebook has more than 5,000 fans; " I hate Barkha Dutt " has more than 1,500 and " Barkhagate " more than 1,200 fans. " Barkha Dutt: powerbrokering stops here " has more than 300 fans. On Twitter, "#barkhagate" and "Bharka" have been two of the top five trending topics, with about 10 posts every minute on the subject. One frequently retweeted tweet on Wednesday was "Nira Radia grilled for 8 hours when ll Barkha dutt n Vir Sanghvi ll join her in jail?" The top Google search that starts with the word "barkha" is "barkha dutt nira radia", not "barkha dutt" or just "barkha". Then, there are online posts like "we need to teach the media who the real boss is ... we the people". ("We the People" is the name of Barkha's show on NDTV.)
YouTube returns 31 search results for "barkha radia tapes", the most popular of which has been heard by visitors more than 67,000 times. Wikipedia now has a Radia tapes controversy page .
The story has grabbed the attention of the international media - Wall Street Journal has run a news article and at least five blog posts on the subject ( Does the Buck Stop with Barkha Dutt? , Oh Vir, What Can the Matter Be? , My Journalistic Code of Ethics , Q&A: The State of Indian Journalism and Phone Taps Draw Media Into 2G Spotlight ). Others news sites that have covered it include Washington Post , ChicagoIndependentPress , International Business Times , Gulf News , Arab News and Pakistan's Dawn .
"India's fiercely competitive and hungry free press has become the rising nation's watchdog, unearthing a long list of banking scandals, real estate scams and, most recently, extensive government corruption during the international Commonwealth Games. But in recent days, Indian journalists have also been accused of wrongdoing, including having inappropriate conversations with a corporate lobbyist and acting more like power brokers in recordings released as part of an investigation into an alleged high-stakes swindle - considered the biggest scandal to hit the new India," says the Washington Post article.
"Twitter has played an important role in launching what has become an international conversation on the issue, with the Indian diaspora weighing in," the newspaper writes.
If you have missed the details online, here is a recap:
Raja's dealings as telecom minister had begun to emerge in the months leading up to the controversial award of 2G spectrum in January 2008. So much so that when the second UPA government was being formed after the May 2009 Lok Sabha election, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi were said to have been opposed to the DMK-nominated minister retaining telecom.
That he managed to do so was widely - and for most part, correctly - ascribed to the unflinching support of DMK boss M Karunanidhi and his daughter Kanimozhi. The Congress, it was then said, had no option but to accept its coalition partner's choice.
What wasn't widely known was the role played by corporate groups and Niira Radia in working the back channels to ensure that Raja remained where he was in UPA 1: telecom.
Intercepts of Radia' phone conversations with Barkha and Sanghvi are in particular focus. Many more tapes have emerged of conversations between the lobbyist and people in Corporate India, the
media (including this group's newspapers), the bureaucracy, as well as others.
Barkha and Sanghvi have defended their conversations saying that, as journalists, it's only natural for them to talk to everyone.
"Radia was a valid news source for DMK camp. She gave info on Karunanidhi, and sought my analysis on what Cong may do next. Valid journalism," Barkha has tweeted . "I wd say that the sharing of info to get more info in a fast moving story is not wrong," she has said in another tweet.
Sanghvi writes on his website : "While gathering news, journalists talk to a wide variety of sources from all walks of life, especially when a fast-moving story is unfolding. Out of a desire to elicit more information from these sources, we are generally polite. I received many calls from different sources during that period. In no case did I act on those requests as anybody in the government will know."
Hindustan Times has sought to distance itself from Sanghvi , saying that the views expressed in the Counterpoint column are Sanghvi's own.
NDTV has stood by Barkha and said, "In the pursuit of news and information, journalists talk to an array of people from all professional backgrounds...To caricature the professional sourcing of information as 'lobbying' is not just baseless, but preposterous." "These are unsubstantiated, baseless and defamatory allegations and we reserve the right to take appropriate action," it affirms. Open has been quick to respond. " Open magazine is sure of its content, which is why it decided to run the story. ... it has no interest in participating in any smear campaign against a well-known journalist. The cover story is self-evident and anybody who has read it can see very clearly that there have been no 'unsubstantiated, baseless or defamatory' allegations," Open Media's publisher R Rajmohan writes on Facebook .
Radia's firm, Vaishnavi Corporate Communications, has issued a statement calling the allegations "unverified and unsubstantiated".
According to media observers, while most of the conversations between the lobbyist and journalists are nothing more than just conversations that take place in the course of a day, a few - particularly those around the 2G scam - appear to hint at attempts at power-broking and lobbying.
Says one observer, "On any given day, we all say things - about people in public life, colleagues, possibly even friends and family - that would embarrass us if such conversations were made public. But that doesn't make it incriminating. And you needn't even be a journalist, or anyone of consequence, to say such things. If anything, making such conversations public constitutes invasion of privacy and is unethical.
The fear is that this could divert attention from what's really wrong."
At the same time, he adds, "If the media can defend sting operations and say the public have a right to know, then the public too has a right to know if journalists are indulging in extra-journalistic practices such as fixing deals and meetings - particularly if money has changed hands. It shouldn't misuse the access it enjoys. The media needs to measure up to the same standards it expects of people in public life."
Some excerpts from the tapes:
"What do you want me to tell them (Congress)? Tell me. I'll talk to them." - Barkha Dutt
"Who do you want Congress to talk to? Karunanidhi? I'll speak to Ahmed Patel." - Vir Sanghvi
"When it came to spectrum, they went to Raja and paid him a bribe and got spectrum allocated." - Niira Radia

Khamenei urges Muslims to 'help' Kashmir

The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)
"Today the major duties of the elite of the Islamic Ummah is to provide help to the Palestinian nation and the besieged people of Gaza, to sympathise and provide assistance to the nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir, to engage in struggle and resistance against the aggressions of the United States and the Zionist regime, to safeguard the solidarity of Muslims and stop tainted hands and mercenary voices that try to damage this unity, to spread awakening and the sense of responsibility and commitment among Muslim youth throughout Islamic communities," Khamenei's office quoted him, as saying, in his message to the Hajj pilgrims.
"The extensive propaganda of the enemy to spread Islamophobia, its offhand efforts to create discord among Muslim sects, to incite sectarian prejudices, to bring about pseudo-confrontations between the Sunnis and the Shi'ah, to create disunity between Islamic states and to aggravate their differences, to change them into hostility and unsolvable conflicts, its employment of intelligence and espionage outfits to propagate corruption and immorality amongst the youth--all these are nervous and bewildered responses to the steady and firm advances of the Islamic Ummah towards awakening, honour and freedom," he added.
Khamenei noted that in today's world, the "Zionist regime is no more the undefeatable monster of 30 years ago. The United States and the West are also no more the unquestionable decision-makers of the Middle East that they were two decades ago."
"Contrary to the situation that existed ten years ago, the nuclear know-how and other complex technologies are no longer considered inaccessible daydreams for Muslim nations of the region," he added.
In his message, Khamenei went on to say, "Today the arrogant United States, the self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime, is bogged down in the quagmire of its own making in Afghanistan. As a result of all its crimes against the people of Iraq, it is in the course of becoming isolated in that country. It is hated more than ever before in disaster-stricken Pakistan."
He said that the influence of the anti-Islamic front was receding while the wave of Islamic awakening was "steadily advancing and growing in depth day by day."
"On the one hand, this hopeful and promising situation should inspire us, the Muslim nations, to keep marching ahead towards the desirable future with ever greater confidence. On the other hand, the past lessons and experience should make us more vigilant than ever before," said the spiritual leader, adding, "This general imperative undoubtedly calls for greater commitment from religious scholars, political leaders, intellectuals and youth than the others and requires them to be at the vanguard of the struggle."

Another embarrassment for govt as SC questions appointment of CVC

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Another-embarrassment-for-govt-as-SC-questions-appointment-of-CVC/articleshow/6968618.cms

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has questioned the appointment P J Thomas as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. Questioning the appointment the apex court said how Thomas would work as CVC since a chargesheet naming him is pending in a criminal case.

"Without looking into the file, we are concerned that if a person is an accused in a criminal case how he will function as CVC," a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia observed after Attorney General G E Vahanvati placed the file in a sealed cover.
The bench said it will go through the file and posted the matter after two weeks.

"We will sit together and go through the file," the bench also comprising Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said.

With a pending chargesheet against P J Thomas, he will find it very difficult to function as CVC, the court said. It also said how an accused in Palmolein import scam can be made to handle such a sensitive post.

The name of Thomas figures in the chargesheet filed in a palmoleine export case.
Government had placed in a sealed cover file relating to the appointment of P J Thomas as Chief Vigilance Commissioner in the Supreme Court.

Guilty or set up

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=citytimes&xfile=data/citytimes/2010/November/citytimes_November223.xml

High profile political lobbyist Niira Radia and anchor Barkha Dutt discuss Cabinet composition possibilities with Raja’s inclusion or non-inclusion being the big question

Receiving signals:

RADIA: You see, you see my honest advice…

BARKHA: Yeah.

RADIA: ..is that you tell them that they need to tell him (DMK chief M Karunanidhi) directly that we are happy because Kani’s [Kanimozhi, Karunanidhi’s daughter] got no issue being (a minister  with) independent (charge). But Alagiri is now telling her that you cannot take an independent charge if Maran remains cabinet minister.

BARKHA: I see.

RADIA: And Congress is sending messages through media and through various sources, saying that. And Maran is telling everyone that he is the only acceptable person.

BARKHA: ….person, yeah, yeah, yeah. That I know.

RADIA: But that’s not correct, naa?

BARKHA: No, I know. We’ve taken that off. We’ve taken that off.

She says she was newsgathering. Does this sound more like she was selecting ministers for specific positions?

BARKHA: No, you see Congress’s condition is Baalu should not get surface transport. Not Baalu, DMK should not get surface transport, beyond individuals right?


RADIA: Correct, correct, and they are not individuals. Let me tell you one thing’s for sure, 3 plus 4 was yesterday; because of Maran, they wanted to make it 4 plus 3.


BARKHA: Okay!


RADIA: So, now it is back to 3 plus 4 that was already worked on the table?


BARKHA: No, so why does this formula not sound right then?


RADIA: Because of Alagiri naa, if you make Alagiri not cabinet. No, he’s not got cabinet.


BARKHA: Oh, Alagiri got what, according to these things?


RADIA: You see, according to her, he’s got Health, but he can’t be cabinet. Either Maran is not cabinet, either Raja is not cabinet or Baalu’s not.


BARKHA: Alagiri’s got Health and that’s a big compromise by Congress because they said we won’t give them Health. So that’s their face saver. No, but Alagiri, Health can be cabinet?


RADIA: Agreed, but then Raja is MoS.


BARKHA: Raja is MoS!


RADIA: Then is Baalu MoS?


BARKHA: Nahin ho sakta (can’t be done). Nahin, nahin, nahin(no,no,no) if Baalu gets the Heavy Industries and Alagiri is in the Fertiliser, according to xxx, Baalu gets Fertilizer; Alagiri gets this thing, Health.


RADIA: Maran gets Telecom and IT.


BARKHA: Maran gets Telecom and IT. Raja gets demoted.


RADIA: Who gets …?


BARKHA: Raja. (Nahin hoga)Won’t happen?


RADIA: I am telling you nahin hai (laughingly, he is not there). Trust me, nahin hai (he is not in).


BARKHA: Aacha, theek hain (okay, that’s fine).

Now, they discuss the make up of the ministry.

RADIA: Barkha, what I’m told is that the Congress... apparently, God knows who they are talking to in the DMK.


BARKHA: Must be Maran


RADIA: Relayed no, they relayed that the infrastructure portfolio should not be given to Maran or Baalu.


BARKHA: No, that’s because they want to keep it for themselves.


RADIA: No, they wanted to; they didn’t want any infrastructure, that’s what Prime Minister said, so he said that’s why they give him labour, fertiliser, chemical and telecom, IT, they said for Raja. So what has happened is, is that message not relayed to Karunanidhi?


BARKHA: Oh I see!


RADIA: They might have told some minion down the line or told Maran who is not relaying the truth.


BARKHA: I think they have told Maran.


RADIA: Yeah, now what they need to do is, they need to speak to Kani so she can set up the discussion with her father, because even the Prime Minister’s discussion was she was the one who’s translating, and it was a very brief discussion for two minutes.


BARKHA: Okay.


RADIA: That we’ll try and work it out, and the let’s not you know take it a hasty easy decision. That’s the type of conversation that happened.


BARKHA: No, I’ll set it up as soon as they get out of RCR.(Race Course Road, the PM’s residence).

In reaction to the tapes Barkha has gone on Twitter to say, “Smear campaign astounding. Onus on Open and Outlook to prove quid-pro quo of any kind, before vilifying individuals and their work.”

The general feeling

Outlook and Open Magazine have provided more evidence in this case than Barkha’s station NDTV has in some past instances of its “activist” journalism.

She is a little shrill when she says,”Vinod Mehta (a senior Indian editor) has been guest on several TV shows hosted by me. Would like him to point out one instance of compromise in coverage. Can he?”

She’s clearly peeved her buddies have dumped her in the mud. Outlook has released transcripts. The editor’s personal opinion has no relevance.

Yesterday, she sent out this appeal: “Amazed, Angered and saddened at inability of some to distinguish between gathering info and ridiculous labels like lobbying/powerbroking.”

Her station, NDTV has rushed to her rescue since a fractured credibility in their star reporter would hurt their lead position. This is what they have said:

In response to the Open Magazine cover story dated 20^th November, 2010 NDTV would like to object in the strongest terms to the clear misrepresentation of conversations between Barkha Dutt and Ms. Nira Radia, that took place in May 2009.

In the pursuit of news and information, journalists talk to an array of people from all professional backgrounds; this case being  an unfolding political story on cabinet formation, after the general elections.

To caricature the professional sourcing of information as “lobbying” is not just baseless, but preposterous.

At every stage effective journalism involves engagement with a multitude of characters in the process of gathering news and information. To call this process “lobbying” is a serious and defamatory distortion of journalistic practices.

Ironically, when Barkha Dutt raised this smear campaign with the magazine’s editor, Manu Joseph, these are the responses she got.

1.   “Dear Barkha;  that’s not true. I can send a copy of the magazine to you right away or you can check the story on the website. We have carried the Radia transcripts which include some of your conversations with her. In fact there is not much remarkable and you will not be embarrassed by it. There is one bit in the strap where the word “go-between” is used which I don’t like myself. I would love to carry your response in the next issue if you would like to send one. My email id is manu@openmedianetwork.in.”

Once again, when she asked the magazine’s Editor why the basic tenets of journalism had not been followed in seeking her response before publishing these accusations, this is the reply she received.

2.   “Dear Barkha, In the attachment is the cover story (divided into introduction and the transcripts).

We knew we were going ahead with the story only on Monday as Prashant Bhushan had submitted a petition in the Supreme Court on Monday attaching the same recordings that we had. We had to make a decision and we did. I wanted to get your response, but there was a possibility that if the word of the story got out (and, you know very well, it is not an exclusive) some people might do their best to ensure that we didn’t carry it.

If you would like to respond to the story at any length, please let me know (by Tuesday).

The fact that the very editor of the magazine that has published this story accepts the distortion in the story’s caption and goes on to say that there is nothing “remarkable” in the content speaks for itself.

NDTV believes the magazine should first verify and corroborate facts before participating in a defamatory smear campaign.

These are unsubstantiated, baseless and defamatory allegations and we reserve the right to take appropriate action. Ends.

Meanwhile, the editor of Open Magazine has gone online to say his comments have been distorted by NDTV to create a defence and he will be soon responding in kind.