'We Did Not Feel That The Story Was Complete'

In the last week, there has been speculation over an alleged ’sting’operation conducted by CNN-IBN to expose allegations of bribery in the run-up tothe trust vote in Parliament. Since the speculation is based on hearsay,conjecture and mere guess-work, we at CNN-IBN feel that it is necessary to setthe record straight.

As a journalist-driven organization, we value our credibility and independenceabove all else. We have always striven to raise the bar of journalism, to ensurethat the highest standards and procedures are followed at all times. 

The ’sting’ operation conducted by our investigation team was part of thiscommitment to ensure that the public interest is enhanced. Our team had begunthe investigations at least a week before the trust vote [on July 22] and the’sting’ was to be part of a wide-ranging investigation across the politicalspectrum into allegations of horse trading.

Moreover, the ’sting’ operation we conducted was unique in that neither werewe participants, nor were we engaging in ‘entrapment’ by offering cash, norwere we under a false identity. We were, as is accepted in practices in theinternational press, ‘flies on the wall’, simply recording an allegedbribery operation, without interfering in it at any stage. 

Why have we not telecast the story so far?

Quite simply, we have chosen not to telecast the story yet because we did notfeel that the story was complete. Credible journalism is based on accuracy notspeed, facts not sensationalism, reportage not allegations and assumptions.

Our rigorous editorial protocol demands that even a hidden camera shoot isabsolutely water-tight. In this particular story, there were many loose endsthat needed to be cross-checked, corroborated and investigated further beforethe story could be aired.

As it transpired, even before we could complete the process of investigation,three BJP MPs made allegations in Parliament of having been bribed and displayedcash in the House. In the politically surcharged circumstances, we felt that themore appropriate step would be to provide the recordings we had made till dateto the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as the appropriate constitutional authority.

All the raw, unedited footage was placed before the Speaker within 24 hours ofthe parliament fracas. Not a single frame has been edited in any form. TheSpeaker has subsequently ordered an inquiry, which media reports suggest, is tobe completed by the 11th of August.

We will fully co-operate with the parliamentary panel and provide them allinformation available with us. At the same time, as we have informed theSpeaker’s office, we reserve the right to telecast the story as and when webelieve we are in a position to do so. 

As part of the process of due diligence, we also consulted severalconstitutional experts, including the country’s former solicitor-general andleading jurist Harish Salve. Mr Salve has strongly validated our editorial callin a written opinion.

He writes, and I quote:

‘I have reviewed the tapes as also a transcript created from the tapes. Iwould not like to describe in detail what I have seen, since the matter ispending investigation, but in my considered view the investigation wasincomplete and therefore airing the tapes at this stage would necessarilyinvolve arriving at some ‘inferences’. The investigation by the channel wasnot ready for telecast in the sense to be a cast iron story (which such storiesshould be), it did require some more enquiry into certain matters, which couldhave been done but was rendered impossible by the fact that on the afternoon of22nd July itself, the three MPs raised this issue in parliament and then went onto make public the fact that this has been recorded by CNN-IBN. Obviously, afterthis fact became publicly known, all sources of information dried up’.

Mr Salve adds:

‘The question to be considered is should the channel air the tapes as theyare, without suggesting inferences, so that the unnecessary gossip as to itscontents (as well as the innuendo as to the motives in not telecasting thetapes) is quelled, or should the channel await the completion of the enquiryunder way by the parliamentary panel set up the Hon’ble Speaker in response toa complaint received by him. In my view, the channel should await the results ofthe enquiry, atleast until a period of a fortnight or so is over… I believethat the Speaker has requested the panel to conclude its enquiry within afortnight or so. If the report is received within the expected time, the matterwould again be in the public domain and the channel can then review thesituation and decide whether to telecast the tapes’.

"We would like to reiterate that at CNN-IBN we remain committed to quality andindependent journalism. Our commitment is to the truth. Truth that cannot bepartial, inconclusive or sensational, but one that must adhere to exactingstandards of fairness and accuracy."