A Sting Operation is an operation designed to catch a person committing a crime by means of deception. A complicated confidence game planned and executed with great care. The word “sting” derives its origin from American usage to mean a police undercover operation designed to ensnare criminals. The word “sting” is a synonym for the expression “set a trap to catch a crook” and this article uses the term in that sense. In more refined terms, it can be called as one of the primary means of Investigative Journalism or Undercover Journalism.
As informed citizenry, the bedrock of a democracy, holding the government accountable through voting and participation requires investigative journalism which cannot sustain itself on asymmetric dissemination of information. In many cases, the subjects of the reporting wish the matters under scrutiny to remain undisclosed. Among the most popular programmes in India, are those reporting the corruption and misdeeds of politicians and government officials. ‘Candid camera,’ reports many true stories of the day the bribe that the police inspector extracts from the victim of a crime before agreeing to investigate, the ‘fee’ that the government officer charges for his giving the order to make an electric connection, and the ‘contribution’ that a company pays a member of Parliament before bringing up a legislative concern in the Lok Sabha.
At the same time, where such investigative work involves the use of covert methods, it raises issues that tend to further blur the line between law and ethics. Is deception legitimate when the aim is to tell the truth? Is any method justifiable no matter the working conditions and the difficulties in getting information? Can television reporters use hidden cameras to get a story? Can journalists use false identities to gain access to information? The critical question that surfaces is “to what extent can the media go and to what extent should a person be informed?”
Sting Operations are undertook with a view to look into the working of the government or to see whether the acts of any individual are against public order. On the basis of the purpose Sting Operations can be classified as positive and negative. Positive Sting Operation is one which results in the interest of the society, which pierces the veils of the working of the government. It is carried out in the public interest. It leads to the transparency in the government.
On the other hand negative sting operations do not benefit the society, but they do harm the society and its individuals. It unnecessarily violates the privacy of the individual without any beneficial results to the society. These types of Sting operations, if allowed, will hamper the freedom of the individuals and restricts their rights. Here are some examples which we can distinguish as positive and negative sting operations.
1. Positive Sting Operations:
Sting operations on ultra-sound centers carried out by the Health officers in Karnataka for “serious enforcement’’ of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act which bans sex determination of foetuses and consequent abortion of female ones to stop female foeticide.
The Ministry (by the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act and Programme Code), has prohibited the transmission of Cineworld channel for 30 days for showing “objectionable content” because it “offended good taste and decency” and it “was obscene and likely to corrupt public morality and was not suited for unrestricted public exhibition”.
An operation by an online news site called Tehelka to catch top politicians and army officers taking bribes from journalists posing as businessmen.
An operation in which a journalist posing as a struggling actress met actor Shakti Kapoor, who promised in the televised footage that his secretary would introduce her to movie producers and directors.
2. Negative Sting Operations:
Instances over the years have shown that though sting operations do expose corruption in some cases, sometimes they seriously violate the rules of journalism in the pursuit of profit and short-term sensationalism.
The Delhi High Court on Friday, 7th September, 2007, issued notices to the Delhi government and city police after taking suo motu cognisance of media reports alleging that a sting operation carried out by a TV channel, which claimed to have exposed a sex racket run by a government school teacher Uma Khurana, for allegedly luring her pupils into prostitution has now been revealed to be completely fabricated and was fake and distorted.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 7th February, 2007, issued notices to a private news channel and its reporter for carrying out a sting operation carried out in the year 2004, which allegedly showed a non-bailable warrant could be procured against any person by paying a hefty amount in the court.
The classic ethical problem that haunts all sting operations: can you hold somebody responsible for a crime that he would not have committed if you hadn’t encouraged him? The essence of all entrapment is that you promise a man a reward for breaking the law and then, apprehend him when he takes the bait. A defence that can be taken by the accused that the act had been committed as a result of inducement, and which he (the accused) did not intend himself to commit, or, in cases where lack of consent constitutes the offence, such as rape, that the consent had been implied by the inducement, where because of the ‘trap’ laid down for the accused, the impression given was that an offence had not been committed.
As informed citizenry, the bedrock of a democracy, holding the government accountable through voting and participation requires investigative journalism which cannot sustain itself on asymmetric dissemination of information. In many cases, the subjects of the reporting wish the matters under scrutiny to remain undisclosed. Among the most popular programmes in India, are those reporting the corruption and misdeeds of politicians and government officials. ‘Candid camera,’ reports many true stories of the day the bribe that the police inspector extracts from the victim of a crime before agreeing to investigate, the ‘fee’ that the government officer charges for his giving the order to make an electric connection, and the ‘contribution’ that a company pays a member of Parliament before bringing up a legislative concern in the Lok Sabha.
At the same time, where such investigative work involves the use of covert methods, it raises issues that tend to further blur the line between law and ethics. Is deception legitimate when the aim is to tell the truth? Is any method justifiable no matter the working conditions and the difficulties in getting information? Can television reporters use hidden cameras to get a story? Can journalists use false identities to gain access to information? The critical question that surfaces is “to what extent can the media go and to what extent should a person be informed?”
Sting Operations are undertook with a view to look into the working of the government or to see whether the acts of any individual are against public order. On the basis of the purpose Sting Operations can be classified as positive and negative. Positive Sting Operation is one which results in the interest of the society, which pierces the veils of the working of the government. It is carried out in the public interest. It leads to the transparency in the government.
On the other hand negative sting operations do not benefit the society, but they do harm the society and its individuals. It unnecessarily violates the privacy of the individual without any beneficial results to the society. These types of Sting operations, if allowed, will hamper the freedom of the individuals and restricts their rights. Here are some examples which we can distinguish as positive and negative sting operations.
1. Positive Sting Operations:
Sting operations on ultra-sound centers carried out by the Health officers in Karnataka for “serious enforcement’’ of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act which bans sex determination of foetuses and consequent abortion of female ones to stop female foeticide.
The Ministry (by the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act and Programme Code), has prohibited the transmission of Cineworld channel for 30 days for showing “objectionable content” because it “offended good taste and decency” and it “was obscene and likely to corrupt public morality and was not suited for unrestricted public exhibition”.
An operation by an online news site called Tehelka to catch top politicians and army officers taking bribes from journalists posing as businessmen.
An operation in which a journalist posing as a struggling actress met actor Shakti Kapoor, who promised in the televised footage that his secretary would introduce her to movie producers and directors.
2. Negative Sting Operations:
Instances over the years have shown that though sting operations do expose corruption in some cases, sometimes they seriously violate the rules of journalism in the pursuit of profit and short-term sensationalism.
The Delhi High Court on Friday, 7th September, 2007, issued notices to the Delhi government and city police after taking suo motu cognisance of media reports alleging that a sting operation carried out by a TV channel, which claimed to have exposed a sex racket run by a government school teacher Uma Khurana, for allegedly luring her pupils into prostitution has now been revealed to be completely fabricated and was fake and distorted.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 7th February, 2007, issued notices to a private news channel and its reporter for carrying out a sting operation carried out in the year 2004, which allegedly showed a non-bailable warrant could be procured against any person by paying a hefty amount in the court.
The classic ethical problem that haunts all sting operations: can you hold somebody responsible for a crime that he would not have committed if you hadn’t encouraged him? The essence of all entrapment is that you promise a man a reward for breaking the law and then, apprehend him when he takes the bait. A defence that can be taken by the accused that the act had been committed as a result of inducement, and which he (the accused) did not intend himself to commit, or, in cases where lack of consent constitutes the offence, such as rape, that the consent had been implied by the inducement, where because of the ‘trap’ laid down for the accused, the impression given was that an offence had not been committed.