Oh no, not another sting operation.. the cynics were at it again within moments of us airing the stories of netas for sale in Uttar Pradesh. But this wasn't just another sting catching some hapless local sub-inspector off-guard. These were MLAs and ministers being bared before the viewer, elected representatives who are expected to observe the highest standards of morality. Nor was this a case of entrapment. The CNN-IBN team along with the investigators from DIG (Dedicated Investigators Group) had been working on the stories for months. This was not a fishing expedition, but was based on reports that the politicians involved had a track record of criminality and corruption that needed to be exposed. Nor was this an exercise aimed at titillating the viewer, or raising the TRPs (stings don't increase the ratings of channels, else an India tV might have been the number one Hindi channel by now). This wasn't some down and out film star caught groping in the dark, this was a minister who had taken an oath of allegiance to the constitution of India agreeing to take drugs in his car. This was the Indian neta exposed like never before. Nor are we a sting channel. We exposed the biggest story so far of the year on Bofors and the Quattrochi accounts by relying on good, old fashioned journalism: documents, fact-checking, double-checking. But some stories require the hidden camera, especially in a opaque society like India where so much goes on behind closed doors, with little or no accountability.

Would we do a sting again? Yes, if we felt there was no way of getting to a big story, yes. When would we do a sting? When, and this is the crucial point, the hidden camera exposes what is IN the public interest, and not necessarily OF public interest. What film stars do in their bedrooms may be of public interest, it may arouse curiousity, even surprise, but showing it is not a public duty. On the other hand, exposing our public representatives most certainly is. If a neta can be caught in the "act" only with a hidden camera, then it can be used. Used sparingly yes, but it must be used. If I have any regret, it is that we still haven't been exposed some of the biggest wheeler-dealers in Indian politics. Another regret is that we still haven't moved beyond the netas. What about corrupt judges, bureaucrats and corporate bosses? When will be able to turn the lens on them? Thats the challenge for us journalists.

Yet another observation about the impact of our sting. Within 24 hours of airing the story, the netas were in denial. The BJP, BSP and the Samajwadi party -- whose leaders were caught on camera -- initially promised action. But then in the UP assembly, they did a quick U-turn. Instead of sacking the MLAs and ministers, we were told that the media was guilty, that the "bribe-givers" should be held responsible, not the "bribe-takers". Some MLAs wanted an inquiry into our "motives", into whether the tapes were "tampered with". A minister who wants a commission to ferry drugs in his official car gets away, the journalists have to face an inquiry. Now, I know what my good friend Tarun Tejpal must have felt like after the Tehelka expose. If you can't shoot the message, then shoot the messenger. As for the Congress, sure they did make strong statements demanding that the minister be sacked, but maybe thats only because no Congressman was caught in the act. Would they show similar indignation if next time a Congress minister was found out?

But if there is one major reason why politicians get away even after being caught on tape, its because we the "people" allow them to do so. Why isn't there a greater sense of revulsion that is expressed by voting out those who are corrupt and criminal? But why blame the citizen? What about us in the media? Interestingly, none of the other channels were willing to follow up our story. An ex-colleague, while appreciating our story, remarked, "Yaar, this is your story, if the minister is sacked we may do something. Our editor feels that we shouldn't be doing someone else's story." Bloody hell, is this what journalism has come down to? Where manic competition has meant that journalism has lost all sense of collective spirit. A story is no individual's channel's property. Once its aired, its in the public domain. When will journalists realise this basic principle? Is it any wonder that the politician is unafraid. After all, they know that so long as journalists are bitterly divided, the neta will rule. Thats the real sting in the tale.