Radia calls up Vir Sanghvi on June 20, 2009, the day before his Counterpoint column appears in HT. “Wrote it”, says Sanghvi, “I’ve dressed it up as a piece about how public will not stand for resources being cornered, how we’re creating a new list of oligarchs…” Niira Radia replies: “Very nice, lovely, thank you, Vir.” Sanghvi goes on to say, “It’s dressed up as a plea to Manmohan Singh, so it won’t look like an inter-Ambani battle except to people in the know.”
Related;
The contents of a fresh set of leaked phone conversations involving Niira Radia and her associates paint an alarming picture of the extent to which the influential lobbyist — whose clients include Mukesh Ambani and Ratan Tata — sought to influence, use, manipulate and even browbeat the media in pursuit of her corporate agendas. Apart from highlighting the use of journalists to plant stories and columns or as intermediaries with politicians, the latest tapes released by the news magazine, Outlook, suggest more strong-arm lobbying techniques were also used or considered, including the possibility of blacklisting the national news agency, PTI.
Outlook, which had earlier published 140 conversations originally intercepted by the Income Tax department as part of its ongoing surveillance of Ms. Radia, now says it has 800 more conversations in its possession. Nineteen of those audio tapes, with partial summaries, were published on its website by Sunday evening. Editor Vinod Mehta said that all the tapes were being vetted, and eventually would be put in the public domain, except for those which were purely private conversations.
In one tape, HT Media advisor Vir Sanghvi has a follow-up conversation with Ms. Radia regarding his June 21, 2009 column in the Hindustan Times on the tussle between the Ambani brothers over gas pricing, framed as an article about oligarchs taking over natural resources.
“Wrote it… I’ve dressed it up as a piece about how the public will not stand for resources being cornered, how we’re creating a new list of oligarchs,” Mr. Sanghvi tells Ms. Radia. “Very nice, lovely, thank you, Vir,” she says, while he adds: “It’s dressed up as a plea to Manmohan Singh, so it won’t look like an inter-Ambani battle except to people in the know.”
Although many journalists were heard speaking to Ms. Radia on the tapes, public ire has focused on NDTV’s editor for English news, Barkha Dutt, and Hindustan Times columnist Vir Sanghvi, two of the country’s best-known journalists.
On the recording, Ms. Dutt appeared to be agreeing to pass on a message to the ruling Congress party—she later said she was only humoring Ms. Radia and never passed on any messages. Mr. Sanghvi appeared to be tailoring his column according to the lobbyist’s suggestions—an accusation he has denied, saying he was only stringing Ms. Radia along for information.
It’s no longer unusual for Indian public figures to offer clarifications on Twitter and Barkha Dutt offered her first personal reactions on her Twitter page the day the story broke. Her first formal statement only appeared on her channel’s web site on Nov. 27 although NDTV did put out a company statement Nov. 18.
She tweeted on Nov. 19 that “Gathering information against the backdrop of a political story is not unethical. Nor is using that information to get more information.” Later she tweeted that she was “Struck by the bizarre irony of being accused of favouring a man i have never met (raja) and have always attacked in print and on TV.”
Postscipt: It’s been pointed out to us that the gentleman in this audio is Mr A. Raja’s key aide, Mr R.K. Chandolia]
Journalists played a key role, says Radia. “Congressne to statement Thank God issue kar diya. Barkha ne karwaa liyaa us se.” The guy confirms the statement. “Haan woh to maine dekh liya. aa gayaa naa Manish Tewarikaa“. Radia is busy speaking to a “minister” at “2 o’ clock” lobbying for Raja.
Related:
Burka Dutt in her defense.
As a journalist, whose work has been consistently hard-hitting and scathingly critical of the ongoing 2G scam and the former telecom minister, I am astonished, angered and hurt to see the baseless allegations against me in sections of the media this week.
While there is no doubt that journalists must be held to the same exacting standards of accountability that we seek from others, the allegations in this instance, as they relate to me, are entirely slanderous and not backed by a shred of evidence.
The edited conversations between PR representative Nira Radia and me have been headlined to suggest that I misused my role as a journalist to “lobby” for A. Raja, a man I have never met.
While this is completely untrue, I can understand the anger and anguish that such a misrepresentation can create, among viewers who rely on me to report honestly and impartially. And I would like to address some of the questions raised by these edited transcripts.
The tapes seem to add up to hundreds of hours of conversations between Nira Radia and people from different backgrounds, including scores of well-known journalists and editors from all the major media organisations (TV and print) in India.
Despite this, much of the commentary has been strangely selective in its focus. And quite often, vindictively personal. Consider, for example, that online it is being dubbed “BarkhaGate.”
I cannot speak on behalf of any other journalist on the tapes. Framed in the backdrop of a larger media debate, every journalist’s conversation on these tapes must, of course, be evaluated on its own merit. So, speaking only for myself, the insinuation made by the magazines are preposterous.
By definition, the insinuation of “lobbying” implies either a quid-pro-quo of some kind or a compromise in how I have reported the story. As anyone who has watched my coverage of the ongoing 2G scam over the past year would know – to suggest either is entirely absurd. (Attached below are links to several shows hosted by me on the 2G scam over the last two years.)
In several different statements, I have already challenged two newsmagazines who first carried the allegations to establish any proof of a quid-pro quo or a bias in reportage.
I know that neither charge stands the test of any scrutiny.
For those perplexed by the ongoing debate, it could be useful to understand the context in which these conversations took place. The few, short conversations took place in the backdrop of cabinet formation in 2009, when the DMK had stormed out of the UPA coalition over portfolio allocation.
In this instance, Nira Radia, was clearly plugged into the inner workings of the DMK, a fact we only discovered when she rang up to tell me that the news flashes running on different news channels were incorrect; the stalemate between the DMK and the Congress had not yet been resolved.
She corroborated her claim by saying she was in direct contact with the DMK chief and was in fact with his daughter, Kanimozhi. We talked about news developments within the DMK and the Congress and nothing I said was different from what I was reporting on TV minute-by-minute.
Ironically, the one sentence being used to damn me, “Oh God, What should I tell them”, is in fact two separate sentences, neither of which are related to A Raja or the telecom portfolio at all. When transcripts are edited and capture neither tone nor context, the message is severely distorted.
The phrase “Oh God,” was nothing more than a response to a long account by Nira Radia on a DMK leader, T.R. Baalu, speaking to the media without sanction from the party. The excerpt, “What should I tell them,” was in response to her repeatedly saying to me over several different phone calls, that if I happened to talk to anyone in the Congress, I should ask them to talk the DMK chief directly.
As a matter of record, I never passed on any message to any Congress leader. But because she was a useful news source, and the message seemed innocuous, I told her I would. Ultimately, I did no more than humour a source who was providing me information during a rapidly changing news story.
AT NO STAGE WAS I EVER ASKED TO PASS ON ANY MESSAGE TO INTERCEDE ON BEHALF OF A PARTICULAR MINISTER OR PORTFOLIO.
NOT ONCE, WAS I ASKED TO “LOBBY” FOR A. RAJA. NOT ONCE WAS I ASKED TO CARRY ANY MESSAGE REGARDING HIM OR ANY OTHER APPOINTMENT.
Anyone who has bothered to read the entire transcript of these conversations instead of just the headline, would notice that the conversation is essentially a journalist soliciting information from one of the many people plugged in – something all journalists do as part of newsgathering. And as journalists, we also often humour our sources without acting on their requests.
The only “benefit” I ever got from talking to Nira Radia was information; information I used to feed the news.
It is important to remember that at this point, in May 2009, none of us were aware of the present investigation against Nira Radia. Like most other journalists in India, I knew Nira Radia professionally as the main PR person for the Tata Group. In this instance, she clearly represented one side of the story.
She was just one of many people I spoke to as is typical in such news stories.
As journalists we deal with different kinds of people, who sometime solicit information and at other times, provide news leads. Unless we believe in only press-conference driven journalism, the need to tap into what’s happening behind-the-scenes in the corridors of power involves dealing with a multitude of voices, and yes, we cannot always vouchsafe for the integrity of all those we use as news sources. We concern ourselves primarily with the accuracy of the information.
But, I must come back to my original objection to what the two magazines have implied.
Strangely, when I complained to the editor of Openmagazine about the smear campaign against me, he sent me a text saying , there was “not much remarkable” in my conversations and went on to even say that, “there is one bit in the strap where the word go-between is used that I don’t like myself.”
I have to wonder then, with anger, why he did not pause before using such a defamatory description.
Are there learnings in this for me? Yes, of course there are.
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight and with what we know now, I realise that when we talk to people who represent or belong to the power establishment, there can be a danger in sailing too close to the wind, even for those of us who are experienced and are driven purely by a deep passion for news.
The takeaway from this debate for me pertains to the everyday practice of journalism. I think of how different kinds of people, who could be potential sources of news, call me, and indeed all editors in this country every day, with different requests ranging from complaints about stories to requests for coverage and yes, sometimes we are also asked to pass on innocuous bits of information.
Never have these requests—nor will they—dictate the agenda of my news decisions. But, the calls that we treat with polite friendliness, to keep our channels of news open, clearly need to be handled with more distance. This controversy has made me look at the need to re-draw the lines much more carefully.
There is also another learning. I have always operated by a code of ethics that holds me as accountable to the public as the politicians I grill on my show. The selective and malicious nature of some of the commentary against me has reinforced my awareness of how responsible we ought to be before we level an allegation against another.
While a genuine debate on media ethics is always welcome in the quest for self improvement, I hope this debate will also look at what amounts to character assassination.
Listen.Niira says Karunanidhi does not know what has been happening,Kanimozhi threatening to commit suicide.
Tarun Das says Maran has to be kept out.
Listen more .
Who is running the country?
On 19th in CNN IBN Tarun Das profusely apologized and said he did not mean what he said to Niira.
There are also tapes of Tarun Das promoting Kamal nath at the same time saying that Kamal Nath takes 15% of every project.
Even this he says he did not mean.
Strange for CII ex.captain.
Story:
Tarun’s Denial.
Embarrassed by the Niira Radia tape publications, former CII chief mentor Tarun Das today said he was “more than a bloody fool” to indulge in loose talk about some Cabinet ministers, but claimed he was neither a fixer nor a lobbyist.
“Not really, I am not a political… I am not fixer,” he said in an interview on TV news channel CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate show.
Das (71) said that while he agreed to lobby for Radia, he did not do so.
“I did not lobby,” he said. Asked why he agreed to do so in his conversation with Radia, Das said, “these are casual informal conversation… I am not concerned with individual positions and individual jobs.”
He said the tape episode has brought tears to him and his family, which has suffered. He said industry chamber CII is also “probably” embarrassed and he was “absolutely sorry”.
Looking back, he said he was being indiscreet and behaved like a “more than a bloody fool”.
Did he mislead Radia, if he did not lobby for her and only agreed?
“I was not deliberately misleading her, but perhaps not completely truthful with her as to what I would do and what I would not do… I had no intention to deliver unfortunately and I apologise (to) her for that,” he said.
Conversation wit Niira Radia.( Audio provided at the top)
In this conversation between Niira Radia and the former CII head, they discuss cabinet formation in UPA-II. Radia wants Tarun Das to convey to the Congress that its leaders should talk to Kanimozhi, not to Dayanidhi Maran. She also pushes A. Raja for the telecom portfolio. The conversation reveals the divide in the Karunanidhi family, with Azhagiri and Kanimozhi on one side and the Marans on the other.
Tarun Das: I’m going to South Africa for two matches tonight. And now I’m going in for the swearing-in ceremony for which I have been invited without your friends from the DMK.
Niira Radia: Yeah… But can you please tell the Congress, please, they are listening to Dayanidhi Maran. They are talking to the wrong people. Karunanidhi does not even know what’s going on. He gave them (Congress) a list on Monday night, which was Dayanidhi Maran for railways; Azhagiri, surface (transport); Kanimozhi, health; power, Baalu; and telecom, Raja.
NR: He (Karunanidhi) knew power and railways would get dropped. He needed them (Congress) to come back and say I cannot give you this and this. He’d have dealt with the rest of it himself. Instead, Congress went into a bit of a tizzy, didn’t know what they were saying to him, and it went all wrong and it allowed for Dayanidhi Maran to drive the bargaining. Whatever they’re telling Dayanidhi is not going back to Karunanidhi in its correct form. He’s (Maran) distorting everything that’s going to him.
TD: Hmm…
NR: He’s (Karunanidhi) got one daughter saying she will commit suicide and his wife saying I will do this…. So if the Congress dealt with that list they may have got away with just two members of cabinet, because Azhagiri had agreed to be MoS independent if Dayanidhi was not made a cabinet minister.
TD: Yeah…
‘I’ll take (Raja) to him. Sunil has been very arrogant too.’
NR: But Dayanidhi kept saying to his leader that Congress and Ahmed Patel have been in touch with him and Ahmed Patel has asked him to come for the swearing-in, while the leader has not authorised him to negotiate. They should have dealt with it through Kanimozhi who has been with him right through. Even the PM did that. They should have gone through Kanimozhi and she would have taken them directly to her father. The matter would have been resolved there. He does not want four. The only reason that four are being asked is because Azhagiri cannot be an MoS when Maran is a cabinet minister. So when they offered three and Maran kept on telling them that they wanted him to be a cabinet minister…TD: Why don’t they keep Maran out? Why do they have to have Maran?
NR: He (Karunanidhi) needs a little help from the Congress on that because he thinks that Congress is supporting Maran. If Congress gives him a message that we have not given any message to Maran at all then they will get away with two cabinet because Kanimozhi and Azhagiri have both agreed that we will stick to MoS independent and Raja and Baalu can come—it does not matter—or we will bring someone new (instead of Baalu).
NR: He’s okay with Raja but he does not want Baalu.
TD: Yeah, Baalu has been terrible.
NR: He does not want Baalu so if someone can tell that to Karunanidhi about Baalu he’ll be fine with that. But he’s said about Raja that he cannot leave him out because he is a Dalit. I have to keep him in. And he’s closest so he won’t leave him out.
TD: But can he be put somewhere apart from telecom?
NR: You are far better having Raja in telecom because… he will behave himself. Trust me, he will behave himself.
TD: But there are too many people against him.
NR: That’s only Sunil Mittal…Raja has promised he will speak to Sunil Mittal and deal with the matter.
TD: Sunil has lobbied against him, I believe, I haven’t talked to Sunil.
NR: But telecom is being given to them (DMK) and I will tell you one thing that Karunanidhi will give telecom only to Raja and not to Dayanidhi. He’s very clear about that.
TD: Okay. I will talk to them (Congress).
NR: I can assure Sunil this will not be a problem. Raja will not go against him. He has to trust me on that one.
TD: Okay.
NR: I’ll take him (Raja) to him…Sunil has been very arrogant with him as well….it’s not just one-sided…if he hadn’t been the way he was this problem wouldn’t have arisen.
TD: Okay, I will talk (to Congress). I will let you know.
NR: But tell them to talk through Kanimozhi…
TD: Okay, done.
NR: Just let them know that even Karunanidhi is no great shakes about Baalu or Maran if Congress gives them (DMK) a little hint. They should just say that we are not pushing for Maran and Congress will drop him like a hot potato. They hate him.
You must be logged in to post a comment.