Ethics and Journalism in the Age of Social Media

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."

Malcom X

There is a fundamental issue that exists today and I want to call it the greatest existential crisis of our time; it is the choice to make money or to do the right thing. I understand that this choice is not something mankind is facing for the first time and that we have always grappled with it in capitalist societies, but my concern is that the tilt in favour of making money, today, seems to override standing on our principles and ethics. More than ever before in our history. Today, the vast majority of corporations and individuals seem to feel that bottom-line growth justifies the means, and this is something that should concern us all, greatly.

Media is the most powerful communication tool. In fact, I would argue that with the advent of social media, where anyone with an internet connection can spread news, the role of the mainstream media has not diminished but become even more important. The internet is filled with rumours and falsehoods, and social media in large part fuels stories that are unverified but popular and trending due to their sensational or gossipy nature. In such a world, the role of established media outlets as the arbiters or truth and fact checking, takes on much greater urgency. And it requires far more responsibility from editors and publishers than ever before in history. Yet driving eyeballs and making money has become an equally important goal for all these media houses that are struggling to survive in the digital age; a situation that has created a serious dilemma between chasing revenue and applying ethics in journalism. The question is whether to break news first (to drive maximum eyeballs and revenue) or wait to check the facts and risk being an hour late to the party - which in social media standard time is roughly a decade late.

Even though the reality is that speed and being first count for more eyeballs than being factually correct, it does not absolve so-called reputable media outlets of the greater responsibility that they have to society. With great power comes great responsibility. Granted, mainstream media is no longer our only source of information. For that reason, it is even more important for them to be sources of trusted and reliable information. Here, I make a distinction between cable news and mainstream news; the former is largely opinion, gossip and entertainment, while the latter needs to be the opposite. However, both should aspire to greater truth, based on some of the ethics and principles that have driven responsible journalism for centuries. They both wield tremendous influence over the masses and our minds.

Money can be made, but a reputation cannot be regained or fixed (with all the dollars in the world) once the trust between reader and institution has been broken. There should be absolutely no place for the sensational half-truths and lack of fact checking that we see from even the most venerable media institutions today. In the race to break a story or get retweeted into becoming a trending topic, they are all willing to put principles aside. Rolling Stone’s recent cover story on the horrific UVA campus rape, and the Fox News interview with a Seal Team Six member who was part of the Bin Laden raid, are both examples of the lack of ethics to which I am referring.

Rolling Stone clearly chose to run with a story based on the “sensational” aspects and in doing so chose to forego the most basic tenets of journalism: fact checking, investigating, and corroborating to ensure the integrity of the storyteller, all with a healthy dose of skepticism that every journalist is meant to have. None of this is about disrespecting the victim or doubting her story – it is simply about being thorough and finding the truth. Equally, Fox News did a disservice to our country by agreeing to give the Seal Team Six member a platform on which to speak publicly. There used to be an unbreakable code of honour among men who serve our country in the shadows. They did it knowing that nobody would ever know their sacrifice by face or name; there is no greater honour or valiance. I believe these men were the bravest of the brave because they were driven by a sense of duty, honour and the noblest quality in humanity, not by fame, fortune or personal glory. For this reason, Fox should have turned down the Seal Team Six member, even knowing that other news outlets like CBS or CNN would likely jump at the opportunity to do the same exclusive interview with him. If Fox News had done this, they not only might have won my and many peoples respect, but also would have set a very important precedent that is much needed in journalism today – doing the right thing.

Equally, I was shocked by the number of media outlets that jumped to disseminate the embarrassing Sony Studio emails and other private and personal information of executives and employees.  Everyone was aware that this information was stolen and released to the public by hackers. We live in the age of WikiLeaks, but there is a fundamental difference between a whistle blower and a hacker. The latter is always theft and extortion. I have no problem with media reporting the hacking, even debating the state actors behind it and investigating the fingerprint of the hackers, but institutions like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post should have stopped short of sharing the stolen information. They can and will probably justify their actions using “Bartnicki vs Vopper,” where the Supreme Court ruled that “...the playing of illegally intercepted material under these circumstances was constitutionally protected, at least when the broadcaster wasn’t involved in the illegal interception...” (Source: Washington Post Article). They are legally within their rights, but my point is not about legality. It has to do with guiding principles and ethics; things that used to be the cornerstones of our society and journalism just a few decades ago. My expectation would have been for these outlets to refrain from publishing any of the stolen information; leaving that to less reputable sites. A refusal to publish would also have sent a very strong message to future hackers and served as a great disincentive to take the risk. It is notoriety, through widespread exposure, that drives these cowardly criminals.

Media outlets who want to be regarded as respectable should consider hacked information off-limits, much the way eBay considers stolen goods listing unacceptable or how Sotheby’s will not try to auction a painting for which the provenance is in serious doubt. Doing so will draw an important ethical line in the sand which is so desperately missing in journalism today - integrity. They may also gain our respect and their eyeballs, as others start to follow suit.

How to Clean Up the BCCI

“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.”

Abraham Lincoln 

While I do not want our Supreme Court to play judge, jury and executioner, they are also the last resort to save our sport from the cesspool it has been reduced to by the very men who were tasked with stewarding it. In this regard I am glad that the court has taken a rather dim view of the BCCI board’s actions, or lack thereof, in the illegal betting scandal that engulfed the last IPL.

The two Justices have shown public disdain for Mr. Srinivasan from the time they called his refusal to step aside “nauseating.” While it is easy to detest a man like Srinivasan, it would not bode well for the credibility of our legal system if we were to cast him aside purely on the grounds that he is not a likeable man or for his lack of honour and integrity. Additionally, as tempting as it may be for every Indian and cricket lover to see Mr. Srinivasan being bashed around and bullied by these Justices, in the end they must find substantive legal grounds to usher in his demise and to restore credibility to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

Finding impropriety in the BCCI board’s actions and lack of governance should not be very hard for the court to do. The BCCI’s defense of Srinivasan has been laughable. I am no legal expert, but it seems there are already three very serious and clear violations of the board’s code of ethics that may also constitute legal grounds for some serious action by the court. 

1. Conflict of Interest

This is common sense and something that EVERY governing body in the world adheres to. Srinivasan’s ownership of the Chennai Super Kings would be the equivalent of American Football Commissioner Roger Goodell's owning the New England Patriots or another team. It is absolutely absurd. The fact that Srinivasan and the BCCI legal team are actually trying to defend his ownership of the Chennai Super Kings just demonstrates how deluded and absolutely corrupt their absolute power has made them. 

2. Perjury

Srinivasan and MS Dhoni both stated publicly and vehemently that Gurunath Meiyappan’s role in the Chennai Super Kings was nothing more than that of a cricket enthusiast. The court-appointed Mudgal investigation has concluded that Meiyappan was in fact a team official, and functioned more like their CEO. It would seem that both men lied. At worst they have perjured themselves; at best they were protecting a person whom they knew had been implicated in an illegal betting ring. Both should be held criminally culpable if they did willfully mislead the court appointed panel.

3. Board Governance & Credibility

After the allegations surfaced, the arrest made of Srinivasan’s son-in-law, and the fact that the team he owns was implicated in the IPL illegal match fixing scandal, the logical (and honourable) thing for him to do would have been to resign. Instead Srinivasan did the opposite and refused to budge. After much public pressure, he was forced to step aside while he personally appointed a committee that cleared him and his son-in-law of any wrongdoing.  It was not until the Supreme Court intervened that he truly stepped aside, although by all accounts he has continued to make all the major decisions, running the board remotely.

The net result of all this is that Srinivasan and this BCCI board have lost all credibility. No matter what actions the court demands, they can no longer be counted upon to conduct an unbiased or impartial investigation, or to implement the changes needed to restore credibility to cricket’s wealthiest and most powerful governing body.

So what can be done? We need to go back to the basic tenets of the BCCI’s mandate and in doing so bring back meaning to the emblem of the Order of the Star of India, India's highest order of chivalry during the British Raj. To this end, I hope the court can find sufficient legal grounds to not only publicly discredit the current board and all the administrators, making their continued tenure impossible, but also initiate legal proceedings against many of these men.

For cricket to have a future and for the BCCI to regain credibility, we must put in place new court-imposed rules and regulations. I do not believe any solution should involve a takeover or greater involvement from the government. That said, it is also not going to be sufficient to simply remove Srinivasan and his cronies; this would treat the symptom and not the cancer. The power vacuum left behind will quickly be filled by equally despotic men like Sharad Pawar or Lalit Modi. What we need is a complete overhaul of the BCCI’s functioning and structure, along with new blood to run it.

Here are my suggestions for our Supreme Court, on both the legal actions I hope they initiate and the functional changes they should mandate to truly reform the BCCI:

LEGAL ACTIONS:

1. N Srinivasan to be banned from holding any position in Indian cricket, for life.

2. Start a criminal investigation of M.S. Dhoni and N. Srinivasan for conflict of interest issues and misrepresenting CSK team management facts to court appointed panel

3. Disqualify Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals from IPL, for 3-5 years

4. Tainted players to be suspended while being investigated; banned for life if found guilty

5. Owners of both teams to forfeit ownership and never be allowed to own an IPL team

6. Legalise sports betting

7. Bring BCCI under Right to Information Act (RTI) 

MANAGEMENT & STRUCTURAL REFORMS

1. Ban politicians (current & former) from being on board or part of management of BCCI or any regional/state cricket associations

2. Ensure strong conflict of interest rules added to BCCI constitution, i.e. no administrator or employee of BCCI should be allowed to own a stake in any of team, franchises or cricketing venture where they may financially benefit as a result of their position within BCCI.

3. Bring in caretaker board and administration for one year while reforms are being implemented. The idea is to completely revamp the current management structure to prevent future abuse and corruption:

• Create a governing board consisting of two ex-cricketers, two retired judges, two individuals from private sector. Each person would serve a one-time term of three years

• Divide the current President position into two offices;

• President (appointed by governing panel) would oversee all cricketing affairs and retain all other current roles and responsibilities with exception of the business/financial side i.e. sponsorships, advertising, media rights negotiations, etc.

• Add a non-elected CEO position, also hired by the governing panel to run the BCCI for a term of two years. CEO would be hired from the private sector

• Both positions would have two-term limit with each term being limited to two years

• Change status of BCCI to a corporation that is for profit but also for benefit to society, akin to a B Corporation in the USA

• Officials holding positions in state cricketing bodies cannot simultaneously hold positions within the BCCI administration or its various committees

• All monies dispensed to state associations must be accounted for at the end of the fiscal year by an external and independent auditor; this includes the BCCI financials

• All monies spent by state associations should be used to further the cause of and promote cricket in their respective states

• All infrastructure projects must follow an online blind bidding process with final bid award being made under supervision of CEO and board for projects above certain amount

These are some of the things that I believe will help provide much-needed transparency and accountability to the BCCI and help restore its credibility with the fans. Granted they are a private body and should remain one, but since their mission has always been about growing the sport in the public interest, there always needs to be a balance between the their autonomy and the oversight required. 

ALSO READ: Open Letter to N. Srinivasan, BCCI President

Bhopal to BP: A Stark Contrast

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson

People in America are seething with discontent about their President’s handling of the immediate aftermath of the BP rig explosion and oil spill. They feel he has not done all he could and that the Federal government has dragged its feet, not putting the full weight of their resources behind fixing the problem. Many Republicans even believe the government should have taken over the cleanup effort, even though the government does not have the necessary equipment, expertise or means to cap a deep water oil well break. Obama’s popularity has taken a huge beating as a result of this discontent around the country. There has also been growing resentment to his constantly cool and calm demeanor. That he never shows emotion and certainly never seems to fume or display any indignation or rage. Ironically, it was this same trait that catapulted him into a lead in many minds over John McCain during the financial crisis in 2008. However you feel about his personal handling of the response, what cannot be debated is that from the outset he has held British Petroleum fully accountable for the entire disaster and for all the ensuing damage, stretching even the most generous legal definitions of liability for foreign companies operating on US soil. He has made them liable, not only for all costs incurred by the Federal government for the cleanup operation, but also for lost wages of fisherman, riggers and small business owners in affected town. Somehow he even got BP to pony up $25 million for the State of Florida to invest in advertising to re-assure tourists that Florida beaches remain unaffected, open and safe. All this in addition to coaxing BP into putting a down payment of $20 billion into an account administered by a government-appointed third party, which will enable them to process and pay claims in a more expedient manner. And during all of this he managed to help the BP board see the wisdom in not issuing any further dividends to shareholders for the remainder of 2010. Whether you are satisfied with his administration’s sense of urgency and speed of response or not, I think it is fair to say that he has been single-mindedly focused on protecting his citizen’s well-being and livelihoods by ensuring that the blame and liability rests firmly with this foreign company and that taxpayers will not be the ones to bear the burden of this catastrophe.

Now contrast this with the Indian government’s response to the greatest industrial disaster the world has ever seen by an American company called Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) which operated a majority owned chemical plant in the city of Bhopal, India. One fateful night in December 1984 the plant leaked toxic gas engulfing the city of Bhopal and its environs, exposing some 500,000 people to lethal and poisonous gas. Government estimates indicate that 8,000 people died within the first week. Another 8,000 people died since from gas related causes. Some 5,000 women were widowed. The gas exposure is also blamed for birth defects ranging from minor to very severe disabilities for the next two generations and is still causing unusually high clusters of cancer and other diseases in the families of the exposed. Today, 390 tons of toxic chemicals abandoned at the plant, never cleaned up by UCIL or the Indian government is said to continue to leak and pollute the groundwater in the region and affect thousands of Bhopal residents who depend on it. In 1985 the Indian government filed a suit in US court for damages worth $3.3 billion. In February 1989 the Indian government, led by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, agreed to an out of court settlement with Union Carbide for a paltry $470 million - approximately 14% of their original claim. To add insult to injury, the then Chief Executive of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, was arrested in 1985 and released on bail on a visit to India. He fled the country, and while still considered an absconder, has since retired and lives a lavish life in the exclusive Hamptons community on New York’s Long Island. “Greenpeace asserts that as the Union Carbide CEO, Anderson knew about a 1982 safety audit of the Bhopal plant, which identified 30 major hazards and that they were not fixed in Bhopal but were fixed at the company's identical plant in the US” (Wikipedia).

Twenty-six years after the tragedy India’s Supreme Court delivered its ruling in the world’s greatest industrial disaster. The Supreme Court is punishing the 7 of the 8 living Union Carbide board members with a 2 year prison sentence, which can be appealed. The culpable homicide charge was effectively reduced to a charge usually used for reckless driving cases. After a wait of a quarter century this is the justice the tens of thousands of victims of Bhopal received. This is the only justice the President, Prime Minister and government has been able to deliver to their citizens. And it seems the perpetrators will continue to go unpunished even as the people of Bhopal continue to suffer the consequences of their negligence. Dow Chemicals, the company which acquired UCIL, has repeatedly stated it accepts no responsibility for this “tragic accident” and recently also retracted a 2002 statement by DOW’s PR Head saying the US$500 compensation per victim was "plenty good for an Indian.” Curiously though, Times of India found Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings from February 2010, where DOW has disclosed that it has taken on all liability for Carbide lawsuits in the US dating back to 1977 (Bhopal happened in 1984), and expects to pay a further $839 million in the coming years to settle these. Carbide became a subsidiary of Dow through a merger in 2001 (‘Bhopal gas tragedy: Dow's double standards exposed’ – Times of India).

Based on a unanimous public outcry the Indian government is now pushing through new measures that include increased compensation for victims, and a renewed effort to extradite the 90 year old Warren Anderson  (an extradition request by India in 2003 was turned down by the US government) along with a pledge to clean up the abandoned UCIL factory. While Dow’s poorly worded statement above says it all, there is another and bigger issue at stake here that goes beyond corporate responsibility and companies doing the right thing in such extreme and tragic situations. It has to do with the weak response and seeming lack of muscle of the Indian government. As India continues to pride its steady advance onto the global stage as an economic and military powerhouse, the government continues to show its impotence when it comes to protecting its own citizens. Victims groups claim that the Indian government did not want to create a hostile climate for foreign companies and foreign direct investment and thus cushioned much of its actions against Union Carbide and DOW Chemicals. I hope this is not true because a government, who does not use every means possible to first and foremost protect its own people, has no business playing on the global stage or calling itself a Superpower.