In a perceptive article in The Times of India (August 17), R. Gopalakrishnan, Executive Director at Tata Sons, examined the role of the business media vis-à-vis business corporations. He had reason to. A controversy had suddenly erupted over the relationship between Tata Finance Limited (TFL) and the well-known auditing firm AF Ferguson that finally led to the Tata Group buying full-page advertising space to explain the facts of the case as seen by it.

The controversy was over whether, first, Ferguson's report was utterly damning of TFL’s and other group companies' actions; second, whether because of this the Tatas 'forced' Ferguson to withdraw the report; third, whether the resignation of a Ferguson partner and the author of the TFI report was related to such 'pressure'; and, fourth, whether the Tatas had indulged in Enron-type practices.

As The Statesman (August 14) saw it, the Tata response was, first, that while Ferguson's report did uncover practices which do no reputable company credit, the study also 'withheld vital evidence' and was 'biased/partisan'; second, the withdrawal was mutually agreed; third, the resignation of the partner was prompted by Ferguson's loss of faith in him; and, fourth, transactions between group companies were well within the law and above board. But by the time the Tatas proffered their explanation at massive cost, much damage had been done by media reports.

In such a situation, what should be the role of the business reporter? A reporter has tremendous responsibility on his shoulders. Incorrect reporting can not only damage the reputation of a company, but can also damage even its future, and play havoc with its sustainability. Mr Gopalakrishnan's observations in this context make significant reading. According to him, because journalists bear "a huge responsibility in sustaining democracy", they can "attack a public figure who he or she believes to be corrupt, even before incontrovertible evidence to support that belief is available".

Ergo, noted Mr Gopalakrishnan, "A journalist can ethically publish a story based on what may turn out to be an incorrect hypothesis, provided it is not a complete fabrication." He added further: "The newsperson is permitted to cherry-pick among the facts, quotes and data at hand, which would never be acceptable from a scientist or a lawyer." Therein lies the real danger. Granted that in a democracy a journalist can take the occasional liberty with facts or the truth as he sees it, provided his own credibility has never been under question.

Writes Mr Gopalakrishnan: "Newspapers sometimes get the facts wrong. Exceptions apart, these are not due to malice on the part of the reporters but due to inadequate research and tight deadlines." Mr Gopalakrishnan is generous. In the first place, "tight deadlines" is not an excuse — and should never be an excuse — for incorrect or inadequate reporting. That is a cheap way of disowning responsibility. It is far better that a story is deferred than that an incorrect report is published.

Malevolent reporting
Journalists should have a sense of decency and self-respect. They are not authorised to make casual comments in the absence of supporting evidence. As for malice, what is more likely is not a reporter's malice per se but his greed. It is known for a fact that some reporters do colour their reports if sufficiently compensated. And compensation comes in various forms and guises. That is bad enough, but it is also a known fact that certain newspapers, for reasons known only to them, take on giant companies with the sole intention of hurting them.

Ask Reliance Industries. They know where to point the finger. Indeed, many leading companies can give instances of malicious and malevolent reporting that do no credit to the journalistic profession, much less to journalists. The trouble is that there is no way business and the media can develop what Mr Gopalakrishnan has been pleased to describe as "a compass to guide thinking", to "separate the chaff from the wheat".

But bad or malicious reporting is not, sadly enough, confined only to business reporting. It has, especially in recent years, been most noticeable in political reporting and those guilty are not just members of the ‘yellow press’ (whose credibility is low anyway), but those who come under the category of 'national' press. With regard to business reporting, Mr Gopalakrishnan believes that it is necessary to debate once again the "rules of engagement" at a time when heightened global activism by corporations is leading to increased public scrutiny of company actions and increasing friction is noticeable at the interface of business and journalism.

Sensationalism sells
There is yet another factor that cannot easily be dismissed, that of a large number of business papers chasing a much smaller business news market. The latter is forcing journalists to be competitive to the point of neglecting facts. Getting ahead of competitors becomes the sole objective, with unhappy consequences. The reports on Tata Finance are a case in point. When reporting is motivated, truth becomes a casualty. It is in this context that the petrol pump allotment story featured on the front page by The Indian Express calls for comment.

On July 21 the Express in a report claimed that "almost half" of the 3,850 allotments since November 2000 had been made to relatives of the petroleum minister's BJP colleagues and coalition partners. Writing in The Hindustan Times (August 18), Karan Thapar wondered what was meant by "almost half". How much is "almost half"? Forty nine per cent? Forty per cent? Thirty five per cent? Thapar pointed out that the final tally was 307, which makes it 7.9 per cent of 3,850.

Is that "almost half?" Who is fooling whom? Thapar went on to say that the actual number of names revealed by August 5, the day the government acted, was just 160, which is only 4 per cent of 3,850. What sort of reporting is this that makes 4.1 per cent equal to "almost half"? The average reader does not go deep into published stories. He reads the headlines and forgets the facts. That actually is the basis on which some newspapers sell. Sensationalism is all. The presumption is that readers do not exercise their minds and that reports are taken at face value.

Isn't it time that the Press Council woke up to such acts of journalistic desecration? Journalists often proudly proclaim that facts are sacred even if opinion is free. What we have been witnessing in recent times is a reversal of this cliché: in the opinion of some of our journalists, opinion is sacred and facts are free to be manipulated to suit a paper's predictions. One increasingly notices reports that are manipulative, not factual. Whether they are motivated by malice, a desire to show off, or a wish to impress, the net result is the denigration of good people. This is not investigative journalism by any manner of means. It is the kind of journalism that deserves the strongest condemnation.