Watch video excerpts of Sardesai's address on GNTv.

Rajdeep Sardesai, president of Editors Guild of India and editor-in-chief of CNN-IBN news channel, came under intense fire from fellow journalists for maintaining that the journalists caught on the Radia tapes were not guilty until proven innocent and that the publication of select transcripts by Open and Outlook magazines was a case of "bad journalism".

Invited to a discussion on ‘Radia Tapes and Journalistic Ethics’ at the Press Club in the capital on Friday, Sardesai said on the basis of the tapes the journalists involved could only be considered guilty of misjudgement and not misconduct unless quid pro quo was duly established. He said both magazines violated a fundamental principle of journalism in not seeking prior response of the journalists who figured in the recordings. “I am sorry to say this, but both Open and Outlook did not follow the basic rule of journalism, that is, taking the response from the people being written about,” he said.

The larger issue to debate, he emphasised, was that over the past 20 years journalists had been co-opted into the system by the political class and corporate India.

The audience, comprising journalists, did not take kindly to Sardesai’s stance. Poornima Joshi, bureau chief of Mail Today newspaper, took a strong exception to the suggestion that political journalists need to cosy up to their sources and that the tirade against Barkha Dutt stemmed from professional envy. “I find it absolutely disturbing and disheartening that the president of the Editors Guild is not only condoning but also justifying carrying of messages from a corporate house to the Congress party.”

Vidya Subramaniam of The Hindu newspaper pointed out that the tapes contained enough evidence of quid pro quo since the journalists appeared to be doing exactly what they promised.

Neena Vyas, senior journalist of The Hindu newspaper, said if Barkha Dutt was indeed stringing along Niira Radia for information, as she had claimed, she should have been asking questions instead of taking directions. 

An overwhelming majority among the audience cried in unison to support the decision of Vinod Mehta, Outlook magazine’s editor-in-chief, to publish the story. Mehta, one of the four panelists, said this was a clear case of professional misconduct, not mere misjudgement. “In this case it was very clear to the two journalists knew who the caller (Niira Radia) was and it did not take an Einstein to figure out her interests in calling them,” he said, “It is a black and white issue and there are no shades of grey.”

On whether a new code of ethics should be evolved to rein in journalists, he said this was absolutely not required. “The ethics are there and the journalists have to stick to these rules,” he said. 

Senior journalist Mrinal Pande, a former editor of Hindustan newspaper, said she was convinced that though quid pro quo could not be established, the two (Vir Sanghvi and Barkha Dutt) were guilty. Pande also raised the larger issue of ownership patterns in the media, with owners turning into editors and editors turning into part-owners. “If the line between the two is blurred, it’s difficult to conform to the rules of journalism,” she said.

Sunil Jain, opinion editor of The Financial Express newspaper, said he was less shocked than everyone else. “We all know that this has happened before so let’s not become sanctimonious about this all of a sudden,” Jain said and suggested that the best way out was to “name and shame” the black sheep. Jain pointed out that this had already paid dividends as Vir Sanghvi has had to stop his column and lose his former designation at Hindustan Times newspaper.

[Execerpts of Sardesai's address here.]