Opinion Judge,Jury,and Audience

And yes,people are usually allowed to speak in their defence. This can lead to trouble,if the defendant is,for example,Amar Singh. Singh reacts to any accusation with overwhelming,Bush-doctrine force; and so,when he appeared on NDTV 24×7’s The Buck Stops Here,he chose the opening minutes of that show to attack instead,launching a broadside from over NDTV’s shaking shoulders at his current foes,Shanti and Prashant Bhushan. At one point he described Shanti Bhushan as “perpetually in the habit of insulting Chief Justices of the Supreme Court… he calls every CJI corrupt,” also the point at which Barkha Dutt,looking a little panicky,intervened. He managed,however,to use the “Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion” metaphor before he eventually ground to a halt.

We hardly got to see the Caesar’s wives in question,“Bhushans”. News TV universally drops the definite article,asking things like “Have Bhushans Lost Moral

Authority”,reinforcing the get-one-free nature of some recent stories. (Not one Bhushan per panel,but two! Not one farmhouse,but two!)

One Bhushan,Prashant,talked to a relatively polite Arnab Goswami on Times Now,where he conducted his own defence. Besides that,others did the speaking.

Though that is a little unfair,as on News TV,the act of defence is its own punishment. In the real world,if you’re accused of something,it is investigated,you are tried,and punished if convicted. Here,you are accused of something,and then you must either prostrate yourself to TV Power by removing yourself or resigning,or else meekly submit to the high-minded questioning of their lordships,the anchors. A hoarse Kiran Bedi growled on CNN-IBN: “How often do you want us — do you want Bhushans always to be before televisions,always defending themselves? They’ve got nothing else to do? None of us have anything else to do?” (Not at the moment,it appears.)

The most amusing variation came on The Buck Stops Here,as Barkha Dutt cross-questioned Agnivesh,who presumably had nothing to do that evening: “From

Tharoor to Chavan to Pawar,there are so many examples where,legally the accusations have not proved,but even before a trial beginning,politicians have stepped aside… now some people are making the argument that those drafting this bill should do the same. Do you believe the same standards should be applied as they are applied to politicians?”

There was a silence. Then Agnivesh,with straight-faced solemnity,turned the trial on its head. “Barkhaji,let me put it to you this way. Supposing there is an accusation of corruption against a some mediaperson who is an anchor of a very famous TV channel and if that person is initiating debate after debate on corruption and if such person is asked: first,get yourself cleared of all these allegations and only then will you have the moral right to start or initiate a debate on corruption,should that person step down? What would be your answer?” Justice Hegde — he was,of course,on,having nothing on his plate but Part II of his thousand-page report on illegal mining — was in the grip of some strong emotion,either sniggering or wincing. It was difficult to tell which,as his hand was strategically hiding his face.

Dutt,momentarily blindsided by this demand for judicial accountability,nevertheless gave us the clearest description of the News TV Judicial Process I’ve yet heard: “My answer would be very simple: we must all answer to the same levels of scrutiny that we subject other people to,and that is exactly what we are debating. Should that take the shape of answering questions? Of stepping down? It will vary from case to case.”

And week to week. But every week,someone will be judged —and their punishment? Going on TV.