Reply on Tehelka’s “true story” with factual information–“unverifiable information”

This is second one in series of blogs which will evaluate Tehelkas claim with some factual data.

After attacking the cable for “alleged inaccuracies Tehelka now moves on to say  there was nothing in cable to authenticate the claims in cable

Sensational as the cable was, there was nothing to prove whether its claims were true and much of it could have been passed off as empty boast by a low-level Congress fixer arrogating more relevance to him than he actually possessed.

The best way to  measure the value/importance of a stolen good is by gauging the reaction of owner. similarly, US reaction would tell us if the diplomatic cables are of value or not.

So the best method to understand if there is any substance in the leaked diplomatic cables is by evaluating the reaction of US. As soon as the cables were publishes the White House released a statement condemning their release.

"Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals."

Is that admission “release of cables would to put peoples life at risk” in itself not an authentication of cables?

Also, Secretary of state Clinton led a frantic damage limitation exerciseas Washington prepared foreign governments for the revelations, contacting leaders in Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, France and Afghanistan. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also called External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna on December 23, 2010 and according to P.J. Crowley, the then State Department spokesperson

“The Secretary and the Minister agreed that unauthorised release of classified cables would not affect cooperation between India and the United States,”

Why would Secretary of state Clinton & SM Krishna agree about serious consequence of the cable if it consisted of “unverifiable information”.

Lastly, 22-year-old intelligence analyst Bradley Manning who was charged with leaking many of these cables is now facing a courtmartial and is under  permanent isolation and confinement for last 300 days! Hardly the stuff you do with someone who released “unverifiable” information!

Having questioned the accuracy & veracity of information in cable Tehelka now proceeds to tell the audience how cash for vote sting operation does not meet the gold standards of sting operation. Thus questionable

Usually, sting operations are the most conclusive form of investigative journalism. The audio-video evidence of wrongdoings leaves little scope of denial or contestation. But, strangely, the cash-for-votes sting continued to be mired in controversies and dubious claims and counterclaims long after it was aired.

Perhaps one reason for this is that the sting was not an independent journalistic exercise and was done in collaboration with a political party. But, there are many other questions that neither the channel nor the contesting political parties—the BJP, the Congress and the SP—have satisfactorily answered till date.

Does tehelka mean to say that sting operation is an exclusive domain of “investigative journalism”? And this facility is not available to a a political party who decides to expose a grave issue. If political parties cannot be involved how exactly Tehelka can carry out a sting operation when whistle blower is a MP?