Why do politicians deny what they say?

During my stint as a political correspondent with The Times of India, I was invited for breakfast at the residence of a senior political leader in Bangalore with whom I had sought an interview. In the course of the breakfast, prepared by his gracious wife who is also a well known socialite, the politician shared some explosive information which could have national ramifications.

It was a “big story” in journalistic parlance and naturally the interview made it to the front pages of The Times of India. Since I do not believe in sting reporting, which in most cases is a euphemism for blackmail journalism, I had recorded the entire interview on my dictaphone with the permission of the politician. 

The interview raised a storm in political circles around the country and the politician was severely criticised by his leaders who feared that his statements would adversely affect the fragile coalition government that was in place at the Centre then. The politician immediately called a press conference and completely denied all that was attributed to him in the report.

I would have cut a very sorry face but for the fact that my Editor had accompanied me to the interview and that I had officially taped the entire conversation.  When I confronted the leader about his volte face, he sheepishly said: “I had to do it due to political compulsions.” And I retorted: “Well, the next time you have me over for breakfast, I will make sure I take all that you say with an extra pinch of salt.”

Politicians are generally an untrustworthy lot. To most of them, truth is a Satan and lie is an angel. Afflicted as they are with the foot-in-the-mouth syndrome, they have no qualms in refuting their own words.  They can give a live interview to a television channel and then deny all that they have said, without even batting an eyelid.

It is the desire of politicians to be in the limelight that forces them to issue outrageous statements. Politicians have a general tendency to shoot their mouths off and when their statements backfire they are quick to issue a denial without even an ounce of guilt. It is their defence mechanism and survival instincts that turn these politicians into chameleons. 

There is another set of politicians that is even more dangerous--those who follow the hit-and-run policy. They deliberately make unfounded and bizarre statements knowing fully well that their words carry no substance. Their sole intention is to discredit their opponents. Once, the statement is widely covered in the media, they promptly issue a denial or claim they were misquoted. 

Such politicians target two birds with one stone.  On the one hand, they cause irreparable harm to the reputation of their opponents and then on the other, they retract the statement once the intended damage is done.  These days some politicians upload a tweet and delete it once it has served its purpose of defaming their target.

Politicians have very little control over their tongues and are often known to make statements in the heat of the moment without considering the repercussions. Thus, one of the most favourite quotes of a politician is, "I was misquoted." In 90 per cent of the cases, claims of being misquoted are bogus.

However, politicians are not always to blame. There are instances where journalists report a quote completely out of context to give it an entirely different meaning that suits their own personal views or the editorial slant of their organisations.

Another factor contributing to miscommunication is 'pool reporting', which is common among journalists.  As it is impossible for reporters to be at different places at the same time, they have developed a 'cooperative reporting system' where news reports are unofficially exchanged between scribes. In the process, a mistake made by one journalist gets shared across the media. 

When I was a reporter with the Indian Express, a number of newspapers carried a front page report about  the Urban Development Minister's announcement that all slums in Bangalore would be demolished.  Slums being vote banks are a very sensitive issue and it came as a surprise that the Minister had made such a bold statement.  Predictably, the Opposition began baying for his blood,

It later turned out that the Minister had never made this statement and that the sole reporter who was present at the function had totally misunderstood the speech. It, however, did not prevent him from passing on the news to his colleagues who promptly published it without verifying facts. And the hapless Minister was caught in a bind because all major newspaper had prominently carried the report.  Such "hearsay reporting" is a bane of journalism.

There could also be some genuine reasons for misquoting. India being a land of many languages, there are several instances where the substance of a politician's speech is lost in translation. 

A majority of journalists are conscientious, but politicians will continue to remain a class apart--a community that cannot be blindly trusted. Thus, the only way journalists can escape allegations of misreporting is to record every single word that a politician says, unless it is an off-the-record conversation which you do not intend to report.