IMAGINE this - a Hollywood cliché transplanted to India. An attractive, would-be film star goes to see a producer. He's not really interested, but he's not uninterested either. After making conversation for a while, the young woman invites him to her hotel room, ostensibly for a drink and a chat. No fool, the producer knows more or less what to expect. They talk, drink, party a bit, and then she comes on to him. He doesn't need much persuading. Then the moment he starts to respond, out jump a number of people, cameras in hand. They've been filming what's going on from the start. They tell the hapless producer that he's been well and truly caught in a compromising position and he's going to be sorry.

The next day the local television channel that staged the event is full of stories about the scandal of the 'casting couch', about producers asking women for sexual favours in exchange for acting roles. They refer repeatedly to their 'sting' operation. It turns out that the young woman is actually a TV journalist posing as an aspiring actress. By now the producer is an utter wreck.

Now take two other scenarios. In the first a young man posing as a potential arms dealer goes to the house of a government minister. He asks how to apply for contracts to supply a particular kind of weapon. It is common knowledge that such contracts are very lucrative. But it's also known that they don't come easy; you have to pay a price. So he negotiates a deal with the official - she asks that the money be paid as a contribution to Party expenses. Unknown to her, the young man has a secret camera and tape recorder in his briefcase. He has been filming the whole interaction. He's a journalist and shortly afterwards, his paper runs a story about corruption in high places.

In the second case, two young men visit the head of a politically powerful organization whose ideas help shape government policy. They talk to him about this and that, then ask for a few favours. In return they offer him money, cash in hand. He accepts. They hand over bundles of notes, the political leader stretches out his hand, all the while hidden cameras are filming the interaction. The deal over, the young men leave, taking away a visual and sound record of the entire proceedings. They are journalists. Shortly afterwards, their newspaper breaks a sensational story of high-level bribery and corruption. The political leader denies the charges, but there's visual evidence of his complicity. Truth has been established.

Is there a difference between these incidents? Here in India there's been a furious debate in the media about this. A whole range of murky practices, both by those who give and take bribes and those who seek to expose them, have come to light. But alongside the satisfaction of having actual proof of something everyone always knew (and of which there is evidence every day in our lives in this part of the world) there are questions being asked. Uncomfortable questions. Is there such a thing as 'journalistic ethics'? When does the honest practice of investigative journalism become merely a set-up? What are the limits of 'exposing' wrongdoing? The debate is further joined by young journalism students who are now full of admiration for these practices. They're excited at the idea of being part of 'sting' operations - setting off with a pen, a camera and some journalistic zeal - and coming back with a 'real' story.

I'm really not sure what my response is to these questions. It seems to me that the film producer who took up the (sexual) invitation is in a different position from politicians who accept money or offers of money. In the producer's case, there was a clear invitation issued by the woman - he wasn't the one to ask her - and she is a consensual partner in the whole set-up. But no politician will agree to be filmed accepting a bribe, yet most of them do take bribes. So perhaps here different measures are called for.

I'm reminded of an incident years ago when a journalist actually went out and 'bought' a woman in order to expose a racket in human trafficking. He then exposed the whole business of buying and selling human beings, mostly children and women. Yet, while his newspaper knew what he was up to, the young woman in question knew nothing. Once she had been used as a pawn in the search for 'truth' no-one quite knew what had happened to her. It's difficult to sort out what is 'right' and 'wrong' in this. Can an investigation be an end in itself, no matter that it may hurt people in the process?

Today things are both different and more complicated. New technology - micro cameras and hidden recorders - has made everything so easy. But at the same time the boundaries between right and wrong have become blurred and the pressure on the media to perform is greater than ever. We're losing our sense of perspective. None of these activities comes without a concomitant responsibility - to the people who may be innocent victims and to what journalists may hold up as the 'truth'.

Urvashi Butalia is an Indian writer and publisher.
She lives in New Delhi.