At what point does a journalist — star or otherwise — who is embroiled in controversy become a liability for a news organization?

The Indian media is known to operate in a high-stakes arena. Newspapers have been established for a long while but it is worth remembering that private cable TV channels, including news, are relatively new. The industry is still growing and competition is fierce.

As private news organizations, the new batch of news channels and the large number of newspapers are answerable to shareholders and investors much like any other private sector company. Therefore, ratings and circulation, which in turn affect advertising and the bottom line, are critical for their long-term viability.

Given the public outrage over what media critics allege are violation of journalistic ethics exposed by the Niira Radia tapes, will people tune out or stop reading? Will they show they have lost faith in the credibility of a particular journalist by switching off or canceling a subscription? If so, at what point does the news organization’s top brass distance itself from a controversial journalist?

The tradeoffs are difficult. Star anchors or columnists bring viewers and readers, but controversy and the perception of impropriety — actual or not — or an admitted error in judgment may turn people off. Perhaps, sometimes, not all publicity is good publicity, contrary to what the old adage suggests.

As of now, the jury is out both on the severity of the controversies themselves and the impact, if any, on the Indian news media. Only time will tell through ratings and sales if the section of the public that perceives impropriety will withhold their patronage. In a thriving democracy and market-led economy (at least in the domestic media) that is the most effective way for people to show their disapproval.

How much they do so, of course, will depend on a whole host of factors, ranging from apathy to forgiveness to a sense that even a controversy of this magnitude doesn’t require the abandonment of an entire organization’s news output. Another key is the extent to which the competition keeps the story running and focuses attention on the alleged transgressions. In other words, if your competitor is faltering, do you stand by and do nothing or do you seize this opportunity and go for the jugular?

In the case of the Radia tapes, this issue has been the subject of much commentary in the social media, as mainstream cable news channels and newspapers have been reticent in their coverage of this story and only recently have given it the kind of play that social media like Twitter and Facebook have been giving it for two weeks.

The reason for the silence has been the source of much speculation. Some, perhaps cynical, commentators have suggested that this is a typical situation of fellow professionals closing ranks to protect their own. You can call it the journalistic version of the “thin blue line.” Even more cynically, some have speculated that the competition remained silent because a similar scandal could land at their doorstep anytime.

For whatever reason, media organizations have been reluctant so far to capitalize on the misfortunes of those currently in the news. And that could play an important role in how long this continues to make headlines. My guess is that just as the Radia tapes knocked the second-generation telecom scandal off the top news slot, so, too, it will just be a matter of time before another major story makes much of the reading and watching population largely forget about the Radia tapes — which can only be good news for the journalistic institutions embroiled in the controversy.

What do you think? Will readers and viewers change their media consuming habits as a result of this? Or will it blow over soon enough?