Some time soon, ?Ruchi?, the reporter who conducted the sting operation on Shakti Kapoor, will hold a press conference and tell her side of the story. Ruchi is the pseudonym adopted by an unnamed 21-year-old journalist whose job was to pose as an aspiring actress and see whether the film industry lived up to its reputation for sleaze.

She did, and the industry did: it appeared that the good old institution of the casting couch was alive and well. Much dirty linen was washed in public and many media stalwarts questioned the ethics of the sting. But one question hasn?t been answered: why was it necessary for ?Ruchi? to conceal her identity?

The most famous sting operation in Indian media history was carried out by Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel of Tehelka fame, who used ?Operation Westend? to try and expose the seamy side of arms deals and the defence forces. They used assumed names, but had no qualms about revealing their identity once the deal was over. It might be argued that ?Ruchi? has received threats, which is why she has remained anonymous ? but Bahal and Samuel received threats, too, which didn?t deter them from using their own names once the job was done.

They could do so because their actions during Operation Westend may have been dangerous or ludicrous or unusual in journalistic terms, but were still part of the job. Ruchi has talked to the media without revealing her name, and sooner or later her identity will be clear ? but it?s significant that she and her employees have felt the need for concealment.

In the brouhaha over the antics of film stars, the nature of what Ruchi was asked to do in the line of work has been obscured. A while back, a young woman I know who had just joined an ad agency was propositioned by a key client. He suggested that his clout made it inadvisable for her to refuse his advances. She took the matter to her boss, who said: ?It is not part of your job to put up with harassment.? The firm made it clear to the client that his behaviour was highly unprofessional, and made it clear to the woman that she would never have to ?entertain? the unwanted advances of middle-aged men.

This is not about protecting the honour of women ?India TV could have set up the sting using a ?Ruchir? to enact the part of a male model, for instance, given that young men are equally vulnerable to being pressurised for sexual favours in the fashion industry. It?s about what anyone should or shouldn?t be asked to do in the line of work.

Ruchi might argue that her actions were performed in the higher interest, to make future aspiring actors safe from the casting couch.

But a corrupt corporation could make a similar argument if they asked an attractive staff member to ?entertain? a prospective client. If Ruchi?s part had been all in a day?s work, it would have been easier for her to come clean. But she was used as a lure, as a bit of sexual fluff. Even if your boss says he?s on the side of the forces of justice, no firm should ever demean its employees to the point where their job description reads: ?Bait?.