Journalism is one of the fundamental pillars of Indian democracy, standing alongside the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Its role is to inform citizens, scrutinize those in power, and ensure that accountability remains at the heart of democratic governance. If that is true, then democracy is in grave danger when journalism forgets its purpose and becomes a loudspeaker for those in power.
In India, the term “Godi Media” has become part of everyday political vocabulary. It is used by critics to describe television news channels and media personalities who are perceived to be excessively sympathetic to the ruling government while showing relentless hostility toward the opposition. Whether one agrees with the label or not, its growing popularity reflects a deeper crisis of public trust.
A free press is not meant to be the government’s public relations department. Its responsibility is not to applaud every decision or manufacture outrage against political opponents. Journalism exists to ask uncomfortable questions, especially of those who wield power. Governments come and go, but the duty of the press remains the same: hold authority accountable.
Watching some prime-time debates today, one could easily mistake them for political rallies. Instead of presenting facts, many anchors appear more interested in delivering verdicts before investigations have even begun. Instead of asking ministers difficult questions, they turn their microphones toward the opposition, activists, students, and ordinary citizens. The government’s narrative becomes the only narrative worth broadcasting.
The recent student protests in India have once again exposed this divide.
While thousands of students gathered to voice their concerns, several television channels seemed less interested in understanding why they were protesting and more interested in deciding who they should be blamed on. Labels were thrown around with astonishing ease: “anti-national,” “Urban Naxal,” “foreign-funded.” Predictably, the most convenient accusation of all was “terrorist.”
The word terrorist carries immense weight. It should never become a political insult or a television soundbite. If every protester can be casually branded a terrorist without evidence, then the word itself loses its meaning, and genuine national security concerns become harder to distinguish from political disagreements.
Yet perhaps the most disturbing trend was the deliberate injection of religion into what was fundamentally a protest about education reforms and accountability.
It is a familiar pattern. During the farmers’ protests, too, sections of the media attempted to portray demonstrators as belonging to a supposedly “anti-national” religious community, shifting the focus away from the issues they were raising. Instead of encouraging informed public debate, such narratives deepened divisions and reduced complex democratic movements to simplistic identity politics.
It is a disservice to journalism and to the public. The role of the media is to question those in power, verify facts, and inform citizens, not to inflame religious sentiments or stigmatize entire communities for political convenience. When journalists abandon those principles, they cease to be watchdogs of democracy and risk becoming participants in political theatre.
But this raises an obvious question.
If these protesters were indeed terrorists, as some television personalities implied, then where was India’s intelligence apparatus before they reached the protest site? How did they supposedly organize and gather in the heart of the nation’s capital without detection? If such claims were true, would that not represent a serious intelligence failure and raise uncomfortable questions for the Home Ministry itself?
Curiously, those questions rarely make it to prime time.
Instead, cameras point toward the protesters. The spotlight shifts away from those in power and onto those challenging it. Accountability flows in only one direction.
This is precisely why independent reporting and social media have become so important. While social media is far from perfect and is often filled with misinformation, it has also allowed people to witness events from the ground through live streams, videos, eyewitness accounts, and independent journalists. During moments of public unrest, these perspectives often provide a valuable counterbalance to highly polarized television coverage.
The contrast can be striking. On television, viewers are often presented with carefully framed debates that resemble courtroom dramas. On the ground, people see students carrying placards, chanting slogans, demanding accountability, and facing police batons. Between those two realities lies a gap that many viewers are increasingly unwilling to ignore.
A democracy should never fear its students.
Throughout history, young people have often been the conscience of nations. They ask difficult questions because they have the most to lose if those questions remain unanswered. Their methods can be debated. Their demands can be challenged. Their politics can be disagreed with. But dismissing every dissenting voice as a threat to the nation is neither intellectually honest nor democratically healthy.
Perhaps the saddest part of this entire spectacle is watching some television anchors transform themselves from journalists into performers. The evening news becomes theatre. Outrage becomes entertainment. Loyalty becomes more valuable than integrity.
A case in point was a news anchor presenting what was clearly a CGI-generated video of a student kicking and destroying a car as though it were genuine footage. It is difficult to imagine a greater betrayal of journalistic standards. When sensationalism takes precedence over verification, news ceases to inform and begins to mislead. What was once a profession built on credibility increasingly risks becoming little more than political theatre.
I cannot help but wonder what happens when the cameras are finally switched off. Do these anchors ever reflect on the role they are playing? Do they believe they are strengthening democracy, or merely serving those who temporarily occupy positions of power? History has rarely been kind to those who abandoned journalism for propaganda.
Power is temporary. Governments change and political parties rise and fall.
But journalism leaves a permanent record.
The question is not whether a journalist supports or opposes a particular government. Every citizen has personal opinions. The real question is whether those opinions prevent them from asking difficult questions when they matter most.
The youth of India are demanding answers. Agree with them or disagree with them—that is the essence of democracy.
Responding to every criticism with labels, suspicion, and accusations does not make a government stronger. It makes it appear unwilling to engage with the very people it claims to represent.
A healthy democracy does not fear flowers or placards in the hands of its students.
It should fear the day when the only response left is the baton.
Leave a Reply