Local journalists, those best positioned to tell the truth, face displacement and starvation. To date, nearly 200 journalists have been killed by the Israeli military. Many more have been injured and face constant threats to their lives for doing their jobs: bearing witness. This is a direct attack on press freedom and the right to information.

The entire text of the Open letter released on June 5 may be read here:

We, the undersigned, call for immediate, independent, and unrestricted international media access to Gaza and for full protection of journalists who continue to report under siege.

For 20 months, the Israeli authorities have refused to grant journalists outside of Gaza independent access to the Palestinian territory – a situation that is without precedent in modern warfare. Local journalists, those best positioned to tell the truth, face displacement and starvation. To date, nearly 200 journalists have been killed by the Israeli military. Many more have been injured and face constant threats to their lives for doing their jobs: bearing witness. This is a direct attack on press freedom and the right to information.

We understand the inherent risks in reporting from war zones. These are risks that many of our organisations have taken over decades in order to investigate, document developments as they occur, and understand the impacts of war.

At this pivotal moment, with renewed military action and efforts to resume the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, it is vital that Israel open Gaza’s borders for international journalists to be able to report freely and that Israel abides by its international obligations to protect journalists as civilians.

We call on world leaders, governments, and international institutions to act immediately to ensure this.

Signed by:

1. cd, Patient Ligodi, Founder (Democratic Republic of Congo)
2. Agence France-Presse, Phil Chetwynd, Global News Director (France)
3. Agência Pública, Natália Viana, Executive Director (Brazil)
4. Al Araby Al Jadeed, Hussam Kanafani, Director of Media Sector
5. Al Jazeera Center of Public Liberties & Human Rights, Sami Alhaj, Director (Qatar)
6. Al-Masdar Online, Ali al-Faqih, CEO (Yemen)
7. Alternative Press Syndicate (Lebanon)
8. Amazônia Real, Kátia Brasil, Director (Brazil)
9. Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), Rawan Daman, Director General

10. ARTICLE 19
11. Asia Pacific Report, David Robie, Editor (New Zealand)
12. Associated Press, Julie Pace, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President (USA)
13. Association of Foreign Press Correspondents, Nancy Prager-Kamel, Chair (USA)
14. Bahrain Press Association (Bahrain)
15. Bianet, Murat İnceoglu, Editor in Chief (Turkey)
16. BirGun Daily, Yasar Aydin, News Coordinator (Turkey)
17. Brecha, Betania Núñez, Journalistic Director (Uruguay)
18. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Deborah Turness, CEO, BBC News (UK)
19. Bulatlat, Ronalyn Olea, Editor-in-Chief (Philippines)
20. CamboJA, Nop Vy, Executive Director (Cambodia)
21. Casbah Tribune, Khaled Drareni, Editorial Director (Algeria)
22. Cedar Centre for Legal Studies (CCLS) (Lebanon)
23. Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), Milka Tadić Mijović, Editor-in-Chief
24. Churchill Otieno, Executive Director, Eastern Africa Editors Society & President, Africa Editors Forum (Kenya)
25. CNN, Mike McCarthy, EVP & Managing Editor (USA)
26. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Jodie Ginsberg, CEO
27. Community Peacemaker Teams (CPT) (Iraqi Kurdistan)
28. digital, Carlos F. Chamorro, Director (Nicaragua, in exile)
29. Connectas, Carlos Eduardo Huertas, Director (The Americas)
30. Daraj Media, Hazem al Amin, Editor-in-Chief, Alia Ibrahim, CEO and Diana Moukalled, Managing Editor (Lebanon)
31. Dawn newspaper, Zaffar Abbas, Editor (Pakistan)
32. De Último Minuto, Hector Romero, Director (Dominican Republic)
33. CR, Diego Delfino Machín, Director (Costa Rica)
34. Deník Referendum, Jakub Patocka, Editor in chief and publisher
35. Digital Radio-télévision DRTV, William Mouko Zinika Toung-Hou, Assistant Director of Information (Congo-Brazzaville)
36. Droub, Murtada Ahmed Mahmoud Koko, General Director (Sudan)
37. Efecto Cocuyo, Luz Mely Reyes, Director (Venezuela)
38. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) (Egypt)
39. El Ciudadano, Javier Pineda, Director (Chile)
40. El Diario de Hoy, Óscar Picardo Joao, Editorial Director (Salvador)
41. El Espectador, Fidel Cano Correa, Director (Colombia)
42. El Faro, Carlos Dada, Co-founder and Director (El Salvador)
43. El Mostrador, Héctor Cossio, Director (Chile)
44. El Sol de México, Martha Citlali Ramos, National Editorial Director (Mexico)
45. El Universal, David Aponte, Directeur général éditorial (Mexico)
46. elDiarioAR, Delfina Torres Cabreros, Journalistic Director (Argentina)

47. ENASS, Salaheddine Lemaizi, Director (Morocco)
48. Équipe Média, Mohamed Mayara, General Coordinator (Western Sahara)
49. European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Ricardo Gutiérrez, General Secretary
50. European Broadcasting Union, Liz Corbin, Director of News
51. European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Ena Bavčić, EU Advocacy Officer (Germany)
52. Eyewitness Media Group, Patrick Mayoyo, Director Editorial Innovations
53. Financial Times, Roula Khalaf, Editor (UK)
54. Forbidden Stories, Laurent Richard, Founder (France)
55. Foreign Press Association, Deborah Bonetti, Director (London)
56. Foreign Press Association, the board (Israel and the Palestinian Territories)
57. Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), Fisayo Soyombo, Founder and Editor (Nigeria)
58. France 24, Vanessa Burggraf, Director (France)
59. Free Press Unlimited, Ruth Kronenburg, Executive Director
60. Front Page Africa, Rodney Sieh, Editor in Chief and Editor (Liberia)
61. info, Randy Karl Louba, Director, (Gabon)
62. Geneva Health Files, Priti Patnaik, Founder
63. Geo News, Azhar Abbas, Managing Editor (Pakistan)
64. Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN), Emilia Diaz-Struck, Executive Director
65. Global Reporting Centre, Sharon Nadeem, Producer and Head of Partnerships
66. com, Nouhou Baldé, Founder and administrator, (Guinea)
67. Haaretz, Aluf Benn, Editor in Chief (Israel)
68. 7amleh, The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Nadim Nashif, Executive Director (Palestine/Israel)
69. Hildebrandt en sus trece, César Hildebrandt, Director, (Peru)
70. HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement, Mostafa Fouad, Executive Director
71. Independent Television News, Rachel Corp, Chief Executive (UK)
72. Inkyfada, Malek Khadhraoui, Director of publication (Tunisia)
73. International News Safety Institute (INSI), Elena Cosentino, Director (UK)
74. International Press Institute (IPI), Scott Griffen, Executive Director
75. iPolitics, Marco Vigliotti, Editor-in-Chief (Canada)
76. IWACU, Abbas Mbazumutima, Editor in Chief (Burundi)
77. Joliba, Birama Konaré, Director General (Mali)
78. ba, Semir Hambo, Editor in Chief (Bosnia-Herzegovina)
79. L’Alternative, Ferdinand Ayité, Publishing Director (Togo)
80. L’Événement, Moussa Aksar, Publishing Director (Niger)
81. L’Humanité, Maud Vergnol, Publishing Director (France)
82. La Voix de Djibouti, Mahamoud Djama, Publishing Director (Djibouti)
83. Le Jour, Haman Mana, Publication Director, (Cameroun)
84. Le Monde, Jérôme Fenoglio, Director (France)

85. Le Reporter, Aimé Kobo Nabaloum, Publishing Director (Burkina Faso)
86. Le Temps, Madeleine von Holzen, Editor-in-Chief ((Switzerland)
87. Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH) (Lebanon)
88. Luat Khoa, Trinh Huu Long, Editor-in-Chief (Vietnam)
89. Mada Masr, Lina Atallah, CEO (Egypt)
90. Magnum Photos, Giulietta Palumbo, Global editor director (France)
91. Mail & Guardian, Luke Feltham, Acting Editor-in-Chief (South Africa)
92. Malaysiakini, RK Anand, Executive Editor (Malaysia)
93. Mediapart, Carine Fouteau, Publishing Director (France)
94. MediaTown, Ashraf Mashrawi, Director (Palestine)
95. Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Erin Madeley, Chief Executive (Australia)
96. Mekong Review, Kirsten Han, Managing Editor (Singapore)
97. MENA Rights Group (Switzerland)
98. Mizzima Media, Soe Myint, Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief (Myanmar)
99. Mullithivu Press Club – Kanapathipillai Kumanan, Photojournalist and Convener (Sri Lanka)
100. Muwatin Media Network, Mohammed Al-Fazari, CEO & Editor in Chief (UK)
101. Monte Carlo Doualiya (MCD), Souad Al-Tayeb, Director (France)
102. National Public Radio (NPR) Edith Chapin, SVP & Editor in Chief (USA)
103. New Bloom Magazine, Brian Hioe, Founding Editor (Taïwan)
104. Nord Sud Quotidien, Raoul Hounsounou, Publishing Director (Benin)
105. OC Media, Mariam Nikuradze, Co-founder and Co-director (Georgia)
106. Organización Editorial Mexicana, Martha C. Ramos Sosa, Directora General Editorial (Mexico)
107. Ouestaf, Hamadou Tidiane Sy, Director (Sengal)
108. People Daily, Emeka Mayaka Gekara, Managing Editor (Kenya)
109. Photon Media, Shirley Ka Lai Leung, CEO (Hong Kong)
110. Plan V, Juan Carlos Calderón, Director (Equador)
111. Prachatai, Mutita Chuachang, Executive Editor (Thailand)
112. Premium Times, Musikilu Mojeed, Editor-in-Chief/Chief Operating Officer (Nigeria)
113. Pressafrik, Ibrahima Lissa Faye, Publishing Director (Senegal)
114. Prospect Magazine, Alan Rusbridger, Editor (UK)
115. Public Media Alliance, Kristian Porter, CEO (UK)
116. Pulitzer Center, Marina Walker Guevara, Executive Editor (USA)
117. Radio Bullets and war reporter, Barbara Schiavulli Director (Italy)
118. Rádio Ecclesia, Gaudêncio Yakuleingue, Directeur (Angola)
119. Radio Universidad de Chile, Patricio López, Director, (Chile)
120. Radio France Internationale (RFI), Jean-Marc Four, Director (France)
121. Radio France, Céline Pigalle, Director of Information (France)
122. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Thibaut Bruttin, Director General
123. RETE #NOBAVAGLIO, Marino Bisso, coordinator (Italy)

124. Reuters, Alessandra Galloni, Editor-in-chief
125. Rory Peck Trust, Jon Williams, Executive Director (UK)
126. Sikha Mekomit (Israel)
127. SMEX (Lebanon)
128. SMN24MEDIA, Kamal Siriwardana, Director News (Sri Lanka)
129. Society of Professional Journalists, Caroline Hendrie, Executive Director (USA)
130. Stabroek News, Anand Persaud, Director (Guyana)
131. Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, SCM (Syria)
132. Taz – die tageszeitung, Barbara Junge, Editor in Chief (Germany)
133. Tempo Digital, Wahyu Dhyatmika, Chief Executive Officer (Indonesia)
134. The Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association (AMEJA), Aymann Ismail, President, (USA)
135. The Globe and Mail & President, World Editors Forum (WAN-IFRA), David Walmsley, Editor-in-Chief, (Canada)
136. The Independent, Geordie Greig, Editor-in-Chief (UK)
137. The Intercept Brasil, Andrew Fishman, President & Co-Founder (Brazil)
138. The Legal Agenda (Lebanon)
139. The Magnet, Larry Moonze, Editor (Zambia)
140. The Nairobi Law Monthly, Mbugua Ng’ang’a, Editor-in-Chief (Kenya)
141. The New Arab, Hussam Kanafani, Director of Media Sector
142. The Point, Pap Saine, Publishing Director, (Gambia)
143. The Reckoning Project, Janine di Giovanni, CEO
144. The Samir Kassir Foundation, Ayman Mhanna, Executive Director (Lebanon)
145. The Shift, Caroline Muscat, Founder (Malta)
146. The Wire, Seema Chishti, Editor (India)
147. The World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), Vincent Peyrègne, CEO, Andrew Heslop, Executive Director Press Freedom
148. TV Slovenia, Ksenija Horvat, Director (Slovenia)
149. info, Lyas Hallas, Publication Director (Algeria)
150. news, Lkhagvatseren Batbayar, Editor-in-Chief (Mongolia)
151. Vikalpa – Sampath Samarakoon, Editor (Sri Lanka)
152. VRT NWS, Griet De Craen, Journalistic Director (Belgium)
153. Wattan Media Network, Muamar Orabi, Director General (Palestine)
154. Woz – die Wochenzeitung, Florian Keller, Daniela Janser, Kaspar Surber, Editorial Board (Switzerland)
155. +972 Magazine, Ghousoon Bisharat, Editor-in-chief (Israel/Palestine)

The post Free unrestricted access to Gaza: Reporters without Borders & CPJ issue open letter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A cursory look at the book Caste of Merit: Engineering Education in India, by Ajantha Subramanian, may help us understand how conditions that reproduce merit are shaped by caste. But being critical of oppression is not expected from someone who is trying to portray Brahmins as oppressed. Recently, Tiwari flaunted images of Brahmin-Gene-stickers as signs of wisdom, strength and pride—seeking Brahminical solidarity.

After hoarding a huge share of social advantages, the Brahminical-Gene is still so insecure. Even after sharing a miniscule percentage of high-stake jobs, the Brahminical-Gene needs to reassert its identity to secure jobs. Even after maintaining a complete monopoly over knowledge in the pre-colonial era, the Brahminical-Gene calls for a ‘fight-back’. And even after living out of other people’s alms and services for centuries—the privileged Brahminical-Gene is suspecting some disadvantage, because of what the caste census may reveal: the disproportionate nature power and privilege.

Why is the Brahminical-Gene so obsessed with ‘quota-people’? Why do they think that these underserving ‘quota-people’ have been snatching all their jobs and seats since the past seven decades? Can we even compare 70 years of affirmation against hundreds of years of hoarding resources and privileges?

A simple fact-check should be sufficient to shut the flawed upper caste phobia regarding ‘undeserving’ candidates getting everything on a platter while the general candidates ‘work harder’, yet fail to make the cut because of ‘quota’. Such an upper caste mentality seems to have forgotten the dismal number of government jobs and reserved seats that come under the ambit of reservation, if compared with the magnitude of private jobs along with the ocean of unorganised sector that constitutes over 95% of employment opportunities and remains outside the range of reservation. But the Brahminical-Gene loves to remain indifferent to such basic facts.

There is no other social institution that is so vehemently against the modern egalitarian agenda as much as the Brahminical caste system. It legitimised social inequality through ascriptive roles, endogamy, and everyday mutual repulsion. As an utterly oppressive system, it is heavily prejudiced in favour of those who belong to the upper and middle layers of the hierarchy, and invariably those who traditionally own land and other resources.

The upper castes are also the ones who have also successfully converted their caste-capital into clean livelihoods and modern skills, as sociologist Satish Deshpande has argued in his essay ‘Biography of General Quota’. But when others are still in the process of claiming their fair share of power, resources and opportunities, the Brahminical-gene is anguished. We need ‘Brahmin-Gene’-stickers to show who we are. Is that not how the Brahminical-Gene behaved for ages—with display of all kinds of marks on the bodies to demarcate themselves from the others?

Delegitimising the Other and Denial of Resources

The playing fields were never equal; and even now, they are far from being equal. Merit, like any other acquired commodity, is not meant for free distribution. Merit is designed to discredit the ‘others’. For example, Bharti’s character in Gilli Pucchi, a Hindi short film, directed by Neeraj Ghaywan, is a touching portrayal of how a Dalit blue-collar worker is considered absolutely incapable of making a transition to the white-collar segment—even though she possesses all the necessary qualifications. In comparison, an upper caste woman, with no proven qualification, is considered more suited. A Dalit’s claim on clean work faces social delegitimisation. Dismissing the ‘other’ is integral to the Brahminical-Gene.

The Brahminical-Gene is not confined to Brahmins alone. It is a genetic disorder of feeling superior, which is structurally embedded in the caste system. Myths and economic resources are often deployed to claim that “we are superior to our equals and equal to our superiors,” as sociologist Dipankar Gupta has argued.

The structure of caste system does not permit sharing of resources. If we turn to contemporary Tamil popular cinema, violent assertion of the marginalised is repeatedly premised on contestation over resources, which have been traditionally denied to them. Conflicts arise when such resources, such as land or educational rights, are demanded.

For instance, Tamil film, Asuran (2019), directed by Vetrimaaran, begins with a fight over water. Dominant castes, who have installed an electronic pump for irrigation, are oblivious to the fact that ground water is a shared resource and installation of the pump will reduce the water level. Contestation over water is temporarily resolved by compelling the ‘lowly lives’ (as they are addressed by the upper castes) to enter into an unfair compromise. The ‘lowly’ has to take his slipper off and beg and plead in front of all the upper caste households. Towards the end, there is a profound statement from the suffering protagonist, who advices his son to take up education. “Land can be seized; money can be snatched but education cannot be taken away,” he says. Therefore, it is in the Brahminical-Gene to make education less accessible.

Another Tamil film, Pariyerum Perumal (2018), written and directed by Mari Selvaraj, opens with an elaborate punishment scene, where a dog belonging to the Dalits is tied to the railway track to be squashed. The idea is to show ‘them their place’ for entering into the fields that originally belong them, but have been misappropriated by the upper castes. Here, too, education is seen as emancipatory. It is the only path to emerge out of the vicious cycle of subordination and denial.

But the educational system favours the privileged castes, making it difficult for a first-generation Dalit to complete a degree. If education is a legitimate means to be upwardly mobile, no wonder that it such a contested terrain. To maintain status-quo and restrict mobility—rights to admission must be reserved only for the inheritors of ‘merit’. Discrimination must be reasserted at every stage to make things difficult for others. The suffering protagonist utters with regret at the end that “as long as you are the way you are and expect me to be the dog, noting will change.” Expecting others to be subservient is an important component of the Brahminical-Gene.

In Maamannan (2023), another Tamil film by Mari Selvaraj, Dalit children are punished to death by inflicting stones on their heads because they were taking bath in a well that is reserved for upper castes. Later in the narrative, one of the survivors gets into a feud, when his father is denied the right to sit by the side of a leader from the dominant caste.

The symbolic contestations take a different dimension in Tamil fil, Karnan (2021), again directed by Selvaraj, where the male protagonist explains the actual reason for atrocities against them. He says that the upper castes are not irked because they demanded a bus stop in their village. Their dignity was ‘robbed’ because Dalits have decided to walk with their head held high and fight. It is that resistance, that irritates the upper caste egos more than the act of appropriating upper caste names. Conscious of hierarchy, the fragile Brahminical-Gene is prone to getting offended when others do not bow down.

‘A Different Kind of Justice’

The most nuanced and subtle expression of the distance between castes—paradoxically arrives after consensual sexual intimacy between a male Dalit police officer and a daughter of a higher ranked officer in the Hindi film, Bheed (2023) by Anubhav Sinha. The officer says: “My hands tremble while touching you. Justice is always in the hands of the strong; if it’s transferred to the hands of the weak, it’ll be a different kind of a justice”.

The distance, the denial, the difference, the demarcation, the deprivation, the dominance, and the dehumanisation has been so internalised over generations that the touch ‘trembles’, even after attaining some power and status guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the touch of the lower caste, after all. Justice is still not served by these hands even though it is allowed to touch.

At this point, it is relevant to cite a question that the Hindi film Article 15 (2019) throws at us: Do ‘they’ even exist in the definition of the nation? It is the nation that hides its deficiency of not providing safety equipment to Dalit drainage plumbers, and then accusing a social activist for writing content that instigates manual scavengers to commit suicide (Marathi film, Court, 2014)! To be dismissive of petty demises, defines the Brahminical-Gene.

The privileged Brahminical-Gene despises anything that would quantify their accumulated privilege at the cost of others. Disparities and disproportionate arrangements would be validated by numbers. There will be legitimate demands to extend and expand the scope of reservation. Hence, the Brahminical-Gene is averse to caste census.

Serving social justice is not in the DNA of the Brahmin-Gene. It wants to own ‘merit’ and disown the ethical baggage of social justice. Therefore, the constitution of the Brahminical-Gene is essentially un-constitutional.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Decoding Brahminical-Gene Through Popular Films appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking this citizens’ monitoring several steps further, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has filed complaints against six mainstream Indian news channels, Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, India TV, and News18 this week. The complaints detail three key instances of misinformation. Five channels – Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV – broadcasted a four-year-old video of Israel’s Iron Dome, falsely presenting it as recent footage of Indian air defence systems in Jaisalmer. These channels claimed the footage showed India thwarting Pakistani aerial threats.

Separately, News18 falsely identified Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, an Indian religious scholar and educator, as a Pakistani terrorist killed in an Indian airstrike. News18’s report, titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor,” claimed Iqbal was a top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander. CJP’s complaint iterated that Iqbal was not a terrorist, claims that the unfortunate teacher’s family had stated on social media and even the Poonch police had clarified: Maulana Iqbal had died in cross-border shelling while adding relevant evidence in its complaint against the channels for its inaccurate broadcast.

Additionally, Aaj Tak broadcasted old footage of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, falsely claiming it showed Indian attacks on Pakistan during “Operation Sindoor”. CJP’s complaints highlight serious ethical breaches, including the use of misleading visuals, sensationalist commentary, and theatrical framing to manipulate public perception. CJP is demanding on-air corrections, public apologies, and the removal of the misleading content.

Fake War Footage: Old Israeli defence videos masqueraded as airstrikes in Jaisalmer

During a critical moment of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan in May 2025, multiple mainstream Indian news channels — including Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV — broadcasted a four-year-old video showing Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system. These visuals were falsely presented as recent, exclusive footage of Indian air defence systems thwarting Pakistani aerial threats in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

News channels misrepresent outdated foreign footage as breaking war coverage

Aaj Tak

On May 14, CJP filed a complaint with Aaj Tak regarding a misrepresented broadcast, as on May 9, Aaj Tak aired a show hosted by senior anchor Anjana Om Kashyap under the sensational title, “पाकिस्तान पर भारत पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान [India’s All-Around Attack on Pakistan, Heavy Losses in Lahore-Karachi].” Kashyap claimed the visuals depicted a Pakistani drone attack being repelled in Jaisalmer. The same footage was shown by anchor Shweta Singh, again framed as evidence of India’s successful defence.

Archived combat footage passed off as real-time strikes during ‘Operation Sindoor’: Aaj Tak uses Israeli airstrike footage to claim Indian attacks on Pakistan

Similarly, as reports of India’s military strikes under “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, 2025, began to surface, Aaj Tak broadcast visuals that allegedly showed seven Indian missiles being launched, claiming they were live visuals from Bahawalpur, Pakistan — a hub of terrorist activity. The footage was shared both on air and on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), captioned “ऑपरेशन सिंदूर | ऐसे ध्वस्त हुआ जैश का आतंकी अड्डा [Operation Sindoor | How the Jaish Terrorist Base Was Destroyed].”

ऑपरेशन सिंदूर | ऐसे ध्वस्त हुआ जैश का आतंकी अड्डा #OperationSindoor #Pakistan #IndianArmy #IndianAirforce #IndiaStrikesTerroristan #PahalgamTerrorAttack | @anjanaomkashyap pic.twitter.com/DxwLnhmDUr

— AajTak (@aajtak) May 7, 2025

However, reverse image searches revealed that these visuals were not recent, nor were they connected to any Indian military action. Instead, they were taken from a report by Sputnik Armenia published on October 13, 2023, depicting Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The original footage was also corroborated by the Israeli Air Force’s own records and shared on their official Facebook page.

Fact-checkers debunk false Media claims

Further confirmation came from multiple sources, including Al Mayadeen and BBC journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh, CJP’s complaint described this as not merely an error but a calculated attempt to dramatise the news cycle.  The same video resurfaced a few days later and was used by the media outlet Al Mayadeen in their video report on bombings in Gaza on October 23, 2023.

In doing so, the channel undermined public trust, misinformed citizens about the reality of ongoing military operations, and potentially destabilised diplomatic efforts through the spread of inflammatory, inaccurate content.

CJP in its complaint to Aaj Tak, also mentioned other social media accounts had also shared the identical video on October 13, 2023. Links to these X posts are available:

Heavy Israeli airstrikes continued in the Gaza Strip tonight. pic.twitter.com/nVG7x0qVv1

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (BlueSky too) (@Archer83Able) October 12, 2023

Israel is currently carrying out a MASSIVE airstrike on Gaza. pic.twitter.com/yqi0zBzfue

— Censored Men (@CensoredMen) October 12, 2023

#IsraelPalestineConflict Israel Forces attack Gaza.https://t.co/kt7X1rLBKP #Israel #IsraelFightsBack #Gaza #GazaUnderAttack #Hamas_is_ISIS #Hamas #HamasMassacre #HamasTerrorism #HamasISIS #Palestine #PalestineUnderAttack #palastine #WestBank pic.twitter.com/6dMMGEXTxA

— People’s Eye (@eye_peoples) October 13, 2023

Gaza |

Intense bombings are now striking Gaza, causing significant tremors. In the past two hours alone, Israeli warplanes have claimed the lives of 40 Palestinians. pic.twitter.com/8PPTRry05k

— Younis Tirawi | يونس (@ytirawi) October 12, 2023

These broadcasts, as outlined in the CJP’s complaint to above channels, reflect systemic problems in how certain mainstream media outlets handle news during national crises. From falsifying battlefield footage to wrongfully branding civilians as terrorists, and recycling old foreign war clips as current Indian military action, the channels prioritised sensationalism over accuracy.

The complaint may be read here:

ABP News

On May 15, 2025, ABP News also faced CJP’s complaint with its May 8, 2025 bulletin titled “India Pakistan War Update: श्रीनगर और लुधियाना में ब्लैक आउट.” Through the broadcast, Anchor Chitra Tripathi and a field reporter stated unequivocally that a Pakistani drone strike had just been neutralised in Jaisalmer using Indian defence systems. ABP presented them with no disclaimers, context, or source attribution.

The channel presented the visuals, which bore a striking resemblance to Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system in action, as exclusive footage originating from Jaisalmer and depicting events that had occurred “a short while ago.” This purported visual evidence was displayed throughout a substantial portion of the broadcast, from the 00:01 to the 05:29 timestamp. Adding to the gravity of the claim, the anchor, Chitra Tripathi, explicitly stated that a “drone attack happened in Jaisalmer.”

Furthermore, the reporting included a correspondent who affirmed that “the Indian missiles/counter drone system destroyed the drone attack” [Time Stamp: 02:30 – 03:30]. By presenting unverified and, as later revealed, outdated footage as a real-time depiction of a critical security event in a sensitive border region, ABP News engaged in a serious act of misrepresentation and disseminated potentially inflammatory misinformation to its viewers. This broadcast had the potential to significantly shape public perception during a period of heightened national anxiety, CJP’s complaint mentioned

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “Despite this, ABP News aired the video as breaking and exclusive news footage, implicitly suggesting to viewers that Indian air defence forces had successfully repelled an actual Pakistani air attack. No disclaimers, source identification, or verification notes were presented either during or after the broadcast. The footage was shared with a tone of real-time urgency, further misleading the public into believing that an active military escalation was underway.”

The complaint may be read here:

Times Now Navbharat

On May 15, CJP filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat for its May 9 broadcast, titled “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’ [U.S. statement on the India-Pakistan war: ‘We cannot stop India].” CJP mentioned that the broadcast of India TV amplified similar claims, airing the same misleading visuals on May 9 under the tag “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING.” The channel claimed Pakistani strikes had been intercepted in Jaisalmer, echoing the others’ false narratives.

The complaint may be read here:

NDTV

On May 15, CJP filed a complaint with NDTV for its May 8 broadcast nearly identical visuals under the headline “India-Pakistan Tension: पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ भारत का जवाबी हमला शुरू.” Again, the footage was presented without context, implying a real-time military development.

The complaint may be read here:

India TV

On May 16, CJP filed a complaint with India TV over the broadcast of inaccurate and misleading visuals. CJP finds that the channel on May 9 falsely claimed that Pakistani drones were shot down in Ramgarh, Jaisalmer. while the channel did not explicitly state that the video footage was from Ramgarh, Jaisalmer, it was presented alongside a report alleging that Pakistani drones had been intercepted in the area— without any disclaimer or clarification.

This created a misleading impression that the visuals were authentic, recent, and directly related to the reported incident, particularly within the context of escalating India-Pakistan tensions. The lack of any on-screen disclaimer or contextual clarification further supported this illusion, making it appear as though viewers were witnessing real-time footage of Indian forces responding to a Pakistani attack.

Such tactics exploit the emotive power of visuals for sensational effect, prioritising ratings over responsibility. In a volatile geopolitical climate, this kind of reporting is not only ethically indefensible but socially dangerous. It undermines public trust in the media, distorts the reality of conflict, and risks escalating tensions based on manufactured impressions.

The complaint may be read here:

CJP flags intentional misinformation and potential public harm and panic

In its complaints to the channels, CJP detailed how the broadcasts misinformed and misled viewers by using dramatic, outdated footage to fabricate a false narrative of live military engagement. CJP asserted that this went beyond mere editorial oversight, constituting a serious ethical breach. The combination of misleading visuals, sensationalist commentary, and theatrical framing served to manipulate public perception and exploit viewers’ emotions amid a period of real geopolitical tension.

Original video was uploaded to YouTube channel named @NSFchannel on May 11, 2021

CJP in its complaint against six mainstream news channels, cited an investigation by independent fact-checking organisation Alt News, titled “Aaj Tak, NDTV, Times Now, News18 & others ran 4-yr-old video as aerial fight over Jaisalmer.“ The fact-check revealed that the video aired by these channels as supposed footage of India’s air defence system intercepting Pakistani aerial threats was originally uploaded to YouTube on May 11, 2021, by a channel named NSF Channel.

The original caption clearly identified the visuals as showing Israel’s Iron Dome in action. Despite this information being publicly available for years, the news channels misleadingly presented the clip during heightened India-Pakistan tensions in May 2025, risking public panic, misinformation, and further hostility.

While Alt News could not independently confirm that the footage showed the Iron Dome specifically, it conclusively established that the video was at least four years old and entirely unrelated to the 2025 conflict, making its use by the news channels a serious breach of journalistic integrity.

Misidentifying an Indian educator as a Pakistani terrorist: a dangerous act of defamation: News18 insensitively labels civilian death as terror elimination

On May 14 (2025), CJP also sent a formal complaint to News 18, as on May 7, 2025, News18 aired a segment titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal |India Pak War,” claiming that a top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander named Mohammad Iqbal had been killed in an Indian airstrike. This “most-wanted terrorist,” the report alleged, had been neutralised during “Operation Sindoor.”

Link for the contentious programme- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swmMklh41No

CJP’s submission in its complaint reiterated that in reality, Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal was not a terrorist but a religious scholar and educator from Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir. He taught at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom and had no ties to any militant organisation. He tragically lost his life in cross-border shelling — not during an anti-terror operation — contrary to what several media outlets falsely reported.

According to the CJP complaint, independent fact-checks and official confirmations, including from the district police, have unequivocally established that he had no links to militancy. Media platforms misappropriated his identity, even using an image originally posted in a condolence message by Jamia’s deputy administrator, Mr. Sayeed Ahmed Habib. His grieving family, including brother-in-law Ishaq Khayan and brother Qari Mohammad Farookh, have condemned the coverage as defamatory and deeply distressing.

In its complaints, CJP cited the Alt News fact-check published on May 10, 2025, titled “His name was Qari Mohammad Iqbal. He was not a terrorist.” In response to the misinformation, CJP has added the case to its complaint against the circulation of fake news and communal profiling by certain media houses.

Facts vs Fabrication: Media’s reckless misreporting exposed

CJP’s complaint to channels included findings from various independent fact-checkers and official confirmations that debunked News18’s claim. Local police authorities, his family, and his colleagues confirmed that Qari Iqbal was not involved in any unlawful activities. The image used by the channel was originally part of a condolence message from a colleague, Sayeed Ahmed Habib.

In an official statement, Jamia Zia Ul Uloom, the institution where Iqbal worked, called the portrayal “shameful” and “deeply regrettable.” They demanded a public apology from the channels that misreported the story and warned of legal action if no corrective steps were taken.

Family demands strict action against those spreading misinformation

Qari Mohammad Iqbal’s family has demanded strict action against those spreading misinformation.

“We were already in mourning, and now this false narrative has added to our pain. Sections of the ‘Godi media’ are falsely labeling him as a Pakistani terrorist, which is absolutely baseless. We strongly condemn this defamation and appeal to the District Collector (DC Saab) to take immediate and appropriate action,” the family stated.

Qari Iqbal Mohammad’s family demands action against ‘Godi media’ for falsely labelling him a Pakistani terrorist.

They claimed that he was killed in Indian airstrikes in Pakistan.

Fact: He was killed in Pakistani shelling in Poonch. pic.twitter.com/cXpD2RYXaQ

— Alishan Jafri (@alishan_jafri) May 8, 2025

Maulana Mohd Iqbal had no terror links: district Poonch police

In response to misinformation circulating on social media and certain digital platforms, Poonch Police, through its official X handle, issued a clear and firm statement addressing the matter.

“Poonch Police refutes fake news circulating about the death of Maulana Mohd Iqbal in cross-border shelling. He had no terror links. Misreporting causes panic and legal action will follow against those spreading misinformation,” the post read.

Poonch Police refutes fake news circulating about the death of Maulana Mohd Iqbal in cross-border shelling. He had no terror links. Misreporting causes panic and Legal action will follow against those spreading misinformation. @JmuKmrPolice @ZPHQJammu @digrprange

— DISTRICT POLICE POONCH (@Poonch_Police) May 8, 2025

The clarification comes amid a surge in unverified reports alleging that Maulana Mohd Iqbal, a respected local religious figure, was killed in cross-border shelling and had affiliations with terror groups — both claims now officially denied.

The incident reveals a disturbing tendency in segments of the news channels, the urge to capitalise on conflict by rushing to label civilians as enemies. This not only violates journalistic ethics but inflicts real harm on grieving families and distorts the facts on the ground, CJP strongly argued in its complaints

Violations of NBDSA Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards

Violation of Fundamental Principles

The complaints submitted by CJP highlights multiple violations of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards by Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, and News18. Citing Section 1 – Fundamental Principles of the Code, the complaints underscore that professional electronic journalists are obligated to act as trustees of public interest, and to “seek the truth and report it fairly with integrity and independence.” This obligation includes ensuring the dissemination of verified and accurate information, enabling the public to form their own opinions based on facts, and being accountable to the citizenry by not misleading them, especially during sensitive national moments.

However, it was found that in the broadcasts aired by the aforementioned channels, a video of unverified origin—purportedly showing a Pakistani air attack foiled in Jaisalmer—was broadcast without authentication. In doing so, the channels compromised accuracy by failing to verify the origin or authenticity of the footage prior to airing, thereby misleading audiences and violating the ethical foundations of journalism meant to serve the public interest.

The complaints noted that this constituted a betrayal of the media’s role as a platform for truthful and balanced information, and described it as a grave dereliction of professional responsibility, particularly during a conflict scenario where misinformation can easily shape public perception, trigger mass fear, or escalate geopolitical tensions.

Breach of Principles of Self-Regulation and National Security

Further, under Section 2 – Principles of Self-Regulation, it was found that the broadcasters violated norms concerning impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. The complaints emphasised that while 24-hour news channels are expected to operate with speed, accuracy and balance must take precedence. In the May 9, 2025 broadcast, the channels reportedly prioritised sensationalism over verified information. The use of inaccurate and outdated footage as alleged real-time visuals demonstrated a reckless disregard for factual accuracy and ethical broadcasting standards. No clarifications or corrective statements were issued, thereby compounding the breach of accountability.

Additionally, the complaint raised concerns under the guidelines on reporting crime and violence, stating that the channels aired visuals originally depicting Israeli military operations while falsely presenting them as Indian actions.

This misrepresentation glorified violent retaliation and military aggression, and the use of graphic imagery combined with a triumphant tone amounted to glamorisation of cross-border violence, potentially inciting emotional and nationalistic fervour among viewers. The complaints also stated that the portrayal of a foreign missile defence system as an Indian military success misled the public and desensitised audiences to the real dangers of armed conflict by falsely boosting perceptions of India’s defence capabilities.

Moreover, CJP’s complaints cited violations related to national security, noting that the dissemination of false information during an already volatile military situation between India and Pakistan risked endangering operational confidentiality and public safety. By misreporting the scale and location of military operations and falsely broadcasting visuals of active air defence systems, the channels undermined diplomatic efforts and national security interests.

CJP concluded that such actions had the potential to mislead international observers, escalate bilateral tensions, and severely compromise journalistic responsibility in moments of national significance.

Violation of government advisories

This coverage is also in direct violation of multiple advisories issued by government authorities

including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting:

“Advisory on live/real-time coverage of defence operations (MIB Advisory dated April 25, 2025): All media channels, digital platforms and individuals are advised to refrain from live coverage or real-time reporting of defence operations and movement of security forces. Disclosure of such sensitive or source-based information may jeopardise operational effectiveness.”

The news channels, in their rush to report “military actions,” irresponsibly broadcasted speculative and unverified visuals during prime-time programming, falsely portraying old footage from a different conflict zone as evidence of India’s military strikes over Pakistan’s drone. This not only misled the public but also potentially compromised operational and national security.

Advisory to counter disinformation during sensitive times

CJP stated that, through social media platforms, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had urged citizens to, in sensitive times like these, be wary of disinformation being spread on social media. The advisory emphasised verifying any piece of news, image, or video before sharing or forwarding.

The broadcast in question blatantly disregarded this advisory by airing unverified and repurposed footage — originally the Iron Dome from 2021 — and falsely presenting as authentic visuals from an ongoing India-Pakistan conflict. This constitutes a serious breach of ethical responsibility, especially during heightened national tension.

In sensitive times like these, it is necessary to be wary of disinformation being spread on social media.

Always verify any piece of news, image, or video before you forward.

If you come across suspicious or misleading content, report it to @PIBFactCheck #FactCheck… pic.twitter.com/UBNCdvy5gB

— Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (@MIB_India) May 9, 2025

CJP highlights potential consequences of irresponsible coverage

The recent use of misleading and outdated footage by major news channels such as AAJ Tak, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, ABP News, and News18 constitutes a serious violation of journalistic ethics and regulatory standards. These channels have relied on three key forms of misinformation: the airing of old Israeli defence videos passed off as Indian airstrikes, the wrongful identification of an Indian educator as a Pakistani terrorist, and the misrepresentation of archived combat footage as real-time military operations during ‘Operation Sindoor’. These missteps form the basis of six core complaints:

1.  Fake War Footage: The channels aired outdated Israeli airstrike and iron dome videos, misidentifying them as Indian airstrikes in Jaisalmer, misleading the public during a time of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan.
2.  Dangerous Defamation: An Indian educator was falsely labelled as a Pakistani terrorist, a gross act of defamation that puts innocent lives at risk.
3.  Erroneous Terrorism Reporting: News 18 wrongly portrayed civilian deaths as the elimination of terrorists, perpetuating dangerous narratives and misinformation.

This type of misreporting is deeply concerning, as it not only escalates public panic but also influences national sentiment with falsehoods, contributing to a climate of fear and hostility. Senior journalists, who are typically trusted by the public for accurate reporting, further amplify the damage by failing to properly verify the footage. Basic checks, such as reverse image searches, could have easily identified the true origins of the material, but these were overlooked.

CJP asserted that, the consequences of such reckless coverage are severe. These actions risk destabilising regional diplomatic relations, undermine public trust in the media, and trivialise the suffering caused by real global conflicts. Given the responsibility of the media to inform the public with accuracy and fairness, especially during sensitive geopolitical moments, these channels have failed to uphold their duty, deepening scepticism toward legitimate news and paving the way for further disinformation. The channels must act promptly to remove these videos and issue a public apology, ensuring that only verified, factual content is broadcast during national crises.

CJP urged immediate action from all channels

In light of the serious violations outlined, CJP demands immediate corrective and restorative actions from the six channels involved — AAJ Tak, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, ABP News, and News18:

• Corrigendum and on-air correction: Acknowledge and correct the false claims aired on the channels, through on-air corrections with equal prominence and visibility as the original segments. we must be scheduled to attract maximum viewer attention, and not relegated to off-peak timeslots.
• Public apology to viewers and affected communities: A formal, unconditional apology must be issued by the channels, both on-air and on all digital platforms, for the dissemination of false and misleading visuals and the resultant panic and misinformation caused.
• Immediate removal of the broadcast videos and related content from the channels must be permanently removed from all platforms, including YouTube and X, to prevent continued circulation of this misinformation

Over News18’s misreporting, CJP insists on a formal and unconditional apology. This apology must be prominently broadcast on-air and across all digital platforms, directly addressing the profound pain and defamation inflicted upon the family and the community of Poonch, CJP asked

Related:

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post Apology and Accountability: CJP files complaint with six news channels for airing misleading war clips, false terror claims in ‘Operation Sindoor’ coverage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many have heralded this shift as a democratisation of media—a breaking down of the gatekeeping walls that allowed only a select few to shape the public narrative. Politicians now tweet their policy updates, address voters directly on YouTube, and make carefully curated appearances on influencer podcasts rather than press conferences. There’s even a growing belief that this new media, raw and seemingly more “authentic,” will shoulder the journalistic responsibility left vacant by legacy media.

But this belief deserves a pause, or at least a much cautious thought.

The truth is a large section of India’s new media creators are not journalists—nor do they claim to be. They are “content creators,” and that distinction matters. Of course, there are journalists on social media who are not solely content creators. Journalists like Ravish Kumar have been pushed out of the traditional media system and have found a way to do their journalistic content on social media. Channels like The Wire etc. produce news content with journalistic intent. This article is not about them. However, this article is about those creators on social media who engage with advertisers/sponsors and generate content including news content but do not call themselves journalists.

Take Samdish Bhatia, a widely popular YouTube figure known for intriguing and witty political interviews and videos of his travels across the country. He is articulate, progressive, and clearly influential. But even he does not identify as a journalist. He calls himself as a content creator. That is not a knock against him or his work. It is a recognition of the difference in mandate. Journalism, at its core, is about accountability—of those in power, of systems, of narratives. Content creation, however, is about engagement, reach, and often—neutrality that does not ruffle feathers. Truth be told, if people who call themselves journalists are not being held accountable as they should be, it is a rather hard task to hold social media content creators accountable.

And it is not just neutrality. Many of the most visible faces in the new Indian social media ecosystem are unabashedly capitalist and pro-market. Their discussions are less about the structural problems that plague India—such as homelessness, unemployment, agrarian distress—and more about how to “capitalize” on these contexts. So, while homelessness continues to plague millions, the conversations in popular podcasts revolve around real estate  as an investment opportunity. Instead of interrogating inequality, there are video essays on personal finance, sponsored by a company or two.

This tone fits comfortably within the vision of a country aspiring to produce unicorn start-ups and billion-dollar tech moguls. Indeed, some of these billionaires have now become social media personalities themselves. Nikhil Kamath, co-founder of Zerodha, is a case in point. With little precedent, he was granted a rare, exclusive interview-podcast with the Prime Minister of India ahead of the Delhi Assembly Elections—a privilege rarely extended to even the editors of major TV news channels. Given Mr. Kamath’s power as a billionaire himself, he also did interviews with personalities such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates, New Zealand Prime Minster Christopher Luxon and Industrialist Kumar Birla.

One must ask: when billionaires with government proximity become the popular voices of public discourse on social media, are we truly breaking away from “Godi Media,” or are we just replacing it with a new, glossier version that’s algorithmically friendlier and better branded? More importantly, will this new media ask the questions that the traditional media was supposed to ask or even attempt at creating ‘content’ around the issues?

Take Mr. Modi’s interview with Mr. Kamath for example. While discussing ideologies and idealism, Mr. Modi mentions Mahatma Gandhi and Savarkar in the same breath to remark that both had the same ideal of freedom with different paths. In an ideal world, this would have been met with another question about Savarkar’s credentials as a freedom fighter par Gandhi, or at least with a remark. What we get is Mr. Kamath continuing with next question as to what to do when someone trolls and how to develop a thick skin?

Or take another question about politics and money. The data on electoral bonds came out in 2024 but Mr. Kamath could not ask the question, at least on what Mr. Modi thinks of electoral bonds. Instead, he asks about how to facilitate youth entering politics given the huge amounts of money it takes to be in politics!

There’s also another curious and worrying trend: prominent intellectuals and creators within these spaces who align with the ruling ideology often criticize the opposition or even level attacks against dissenters with unchecked impunity. An advocate, who is one of the most popular voices on social media, aligned with the views of ruling establishment  was asked on ‘The Ranveer Show’— “3 Indians that should leave India and never return are?” and the advocate said the names of news presenter Barkha Dutt, Professors Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar. The show’s host was the news cycle’s recent villain Ranveer Allahbadia. To keep up with the illusion of a critical and engaging podcast, the host asks “Why?” only to have the advocate say that these three have harmed Indian interests in their own ways and that they have done grave injustice to facts, truths and integrity. In the interest of critical engagement, one would expect the host to ask “How?” but he comfortably moves on to the next question.

This tells us two things. One, it was a bizarre question tailored to get a certain provocative answer. Two, it was not asked to critically engage with it. It was merely done to be performative

The bar for evidence is low. The responsibility to inform is often secondary to the need to perform.

Ranveer Allahbadia and another content creator Raj Shamani were some of the selected content creators who were given the opportunities to do interviews with union ministers like S. Jai Shankar and Nitin Gadkari. They were also attendees—Raj Shamani being the creator to introduce Mr. Modi, Ranveer Allahbadia being the recipient of the Disruptor of the Year Award—at the National Creators Awards organised in March 2024, just before the 2024 General Elections. Raj Shamani also hosted Arvind Kejriwal for an interview before the Delhi Elections.

This is not an allegation of social media creators selling space on their platforms to the government. There is no indication as of now. However, it is an observation of how close they are willing to be with power and how that hampers their capacity to be neutral, and courageous enough to ask questions, engagingly sharp ones if not tough ones.

This is also not a personal attack on these individuals. Many of them are intelligent, talented, and operate in good faith. But collectively, they form a media ecosystem that is, for the most part, timid when it comes to holding power accountable. And that makes them complicit—not by intent, but by design.

There is an imminent need to resist the temptation to confuse visibility with credibility. Just because a YouTube video racks up a million views or is made by a Billionaire does not mean it is accountable. Just because an influencer is articulate does not mean they are committed to the truth. Just because the production is slick does not mean the content is rigorous.

Social media is not journalism. It can include journalism, but it is not structurally bound to its principles. And in a country like India, where power is both opaque and muscular, the distinction between the two is not just academic—it’s existential for democracy.
So yes, we should celebrate the diversity of voices that social media enables. But we should also be wary—especially of the ones that get a little too close to power. Especially the ones that never ask hard questions. Especially the ones that call themselves everything—except journalists.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

BJP spreading sea of hatred on social media before Jharkhand elections, ECI mum – shocking facts revealed in research report

Bihar: How festival holidays become target of fake news

NBDSA acts on CJP’s complaint, directs News18 to take down fake news video about bombing in WB school

The post Treading Carefully: Illusion of Accountability in an age of social media content creation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Siddharth Varadarajan, founder of The Wire, has condemned the actions against his platform and Bhasin’s account. He called the blocking of the website and account a clear violation of press freedom in India. Varadarajan’s statement read:

“Dear readers of The Wire, in a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to thewire.in across India.”

Dear Readers of The Wire In a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to https://t.co/BCdnZhucBj across India. + pic.twitter.com/YO0TlQkVVL

— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) May 9, 2025

The Chennai Press Club has, in a strong statement condemned the blocking of both The Wire and Maktoob Media

The statement of the Chennai press club may be read below

Chief Minister Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin, in strong words, condemned the action. “Silencing the media at a critical juncture undermines the spirit of democracy. I hope the Union government reconsiders and lifts the ban on @thewire_inLet not press freedom be strangled in the world’s largest democracy.

Silencing the media at a critical juncture undermines the spirit of democracy. I hope the Union government reconsiders and lifts the ban on @thewire_in.

Let not press freedom be strangled in the world’s largest democracy. https://t.co/qf1NyAyYTg

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) May 9, 2025

Comrade MA Baby, newly elected general secretary of the CPI (M) has strongly condemned the act of censorship in a tweet. “When media outlets that are continuously peddling fake news on #OperationSindoor are being allowed to run uninterrupted, credible news portals are being blocked. Such attacks on the freedom of the press are not acceptable, Baby wrote.

Strongly condemn the censorship of The Wire. When media outlets that are continuously peddling fake news on #OperationSindoor are being allowed to run uninterrupted, credible news portals are being blocked. Such attacks on the freedom of the press are not acceptable.@thewire_in https://t.co/hFc4MAqRUT

— M A Baby (@MABABYCPIM) May 9, 2025

Seema Chisty, editor at The Wire tweeted, “Why freedom of the Press matters to non-press janta is an essay. But briefly – because voices of the Press are canaries in the coalmine. What protects the Press in India is what protects the average citizen. Your allowing it to get gagged is allowing yourself to go down”

Why freedom of the Press matters to non-press janta is an essay.

But briefly – because voices of the Press are canaries in the coalmine.

What protects the Press in India is what protects the average citizen. Your allowing it to get gagged is allowing yourself to go down

— Seema Chishti (@seemay) May 9, 2025

Digipub Condemns Blocking of The Wire’s Website, CPI’s D. Raja Writes to Ashwini Vaishnaw

‘We urge the Ministry to act decisively against channels and platforms that promote communal hatred and spread falsehoods. Access must be restored to platforms which are responsible and act to maintain national unity.’

Following the government blocking users’ access to the website of The Wire, Communist Party of India general secretary D. Raja has written to Union minister of information and broadcasting while digital news body Digipub has condemned the move.

The Wire has learnt that the block on its website is according to the orders of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Various internet service providers are saying multiple things.

Raja’s letter

In his letter to minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, D. Raja has highlighted how misinformation was allowed to run rampant during ‘Operation Sindoor’.

I, on behalf of the Communist Party of India, register my deep concern over the inflammatory and misleading content being aired by several television news channels following Operation Sindoor. While the nation stands united against terrorism, we are witnessing a dangerous trend where certain channels are communalising the issue, spreading unverified claims, and promoting war hysteria—without any official confirmation from the Government or Armed Forces.

Raja said that such coverage creates panic and fear. Here, he mentioned that responsible news portals like The Wire have been blocked, in contrast.

Such coverage not only undermines responsible journalism but also poses a direct threat to national cohesion. Warmongering and targeting of communities erode trust, create fear among citizens, and play into the hands of those who seek to destabilize the country. Public anxiety is being inflamed, not addressed. Even public broadcasters have echoed this irresponsible tone, failing the basic duty of informing people with accuracy and dignity. The Armed Forces themselves had to counter claims made by such news channels on many occasions. At the same time, access to responsible news portals like TheWire.in has been blocked.

Raja noted that the CPI rejected attempts to turn the tragedy of Pahalgam into a spectacle of hate and division. “Conflict must not become a tool to distract from facts or delegitimize fellow citizens. The cost of such narratives is paid by ordinary people in the form of insecurity, polarization, and long-term damage to the democratic fabric,” he wrote.

He urged for decisive communication from the government.

We urge the Ministry to act decisively against channels and platforms that promote communal hatred and spread falsehoods. Access must be restored to platforms which are responsible and act to maintain national unity. We also call for coordinated and periodic, fact-based briefings from your Ministry, in consultation with the ministries of Defence, Home Affairs, and External Affairs, to counter misinformation and provide the public with credible updates.

Raja added that it is rightly said that truth is the first casualty of war, but “today, truth is being sacrificed even before a war exists—buried under noise, prejudice, and sensationalism.”

The airwaves must not become battlegrounds of distortion when the nation needs calm and clarity. We hope this urgent and pressing matter concerning national unity in challenging times will find your immediate attention.

Digipub statement

DIGIPUB, a group of digital news websites of which The Wire is a member, said that it strongly condemns the blocking of The Wire’s website. It said:

DIGIPUB’s founding member The Wire has released a statement on Friday, May 9 stating that the access to their website has been blocked by some Internet Service Providers following government orders. One of the ISPs says the block has been done by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under the IT Act, 2000.

If the Indian government has indeed blocked access to The Wire, then it is a blatant attack on press freedom. Silencing independent media doesn’t protect democracy-it weakens it.

The statement noted that this “is a critical time for the nation and such actions impede rational thinking. The urgency and horrors of battle cannot be used as an excuse to silence independent journalism.”

It added that a free media is the best antidote to misinformation and fake news and said:

“We demand the immediate reversal of such censorship, the orders for which have not even been made public. The Indian Government must uphold constitutional values of free speech and restore unrestricted access to independent media democracy cannot survive in silence.”

Related:

Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech

EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle

India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava

The post Censorship: The Wire, India’s credible news and analysis portal blocked, widespread condemnation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This long analysis by the CJP Hate Watch team examines and analyses this new and disturbing phenomenon.

Also read: Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news and CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: A look at the repeated violation of ethics and guidelines by Indian television channels

Through the calculated use of misleading clickbait, visuals, and text, there is a persistent effort to jeopardise the nation’s communal harmony and even directly provoke violence. Channels like Zee News, Times Now Navbharat, Aaj Tak, and News 18 India have come under scrutiny for their reporting practices. Orders passed by the NBDSA in 2022, 2023, 2024 –obtained by CJP–point to this trend.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

Now, in what appears to be a careful bid to escape this monitoring –on the basis of guidelines that have evolved to ensure neutrality in portrayal of issues and their analysis/interpretation – channels have shifted tack: several of them are, arguably and disproportionately using images featuring prominent Muslim politicians like Asaduddin Owaisi to visually frame any news related to the Muslim community, regardless of his direct involvement in the same. This visual shorthand, clearly perpetuates a subtle yet insidious stereotype, linking diverse issues to a singular, conservative and aggressive Muslim identity. Whereas our team’s close and analytical look at the entire content in the slow, or the role of the anchor appears ‘neutral’, the trigger lies in the thumbnail, ensuring click-baits.

Another example is the say, the reporting on recent incidents like the recent Murshidabad violence (post the passage of the controversial Waqf Amendment Act of 2025) that raises serious questions about journalistic ethics. The evident overuse of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s image in thumbnails and tickers, often accompanied by trigger-phrases signifying approval, like “Yogi Action” or “Yogi Style Action”– even when the news pertains to events outside his jurisdiction—points to attempts to inject a specific aggressive, bullying narrative. Given Adityanath’s strongman image and association with vituperative Hindu nationalism, this visual framing appears designed to evoke a particular triumphal and negative sentiment and moreover, to cater to a specific viewership.

Further, the alleged use of thumbnails featuring both Yogi Adityanath and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in reports about the Murshidabad violence, alongside reports of “forced Hindu migration” framed as a consequence of Muslim dominance in Bengal, further fuels concerns. Such visual juxtapositions and narratives, when presented in a misleading or exaggerated manner, risk creating a climate of fear and suspicion between communities. The apparent haste and lack of ethical boundaries in the pursuit of viewership, as evidenced by the language and visuals employed, paint a concerning picture of a section of the Indian news media seemingly abandoning its responsibility to report truthfully and fairly.

The coverage of the Waqf Act debates further exemplifies this trend. The consistent pairing of Owaisi’s image and the repeated use of terms like “Maulana, Maulana” in tickers during these discussions seem to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes and potentially demonise religious leaders within the Muslim community. This pattern suggests a deliberate attempt to frame issues through a communal lens, potentially exacerbating existing societal fault lines.

Selective visual communication and its negative impact

As experts on visual communication say, this is an inherently selective process. The negative effects on individuals and society of such persistent use of selective attention is emotionally skewed: such attentional bias is therefore often associated with negative or threat-related stimuli, which can impel us to focus on ‘threatening information’ over more neutral stimuli (information and news) in our environment that, in turn leads us collectively to ruminate on distressing thoughts Research suggests this may be a contributing factor to emotional disorders. None deny that over the past decade and more, Indian society has been subject to, or become a victim of such perniciously crafted negative selectivity geared cynically to ensure the alienation of, discrimination towards particular, politically targeted sections.

As this simple visual explanation on attentional bias from The Digitak Kab tells us there are four types of selective perception.

The four stages of selective perception include:
Selective Exposure, Selective Attention, Selective Comprehension, and Selective Retention

To ensure neutrality in reportage and communication, requires a committed non-partisan approach. In simple language, being open-minded. In fact, being open-minded and empathetic is known to be one of the best ways to avoid perception bias. Societally, especially in an environ that has traditionally thrived on pluralism and diversity, is to ensure constant exposure to a wide range of people, opinions and cultures. The more such depiction is rich and nuanced, the more successful will visual communication be in challenging stereotypical assumption.

CJP’s HW Team studied and analysed electronic media coverage and depiction in past weeks and here is what we found.

Zee News

Zee News, consistently vying for viewership, frequently exhibited hasty and insensitive reporting, often disregarding factual accuracy and context. The channel has faced reprimands, including fines, from the NBDSA for its communal and misleading broadcasts. Its thumbnails and clickbait tactics often amplified stereotypes and sensationalism.

Fiction over fact: Zee News’ race for ratings

In its coverage of the Waqf Act issue, Zee News employed inflammatory Hindi captions such as “Jiska Dar Tha Wahi Hua! Waqf Kanoon Par Tagda Jhatka, Muslimo Main Jashan” (What was feared has happened! Big blow on Waqf law, celebration among Muslims), “Supreme Court Ka Order! Khud He Phas Gaye Musalman” (Supreme Court’s order! Muslims themselves got trapped), and “Supreme Court Se Faisla, 21 Crore Muslimo Main Bhagdadh! Live” (Decision from Supreme Court, stampede among 21 crore Muslims! Live). These phrases aimed to create a sense of dramatic tension and portray the Muslim community in a negative light, suggesting celebration at a setback or mass panic from Supreme Court hearing. (The matter is still pending before the Supreme Court).

Polarising thumbnails: icons of power vs. the ‘other’

Furthermore, thumbnails often juxtaposed images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, UP CM Yogi Adityanath, and AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi with text like “Waqf Bill Par Palte 24 Crore Musalmaan, Pure Desh Hadkamp! ‘3000 Crore Ki Property Jabt” (24 crore Muslims turned against the Waqf Bill, nationwide uproar! ‘3000 crore property seized’) and “Modi Ko Aisi Saja Denge! Maulanao Ne De Dali Dhamki, Lakho Muslimo Ne Ghere 6 Sahar” (They will give such a punishment to Modi! Maulanas have given a threat, lakhs of Muslims have surrounded 6 cities). The objective of these combinations was to link the Waqf Bill to a supposed nationwide upheaval by the Muslim community, framing it as a threat and invoking strong reactions against the minority group. The inclusion of Modi and Yogi Adityanath’s images likely aimed to resonate with a specific viewership that favours their political stance.

The channel further utilised aggressive and communal language in its thumbnails, such as “Ab Aar-Paar Ki Jang” (Now, a decisive battle), “Modi Ko Saja Denge” (They will punish Modi), “Waqf Gang Ko Yogi Ka Tagda Ultimatum” (Yogi’s strong ultimatum to the Waqf gang), and the derogatory “Miyan Ji Ka Naya Khoof Aa Raha” (The new fear of ‘Miyan Ji’ is coming – ‘Miyan Ji’ is a term sometimes used pejoratively for Muslim men). Other examples of sensational and stereotype-reinforcing thumbnails included “15 Minute..Musalmano Ko Court Main Devkinandan Ka Khula Challenge, Ucchal Pade Maulana” (15 minutes…Devkinandan’s open challenge to Muslims in court, Maulanas jumped up), “Danga Zone Main Lakho Musalmaan, Waqf Par Naya Plan” (Millions of Muslims in riot zone, new plan on Waqf), and “Azadi.. Karnataka Gherne Nikal Pade Lakho Musalmaan Aur Fhir..” (Freedom… Millions of Muslims set out to surround Karnataka and then…).

These captions collectively painted the Muslim community as reactive, prone to violence, and potentially threatening, thus perpetuating negative stereotypes for sensationalism and viewership. The channel’s consistent use of such language and imagery demonstrated a pattern of prioritising sensationalism and the endorsement of harmful stereotypes over responsible and factual journalism.

Times Now Navbharat

Times Now Navbharat exhibited a pattern of sensationalism and misleading reporting on sensitive topics. A key tactic involved the frequent and seemingly gratuitous use of Yogi Adityanath’s image in thumbnails, irrespective of the news story’s location or direct relevance to Uttar Pradesh. Given Yogi Adityanath’s substantial social media following, this strategy appeared to be a deliberate attempt to inflate viewership through clickbait.

Clickbait for sensation: the strategic use of Yogi Adityanath’s image

For instance, in its coverage of the Murshidabad violence, the channel employed Hindi captions like “CM Yogi Ne Khayi Kasam, Ek-Ek Hindu Ko Bachana Hai” (CM Yogi has taken an pledge, he has to save every single Hindu) and “Laato ke Bhoot, Baato Se: Murshidabad Hinsa Par Mamta Se Kya Bole Yogi” (Those who understand force, not words: What did Yogi say to Mamata on Murshidabad violence). The objective of using such text alongside Yogi Adityanath’s picture was to inject a Hindu nationalist angle into the narrative, capitalising on his image as a strong, decisive leader within that political leaning. This sensational framing aimed to attract viewers by tapping into existing social media trends where his supporters often invoke phrases like “Yogi Adityanath Style Action” in response to incidents of violence.

Waqf Act coverage: communal framing over legal nuance

Similarly, the channel’s reporting on the Waqf Act debates prominently featured Yogi Adityanath, using captions such as “Baba ‘Bulldozer Decision’ Lenge”, SC Se 555 Ka Intjaar,” (Baba will take a ‘Bulldozer Decision’, waiting for 555 from SC) and “Yogi Ki Table Par Waqf Ki 1.25 Lakh Files” (1.25 lakh Waqf files on Yogi’s table). The objective behind this consistent visual and textual association was to communalise the issue. By exclusively highlighting a Chief Minister known for his pro-Hindutva stance, the channel seemingly sought to frame the Waqf Act discussions along Hindu-Muslim lines, catering to a specific viewership segment and sensationalising the topic for increased clicks, rather than providing an objective analysis of the law.

Even when reporting on the legal challenge to the Waqf Act, the thumbnail read, “Owaisi, Sibbal, Singhvi Ka Chehra Utara, Supreme Court Ne Waqf Kanoon Par Modi Ka Kaam Aasan Kar Diya” (Owaisi, Sibbal, Singhvi’s faces fell, Supreme Court made Modi’s work easier on Waqf law). This caption, paired with the news of the legal challenge, aimed to portray it as a setback for Muslim leaders and lawyers representing them.

Engineered conflict: pitting leaders for spectacle

The channel also utilised thumbnails featuring contrasting figures like Asaduddin Owaisi and T. Raja Singh with captions such as “Waqf Bill Ke Virodh Main Owaisi Ki Hunkar, T. Raja Ne Diya Karara Jawab” (Owaisi’s roar in opposition to the Waqf Bill, T. Raja gave a strong reply). This pitting of opposing figures, along with the insensitive and incomplete phrase attributed to T. Raja Singh, “Tumhara Baap Bhi…” (Even your father…), served to create conflict and sensationalism, drawing viewers in with the promise of a heated exchange and appealing to potentially divisive sentiments. This approach prioritised sensationalism and clickbait over providing viewers with a nuanced understanding of the Waqf Act and the related discussions.

Aaj Tak

Similarly, Aaj Tak also appeared to engage in a comparable pattern of sensationalism, albeit to a seemingly lesser degree. Its thumbnails concerning the Waqf Bill, such as “Waqf Ka Waqt Aa Gaya!” (The time for Waqf has come!) and “Waqf Bill Se Musalmano ki Jameene Chinne Wali Hain?” (Will the Waqf Bill snatch away Muslims’ lands?), while perhaps less overtly inflammatory than some other channels, still employed a degree of sensationalism and potentially misleading framing. The phrase “Waqf Ka Waqt Aa Gaya!” (The time for Waqf has come!) Carries a sense of impending and significant change, potentially creating unease or excitement depending on the viewer’s perspective. The question “Waqf Bill Se Musalmano ki Jameene Chinne Wali Hain?” (Will the Waqf Bill snatch away Muslims’ lands?) Directly plays on potential anxieties within the Muslim community, suggesting a threat to their properties without providing factual context.

Even in the form of a question, such a thumbnail can contribute to the spread of misinformation and the amplification of fear for the sake of attracting clicks and viewership. While not resorting to overtly communal language or imagery to the same extent as some other channels, Aaj Tak’s use of these types of thumbnails still indicates a leaning towards sensationalism when covering sensitive religious and legal issues, potentially contributing to a climate of anxiety and suspicion.

India TV

India TV also mirrored this concerning trend in its reporting, employing provocative and misleading language that endorsed harmful stereotypes. During its coverage of the Murshidabad violence, the channel utilised phrases such as “Murshidabad…10 Hajar Dangai Nikle Jumme Ke Baad?” (Murshidabad…Did 10,000 rioters emerge after Friday?), “Owaisi Ka Ailan-e-Jung, Kitne Muslim Sang?” (Owaisi’s declaration of war, how many Muslims are with him?), “Modi vs Muslim Board”, and “Modi vs Maulana.”

Climax-oriented thumbnails: drama over depth

The objective behind these captions was to immediately frame the violence along religious lines, portraying Muslims as aggressors (“10 Hajar Dangai” – 10,000 rioters) and suggesting a confrontation between the Muslim community (represented by Owaisi and the “Muslim Board”) and the Hindu majority (represented by Modi). This sensational framing disregarded the complexities of the situation and aimed to create division

Furthermore, without official confirmation or statements, India TV aired shows with alarmist and unsubstantiated claims like “Murshidabad Se 10000 Hindu Visthapit, Muslim Sthaapit” (10000 Hindus displaced, Muslims settled in Murshidabad) and “Aaj Bengal ke Hindua Ka Kaleja Fhat Gaya” (Today, the hearts of Hindus in Bengal shattered). These emotionally charged and unverified statements served to create fear and resentment within the Hindu community, painting Muslims as displacing Hindus.

The channel’s use of the phrase “Modi Se Nafrat Sakht, Maulana Ka Waqf Waqf!” (Strong hatred for Modi, Maulana’s Waqf Waqf!) Further exemplified this pattern. By specifically highlighting “Maulana” (Islamic cleric) in opposition to the Waqf Act and linking this opposition to “Nafrat” (hatred) towards Prime Minister Modi, the channel aimed to stereotype religious leaders within the Muslim community as being inherently anti-government and harbouring animosity towards the Hindu leader. This deliberate portrayal contributed to the broader trend of media outlets using religious identity to sensationalise news and fuel divisive narratives for viewership.

News 18 India

News 18 India’s coverage of the Waqf issue employed thumbnails and titles that could be seen as sensational and potentially misleading. Phrases like “Waqf Act Ke Bahane Jute Muslim Kya Hain ‘Asli’ Agenda” (What is the ‘real’ agenda of deceitful Muslims under the guise of the Waqf Act?), “Bhu-Mafia Ya Islam, Waqf Aa Raha Kiske Kaam” (Land mafia or Islam, who is the Waqf benefiting?), “Jumme Ki Namaz, Masjid Adda” (Friday prayers, mosque as a hub), “Pradarshan Se Pahle, Delhi Main Muslimo Ka Jamawada” (Muslim gathering in Delhi before the protest), and “Waqf Ke Khilaaf Delhi Main Muslamano Ka Halla Bol” (Muslims’ outcry in Delhi against the Waqf) – these, coupled with images of figures like Owaisi and Maulana Arshad Madni, risk framing a complex matter through a narrow, potentially biased lens. This approach might inadvertently create a singular narrative that overlooks the broader context and possible repercussions of such hasty and attention-grabbing presentations.

Similarly, their reporting on the Murshidabad violence, with headlines such as “Bajrang Dal Ki Entry, Hil Gaya Pura Bengal” (Bajrang Dal’s entry, entire Bengal shaken) and “Didi..Tere Bengal Main Hinduo Ke Jaan Ki Kimat Kaya?” (Didi…what is the value of Hindu lives in your Bengal?), appears to prioritise sensationalism. Highlighting the Bajrang Dal in what seems like a ‘saviour’ role could amplify communal tones.

While the channel seemingly criticises the TMC government for allegedly failing to protect Hindus, it doesn’t appear to broadly question the government’s responsibility in preventing violence across the entire state. This particular style of reporting could unfortunately prioritise high viewership and TRP ratings by potentially communalising the narrative, possibly at the expense of fostering harmony and communal tolerance through the use of climax-oriented thumbnails and click-bait.

NBDSA and monitoring negativity on air

For the past six years or more, robust citizen’s campaigns have sought accountability from several electronic media channels in their portrayal and coverage. CJP’s HateWatch programme (HateHatao initiative) is arguably the most consistent keeping a hawk’s eye on hate violations on air. Through careful and calibrated analysis we have managed to track, complain and ensure that several of the most offending shows (videos) are pulled off air. These include those from among the very channels that have since now resorted to the use of the provocative and incendiary thumbnail and visual.

Increasingly the complaints made by CJP, to NBDSA, have, in a nuanced way been pointing out how often not the whole but a small portion (few minutes even) of a 50 minute show uses problematic language, positioning this in such a way that the entire coverage or its focus gets coloured and littered with manipulative metaphors collectively amounting to prejudice.

Now, we ask, is this the latest move, by these very same offenders to attract venality in viewer response without actually crossing the bar in either the content itself or the role of the anchor?

Narrative over nuance: missing the broader accountability

However, the examples of sensationalist reporting by certain Indian news channels raise serious concerns about the erosion of journalistic ethics and the potential for these practices to exacerbate communal tensions. The deliberate use of misleading visuals, inflammatory language, and clickbait tactics, often targeting religious minorities and framing sensitive issues through a communal lens, appears to prioritise viewership over responsible reporting. Given the pervasive reach of digital media, how can regulatory bodies and journalistic organisations effectively address this trend of irresponsible sensationalism and ensure that the media upholds its crucial role in fostering an informed and harmonious society, rather than contributing to division and discord?

Related:

From ‘Ab Hoga Khel’ to ‘Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai’: the trap set by thumbnails

CJP urges for removal of contentious Aaj Tak show on Hemant Soren, sends complaint to channel

CJP alerts YouTube of two channels openly selling illegal firearms

The post How Indian commercial media channels are using the provocative thumbnail to boost viewers and worse, provoke vicarious viewer response appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Silencing the Messengers: A deadly environment for journalists

Two journalists were killed in the first quarter of the year—Mukesh Chandrakar and Raghvendra Bajpai—while four others were physically attacked. At least six were arrested, and five faced threats and harassment, according to FSC’s tracker. These incidents reflect not just isolated acts of violence, but a broader, systematic effort to target those who challenge the status quo.

The year began with the horrifying disappearance and murder of Mukesh Chandrakar, an independent journalist who ran the YouTube channel Bastar Junction in Chhattisgarh. He was found dead three days later, stuffed into a septic tank at the home of Suresh Chandrakar, a road contractor and relative who was reportedly enraged over Mukesh’s role in a report broadcast by NDTV on poor road conditions in Bastar. The autopsy confirmed he had been brutally beaten with a heavy object. Police acted only after sustained pressure from local journalists, eventually arresting the accused near Hyderabad. Mukesh’s death starkly illustrates the hazards faced by journalists reporting from India’s hinterlands, where entrenched corruption, state apathy, and local power nexuses operate with impunity.

Three other journalists continue to remain behind bars as of May 2025. These include Rupesh Kumar Singh from Jharkhand and Irfan Mehraj from Kashmir—both incarcerated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—and Maharashtra-based YouTuber Tushar Kharat, arrested on criminal defamation charges. Mehraj, a well-known journalist and researcher, was detained in March 2023 in a case related to alleged terror funding. Singh was taken into custody in April 2022 on accusations of aiding Maoist groups. Kharat, who runs the Marathi YouTube channel Lay Bhari, was arrested in March 2025 for allegedly defaming Maharashtra Rural Development Minister Jayakumar Gore. All three have been denied bail.

In another shocking case, at dawn on March 12, Telangana police arrested Pogadadanda Revathi, Managing Director of Pulse News, and reporter Thanvi Yadav in Hyderabad for broadcasting supposedly “abusive” content about Chief Minister Revanth Reddy. A third individual, a social media user with the handle NippuKodi, was also detained for sharing the video. The trio secured bail on March 17, following public outrage.

Meanwhile, in Assam, journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumder from The CrossCurrent was arrested on March 25 for reporting on protests concerning financial irregularities in the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank. Notably, the bank’s Board includes Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and BJP MLA Biswajit Phukan. Although released on bail a day later, Mozumder was immediately re-arrested in another case and only freed on March 29.

What links all these cases is the journalists’ association with independent digital platforms, particularly YouTube channels—signalling not only the increasing relevance of digital news spaces, but also the lack of institutional recognition and protection for those operating outside mainstream media networks. The chief ministers of the respective states—Sarma (Assam), Fadnavis (Maharashtra), and Reddy (Telangana)—have consistently denied suppressing press freedom. Sarma falsely claimed on X that no journalist had been arrested in recent times, Fadnavis accused Kharat of extortion, and Reddy outrageously called for “so-called journalists” to be stripped and beaten in public during an Assembly address.

Economic reprisal and legal harassment

The state’s hostility extended to the financial backbone of independent journalism. Two well-known investigative platforms—The Reporter’s Collective and Kannada news website The File—had their non-profit status revoked by the Income Tax Department, effectively paralysing their operations. Officials argued their journalism did not serve “public purpose,” a claim strongly refuted by the affected organisations. The Reporter’s Collective described the move as a grave setback to public interest journalism. Editors at The File maintained they operated an ad-free platform and rejected the government’s claim that it was a commercial venture.

These actions reflect a broader tactic known as ‘law fare’—the strategic weaponisation of legal and bureaucratic tools to undermine media freedom. FSC recorded at least five such cases filed against journalists during this period, cementing the notion that legal intimidation is now a key instrument of censorship.

Digital clampdown and regulatory overreach

The Pahalgam terror attack, which resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians, triggered yet another crackdown on digital media. Journalists and commentators who raised valid questions about intelligence failures and security lapses found themselves targeted. Two YouTube news channels—Knocking News and 4PM News—were abruptly blocked, with the latter being accused of jeopardising national security.

Simultaneously, legislative threats to press freedom continued to mount. The Maharashtra government persisted with efforts to enact the controversial Maharashtra Public Security Bill, which proposes sweeping powers to curb undefined ‘unlawful activities’. Despite strong objections from more than a dozen journalist and civil society organisations, the bill is being pushed through. Critics argue its vague and expansive provisions are open to misuse and could criminalise legitimate journalistic work.

A wider assault on free expression

FSC’s documentation shows that attacks on free speech extend far beyond the press. Of the 329 violations tracked in the first four months of 2025, a massive 283 involved censorship of not just journalists, but academics, students, artists, comedians, and filmmakers. Among those targeted were satirists and social media commentators such as Neha Singh Rathore, Dr Madri Kakoti (aka Dr Medusa), Shamita Yadav (aka the ranting gola), and comedian Kunal Kamra—most of whom were booked under draconian sections of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Film censorship also saw an aggressive spike. Scenes from Empuraan and Phule were slashed just before or after their release, making a mockery of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) process. The situation worsened with multiple cuts ordered for Punjab 95, the denial of CBFC certification for award-winning films like Santosh, and heavy-handed censorship of foreign films on OTT platforms. The backlash culminated in violent incidents, including mob violence after a screening of Chhava in Nagpur and an attack on Dalit journalist Sanjay Ambedkar while recording public reactions to Phule in Prayagraj.

Pushback and the fight to reclaim rights

Despite the wave of intimidation, there have been determined efforts to resist. Journalists’ unions, civil liberties groups, digital rights advocates, and independent media organisations have raised their voices against these encroachments. Their interventions have kept the conversation on free speech alive and forced public attention onto the state’s shrinking tolerance for dissent.

The constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of speech and expression—Article 19(1)(a)—has come under sustained attack in recent times. The first few months of 2025 are a chilling reminder that India’s democratic fabric is fraying under the weight of censorship, intimidation, and state-sanctioned repression. But the fight to reclaim these rights continues, powered by the courage of independent journalists, artists, and citizens who refuse to be silenced.

Related:

Vanishing Media Freedom J & K, 2019-2024: Free Speech Collective

Uttarakhand High Court slams police and authority for failure in maintain law and order

Terrorism’s Shadow: Rising hatred against Indian Muslims after Pahalgam terror attack

The post India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Journalists arrested in Jammu and Kashmir since 2018.Photo/KT Graphics

Fahad Shah after his release from jail in November 2023.Photo/Public Domain

Aasif SultanPhoto/Public Doman

Number of Kashmir journalists and activists in detention has increased manifold after J&K’s special status was abrogated in August 2019.Photo/AI Generated

Free And Fearless Journalism In A Fight For Survival

Sajad Gul/Photo/Public Domain

Iron-Fist to ‘False Complaints’: J&K Circular Tightens Screws on Complaints Against Officials and Media Scrutiny

Qazi Shibli / Photo/Public Domain

Kashmir in Crosshairs of Digital State

Irfan MehrajPhoto/Public Domain

Manan DarPhoto/Public Domain

Iron-Fist to ‘False Complaints’: J&K Circular Tightens Screws on Complaints Against Officials and Media Scrutiny

Tarun Behl / Photo/Facebook Page

Disappeared: Media Freedom in Jammu and Kashmir 2019-24 – A Status Report By FSC

Aala Fazili / Photo/Public Domain

The Novelist of the Unburied: Mirza Waheed and the Quiet Catastrophe of Kashmir

The post From Prison to Uncertainty: After Battling for Bails, Kashmiri Journalists Battle Stigma, Financial Crisis and Isolation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Arbitrary detention and arrest

As per multiple media reports, Mozumdar was covering a protest organised by the youth wing of the Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), which was demonstrating against an alleged recruitment scam at the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank (ACAB). The protest was directed at the involvement of key political figures, including Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who serves as the bank’s director, and BJP MLA Biswajit Phukan, the bank’s chairman.

While carrying out his journalistic duties, Mozumdar questioned the bank’s managing director, Dambaru Saikia, about the allegations. A video clip later released by The CrossCurrent shows Mozumdar attempting to engage Saikia, who then invited him to his office. However, once inside, Saikia allegedly asked him to convince the protesters to leave—a demand Mozumdar rightfully refused, asserting his role as an independent journalist. Shortly after exiting the bank premises, he received a call from the Pan Bazar police station, instructing him to report immediately. Upon arrival, he was detained without any explanation for nearly half a day.

During his detention, Mozumdar’s family had alleged that they were denied access to him, and his diabetic medication, along with iftar provisions during Ramadan, was initially withheld. It was only after repeated insistence from fellow journalists that his wife was allowed to meet him late at night. At around midnight, as per Hindustan Times, the police finally revealed that he had been arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on an unspecified complaint. The arrest slip, given to his wife, lacked the complainant’s name and specific details of the alleged offence, further fuelling suspicions of a politically motivated crackdown.

Manufactured charges to suppress journalism

The police later claimed that a security guard at the bank, a member of the Bodo community, had lodged a complaint against Mozumdar for allegedly making derogatory remarks. The FIR reportedly cited a single sentence attributed to Mozumdar: “Boro jati hoi tumi besi kora” (being from the Bodo tribe, you do too much). This claim has been widely ridiculed as an excuse to criminalise a journalist for asking uncomfortable questions about alleged financial mismanagement at the bank.

The flimsy nature of the allegations, combined with the prolonged detention without justification, indicates that this is not about protecting any community but about intimidating the press. The selective application of the SC/ST Act in this case is particularly disturbing, as it appears to be a tool for silencing a journalist rather than ensuring justice for marginalised communities. This kind of misuse only serves to delegitimise important legal protections meant to safeguard oppressed groups.

Widespread condemnation and protests

Mozumdar’s arrest has sparked widespread outrage among journalists, civil society groups, and opposition political parties. The Guwahati Press Club held an emergency meeting condemning the arrest, with members wearing black badges in solidarity. Prominent journalists and activists have decried the Assam government’s actions as an egregious assault on press freedom.

Senior journalist Sushanta Talukdar pointed out that Mozumdar’s “biggest crime” was attempting to present a balanced report by seeking answers from the bank’s management. The Editors’ Guild of India issued a strong statement condemning the arrest, highlighting that such actions reinforce the growing perception that press freedom is under siege in India. The Press Club of India (PCI) also denounced the police’s refusal to inform Mozumdar’s family and colleagues about the reasons for his detention, calling it a grave infringement of constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a).

Political leaders have also spoken out against the arrest. AJP president Lurinjyoti Gogoi called it an attempt to establish “Jungle Raj” in Assam, while the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee described it as a direct attack on press freedom. The North East Media Forum urged Chief Minister Sarma to intervene and prevent the misuse of the SC/ST Act to settle political scores.

A pattern of media suppression

Press freedom is not a privilege—it is a cornerstone of democracy, and its systematic erosion threatens the very foundation of civil liberties in India. The detention and arrest of Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar is a dangerous escalation in the Assam government’s hostility towards independent journalism. It sends a chilling message to other reporters: question the state at your own peril. If Mozumdar is not released unconditionally, it will set a troubling precedent where fabricated charges can be used to silence journalists, ultimately eroding democratic accountability.

The fact that Mozumdar had previously reported on irregularities at ACAB raises serious questions about whether this was a pre-planned action to silence a journalist who had become inconvenient for the government. Notably, earlier this month, the Assam Cooperation Department had ordered an inquiry into the bank’s alleged financial mismanagement following a complaint sent to the Central Vigilance Commission. Instead of addressing these allegations transparently, the government appears to be prioritising retribution against those who expose them.

Related:

‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide

The post Assam: Journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar detained for 12 hours, arrested after covering protest against an alleged recruitment scam involving key BJP leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Contextualising the situation by flagging India’s dismal ranking of 159 out of 180 countries in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) by Reporters without Borders (RSF), a marginal improvement from 161 in 2023. Justice S Muralidhar was delivering the B G Verghese Memorial Lecture on ‘Media, Courts and Freedom of Expression’, and he stressed on the systemic issues plaguing India’s media ecosystem, from internet shutdowns to the safety of journalists and the role of the judiciary. The event was held at the India International Centre in Delhi last week, on March 21.

Safety of journalists, media persons: a major concern

The safety of journalists today remains a critical issue. Two years back, in 2023 alone, five journalists were killed, and 226 were targeted, with state actors responsible for 148 of these cases. Delhi emerged as the most dangerous region for journalists, with 51 targeted by state agencies. Recent incidents, such as the brutal attack on Odisha-based journalist Jyotiranjan Mohapatra and the beheading threat received by Nagpur journalist Vinay Pandey, highlight the perilous environment for press professionals. Journalists, especially those exposing or covering sensitive issues like environmental crimes or political corruption often face the brunt of violence and intimidation.

“Stopping journalists of them from travelling abroad, at the last minute, while they are set to board a plane, has also been happening with regular frequency. While Rana Ayyub could get the Delhi High Court to come to her rescue when she was set to travel to Europe to deliver talks on violence against women journalists, Sanna Irshad Mattoo, a Kashmiri photojournalist who won a Pulitzer Prize was in October 2022 stopped at the Delhi airport despite having a valid US visa and prevented from receiving the prestigious award in New York. No reasons were given. Fahad Shah, Sajad Gul, Aasif Sultan and Majid Hyderi are some of the other Kashmiri journalists who have faced arrests under draconian criminal law provisions including the Public Safety Act and have been released after long periods of incarceration,” he said.

Muralidhar focussed on the fact that, while the legal framework for media regulation exists, its effectiveness is questionable. The Press Council of India (PCI) and the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA) have been criticized for their lack of enforcement power. Commenting on the PCI, Muralidhar said: “The PCI exerts high moral authority but is sadly by and large an ineffective oversight body. When its website prominently displays the PM’s Pariksha Pe Charcha programme urging viewers to ‘join the event and get unique tips’ from him, it raises eyebrows.”

Although the NBDA does adjudicate complaints and pass orders, these are often not complied with, making self-regulation a meaningless term.

Media and judiciary require one another to be free and independent

Muralidhar emphasised the need for an independent judiciary to safeguard press freedom, noting that the judiciary itself relies on a free media to hold it accountable.

“In order to be truly free and independent, the media in a democratic polity needs an independent judiciary. For an independent judiciary to remain effective in a democracy, it requires a free media.”

Internet shutdowns and chilling impact on free speech

Muralidhar also raised the issue of the habitual and frequent use of internet shutdowns as a significant barrier to press freedom. The Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, which ruled that internet shutdown orders must not be disproportionate, has seen little enforcement. Despite court directives, the government has continued to impose shutdowns, particularly in conflict-prone regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where journalists face severe restrictions on their ability to report.

“Internet shutdown orders are now almost routinely issued throughout the country. Farmers’ protests, Manipur violence, and even during exams!! These orders are not in the public domain and so remain inaccessible and unchallenged. India, Iran, Myanmar and Ukraine are among the countries with the highest number of internet shutdowns in 2022 and 2023. According to an Access Now report 2024 saw 294 internet shutdowns globally and India accounted for 84 of these at 28%.”

Government’s crackdown on dissent

The government’s intolerance of criticism was evident in its response to the BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots and the blocking of Tamil magazine Ananda Vikatan’s website for publishing a satirical cartoon of the Prime Minister. Muralidhar criticised the Madras HC order asking Vikatan to remove its Modi-Trump cartoon as a condition to lift the blocking of its website.. “This is totally contrary to the settled legal position that mere criticism of the government, even if ill-informed, is not anti-national. It cannot result in a chilling effect on free speech,” he said.

Mentioning these controversial actions, coupled with the use of draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) against journalists, have raised concerns about the shrinking space for dissent.

“The nation wants to know why in the times now, in our republic, in India today, it is so hard to tolerate a healthy sense of humour, the ability to laugh at oneself, or take a dig at the government?,” he asked.

He also lamented that take-down orders and gag orders by the State and by the courts, at all levels, have become commonplace. “Ironically, fact-checkers who call out fake news are accused of spreading harm!” he sighed.

Role of social media and misinformation/disinformation

Touching on a vital issue, Muralidhar spent time on the deleterious effect of social media, who’s rise has added another layer of complexity to India’s media landscape, Muralidhar stressed on the dichotomy. While social media does provide a platform for independent voices, it has also become a breeding ground for misinformation and disinformation. Muralidhar warned against the government’s attempts to control online content through take-down orders and gag orders, which could stifle genuine dissent. He cited the Bombay High Court’s ruling against the government’s move to become the exclusive fact-checker as a step in the right direction.

Finally, Muralidhar concluded by urging journalists to remain steadfast in their pursuit of truth, despite the challenges. He highlighted the importance of global coalitions like the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which have exposed corruption and illicit activities on a global scale.

“The media in India has had to fight for its independence and for its freedom. It is a fact though that much of the mainstream print and electronic media are either owned by large corporate houses or by political parties. Both print and electronic media operate on purely commercial lines dependent as they are on government advertisements, licences and permissions, corporate sponsorships, commercials. These very media houses also have their corresponding web versions. And as Joseph Pulitzer cautioned, once a publisher comes to regard the press as exclusively a commercial business, there is an end of its moral power. Self-censorship, paid news, advertorials, large self-promoting ads of governments on several front pages, vying for greater TRPs at the risk of fudging data, are all now passe. There is also the control through sponsorship of the independent press on the net by corporate philanthropies. The big challenge then is to keep the news free,” he said.

Despite the general decline in media independence, Muralidhar said that certain encouraging signs emerged occasionally, giving hope to the future of journalists.

“And occasionally, tucked away in the corners of the print and electronic media, there is space yet for the investigative and critically analytical pieces of fearless and independent reporters, some of whom are being honoured today. Their courage and conviction will undoubtedly inspire generations of reporters. They need not just our admiration, but importantly, our support. They are our hope for a free and independent press, an impartial and trusted media, in the India of the future.”

He also called on the judiciary to embrace criticism and uphold the principles of free speech, as articulated by Lord Denning: “We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.”

Related:

Whenever there is a strong executive, there has been a visibly weak judiciary: Justice Dr. S Muralidhar

Why is the Centre stalling Justice Muralidhar’s transfer to Madras HC?

The post For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar appeared first on SabrangIndia.