The Authority found that while both sides of the issue were presented in the broadcast — including denials by Madrasa authorities and a detailed interview with NCPCR Chairperson Priyank Kanoongo — the anchor failed to exercise necessary caution, particularly in a situation involving conflicting claims and sensitive subject matter. The Authority issued important observations and guidance, emphasising the need for responsible anchoring, verification of claims, and avoidance of presumptive or potentially polarizing narratives in future broadcasts.

Background of the complaint

On August 19, 2024, Times Now Navbharat aired two related segments in its flagship evening programme:

Programme 1: “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा ? | Hindi News”

Programme 2: “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पाकिस्तान का सिलेबस? | Priyank Kanoongo | Bihar Madarsa | Hindi News”

Both the shows are based on the statement made by Chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Priyank Kanoongo, who had alleged that the government-funded madrassas in Bihar are teaching from so-called “Radical-curriculum” and using “Pakistan-Published books”.

Based on the above statement, both shows propagated allegedly harmful ideas through a distorted portrayal of madrasa education, emphasizing sensationalism over balanced reporting. The “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka” show and the “Rashtravad” debate show both relied heavily on inflammatory language and selective framing, painting madrassas as centres of radicalism and anti-national sentiment. The use of provocative questions and visual imagery aimed to generate fear and suspicion among viewers.

In view of the same, CJP filed a complaint with the NBDSA on September 26, 2024, alleging that the programs:

• Used provocative, communal, and stigmatising language.
• Presented unverified and one-sided narratives.
• Violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage, especially clauses relating to accuracy, neutrality, communal harmony, and the prohibition on fear-mongering.

Details of the complaint may be read here.

CJP’s contentions

CJP’s detailed submissions alleged that:

• The programs vilified Madrasas as a whole, implying they were inherently suspicious or linked to terrorism.
• The headlines and taglines like “Jihadi Sanskriti” are not only highly inflammatory, but also lacked any evidentiary basis.
• The selective use of visuals, interviews, and graphics sensationalised the topic and created an atmosphere of fear and distrust toward the Muslim community.
• The broadcaster failed to present the views of those running Madrasas, denying them a fair opportunity to respond, which violated the principle of balanced reportage.

CJP argued that such content endangered social harmony, contributed to religious polarization, and had a real-world impact, particularly on the already marginalized Muslim minority in Bihar and across the country.

Broadcaster’s response

Times Now Navbharat submitted that:

• The programming was based on ground-level reporting, including testimonies of teachers and students.
• The subject was of legitimate public interest, especially in light of reported links between radicalisation and certain educational institutions.
• The channel did not target any religion or community, and the intention was not to generalize all Madrasas but to expose certain problematic instances.

The broadcaster also claimed that the programs adhered to the tenets of free speech and journalistic inquiry, and that no direct allegations were made without basis.

NBDSA’s findings and reasoning

After considering the submissions of both parties and reviewing the footage, the NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had included views from both the NCPCR Chairperson and the Bihar Madrasa authorities-

• Priyank Kanoongo was given space to express his concerns regarding the textbook “Talimul Islam”.
• Abdul Salam Ansari, Deputy Director of the Bihar State Madrasa Board, as well as a teacher and students at a Madrasa in Patna, were interviewed and categorically denied that the textbook was part of their curriculum.

NBDSA held that had the broadcast been confined to these interviews and objective presentation, no objection could have been sustained, as the principles of impartiality, neutrality, and objectivity were adhered to in that part.

However, the issue arose with the conduct and framing by the anchor, who, in NBDSA’s view, failed to exercise due caution:

• Despite conflicting claims between NCPCR and the Bihar Madrasa authorities, the anchor proceeded on the presumption that Kanoongo’s version was correct, thereby shaping the program around that assumption.
• The NBDSA stressed that in the presence of such a serious allegation, especially involving potential hate teaching in religious institutions, the anchor had a duty to verify the claims further or maintain a neutral stance.

The Authority pointed out that Mr. Abdul Salam Ansari, like Mr. Kanoongo, is a responsible public authority, and the lack of further verification before drawing conclusions was inappropriate.

“However, the objection is with the questions raised by the anchors during the broadcasts. No doubt, Mr. Fri.yank Kanoongo had claimed that the contents of a certain textbook “Talimul Islam” was taught in Madrasas in Bihar. Again, no doubt, he is a responsible person being the Chairman, CPCR. At the same time, the anchor should have also kept in mind that the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board as well as the teacher and students interviewed had denounced that the textbook was indeed being taught and had refused to comment on the same without receiving any information/ representation in this regard. In such a scenario, the anchor should have been little careful before proceeding with the presumption that all this was in fact happening. Even the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board is also a responsible person and in view of conflicting claims, there should have been some verification by the anchor before accepting the version of one person and adopting a narrative in the programme on that premise,” the NBDSA observed in its order.

The Authority also made a broader constitutional observation, stating that if any educational institution teaches hatred or demeans other religions, such teaching would be clearly contrary to constitutional ethos and must be denounced. However, it emphasized that before such a conclusion is broadcast publicly, it must be verified with due diligence.

“It is reemphasized that in this secular country governed by the Constitution of India, such kind of teachings have to be denounced. However, it is equally important to verify that in fact there were teachings in certain Madrasas in Bihar of that nature.”

“In view of the aforesaid, NBDSA is of the opinion that the anchor should be more cautious in broadcasting such programmes which have, otherwise, tendency to create the feeling of hatred towards a particular community and broadcasting of these programmes should not be without proper verifications of the contents.”

Final decision

The NBDSA decided to close the complaint but concluded with a strong advisory observation:

• Anchors must be more cautious while hosting and framing programs that deal with religious or communal issues, especially where claims remain unverified or contested.
• Broadcasters should avoid presumptive narratives that could create feelings of hatred towards any community.

.The NBDSA’s order walks a nuanced line — while not indicting the broadcaster for the program as a whole, it takes issue with editorial judgment exercised during the broadcast, particularly by the anchor. It reaffirms the role of media in upholding constitutional values and avoiding communal polarization, especially in a context where both official and institutional versions of events were in direct conflict.

The decision sends a message that in a pluralist democracy like India, the journalistic duty to verify and maintain neutrality is not just ethical—it is constitutional.

The complete order may be read below.

Related:

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

CJP’s Landmark Victory Against Hate in Media | Times Now Navbharat Pulled Up by NBDSA

Championing Justice: CJP’s Guide to Filing NBDSA Complaints

NBDSA orders mainstream news channels to remove shows, fines imposed

The post NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat against presumptive anchoring in sensitive religious coverage in broadcast concerning “Madrasas Teachings” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an era where the click often holds more sway than the content, the gatekeepers of Indian broadcast news have issued a stark warning. The signposts must match the destination. The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) delivered a sharp rebuke on June 9, 2025, calling out news channels for a pervasive and troubling trend of using misleading tickers and thumbnails that twist the reality of their own reports. This move signals a potential turning point in holding media outlets accountable for the digital bait they use to lure viewers.

At the heart of this decision was a specific broadcast by Times Now Navbharat, which the NBDSA, led by Chairperson Justice (retd.) A.K. Sikri, found to be in clear violation. The panel observed that the pursuit of sensationalism often leads to a distorted version of the actual narrative, and the time for correction is now.

The controversial Shimla broadcast

The issue stemmed from a complaint filed by Indrajeet Ghorpade regarding a September 6, 2024, report by Times Now Navbharat. The broadcast, which focused on the Sanjauli mosque in Shimla, was promoted with incendiary thumbnails. One read, “अवैध मस्जिद पर महिलओं ने मुसलमानों पर खुलकर सब बता दिया!” (Women openly tell everything about the illegal mosque), while another featured visuals of women with provocative, incomplete speech bubbles like “मुसलमान लड़के हमे….” (Muslim boys us…) and “जुम्मे के दिन तो…” (On Fridays…).

According to complaint against the channel, the reporter’s line of questioning to four local women was pointed, “Has the number of Muslims visiting the mosque increased?”, “What is the change in the atmosphere with the rise in the population of Muslim persons in Shimla?”, and the direct “Kya Dar Ka Mahaul hai?” (Is there an atmosphere of fear?).

Yet, according to the complaint, none of the women interviewed recounted any personal negative experiences with the Muslim community or visitors to the mosque.

Leading questions, loaded thumbnails

The complainant, Mr. Ghorpade, argued that the reporter’s leading questions were designed to elicit a particular response, creating a narrative of fear. This effect, he contended, was dangerously amplified by the malicious thumbnails. He pointed out the absurdity of using fragmented and suggestive speech bubbles like “musalman ladke hume…” when the women interviewed never made such statements or flagged any safety issues. The clear insinuation, he argued, was designed to ignite communal tension.

A deluge of videos

While highlighting the channel’s relentless focus on the issue, the complainant submitted that Times Now Navbharat had uploaded nearly 150 videos on the Shimla Mosque within a 48-hour period. Thumbnails for these videos continued the provocative theme, with one stating, “Avaidh Masjid ko lekar Shimla ke Hinduon ne Musalmano par kya kaha” (What Shimla’s Hindus said about the illegal mosque), accompanied by an image of a woman with a speech bubble suggesting she said “yaha se hathaya jaye” (it should be removed from here). The complainant asserted that this pattern demonstrated a clear and ill-intentioned agenda.

The channel’s defence

In its submission, Times Now Navbharat positioned the broadcast as a report on civic issues like overcrowding and women’s safety in Shimla, denying that it singled out any community. The channel maintained that the four women interviewed were independent-minded adults whose responses were not influenced. It argued that their concerns about verifying newcomers were general and not aimed at any specific group.

The broadcaster urged the NBDSA to view the program in its entirety, set against the backdrop of an allegedly illegal multi-story construction at the mosque. They contended that discussing the impact on the local atmosphere was legitimate journalism. Invoking the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), the channel defended its editorial discretion in how it presented the story, arguing that isolating certain elements from their context was unfair. When pressed on the misleading thumbnails, the channel stated that a full statement cannot be carried in a thumbnail and no motive should be attributed to it.

NBDSA’s verdict: a clear misrepresentation

The NBDSA panel was not persuaded. It observed that the thumbnail text was glaringly inconsistent with the actual statements made by the women in the broadcast. The authority concluded that the text, particularly phrases like “Musalman ladke hume… Jumeh ke din toh…”, gave the false and damaging impression that Muslim men were harassing women. The NBDSA deemed this not only misleading but also detrimental to communal harmony, constituting a clear violation of its guidelines.

NBDSA’s advisory to all broadcasters

Finding that the thumbnails failed to project a correct version of the interviews, the NBDSA issued a decisive advisory to all broadcasters. It emphasised that tickers and thumbnails are not exempt from journalistic ethics and must faithfully conform to the actual content of the report.

The authority directed Times Now Navbharat to immediately edit or remove the offending thumbnails from the video of the broadcast, wherever it may exist online, and confirm its compliance in writing within seven days. With this order, the NBDSA closed the complaint, but opened a new chapter in the fight for digital news integrity.

The NBDSA order dated 09.06.2025 can be read here:

CJP: In solidarity with those resisting hate

This NBDSA ruling is more than a penalty for one channel; it’s a victory in the wider fight against digital misinformation; a battle being fiercely waged by citizen-led groups. At the forefront is Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an organisation that has moved beyond merely complaining to building a network of empowered citizens capable of fighting back themselves.

CJP’s research, detailed in reports like “The Cost of Clicks,” has dissected how channels, facing scrutiny for overt hate, have pivoted to a more insidious strategy. They now leverage sensational thumbnails as clever clickbait, transforming the quest for engagement into a perilous game of division and fear for profit. This psychological appeal exploits curiosity and apprehension to hook viewers.

The distinction between the themes of thumbnails and the actual content of video is stark, often serving merely as a trigger to provoke viewers into clicking on sensational videos. This tactic exploits ongoing, contentious issues that evoke curiosity and generate excitement among audiences. Thumbnails designed to capture attention ask questions like, “What will happen next?” This psychological appeal plays into a fundamental human tendency to seek out information about impending developments (and often, accompanied by a sense of apprehension, or doom).

CJP’s detailed research on “The Cost of Clicks: how thumbnails encourage misleading and hate news consumption” can be read here

Notably, the disturbing phenomenon was meticulously examined by the CJP Hate Watch team in its long-form analysis, “From government cheerleaders to agent provocateurs: the (mis) use of thumbnails on YouTube.” The analysis details how major Indian television channels, already positioned as mouthpieces for the powerful, are evolving their tactics. Faced with a credibility crisis and reined in by citizen-led complaints to the NBDSA, these channels have shifted their strategy.

Where overt hate in broadcasts once led to take-down orders, they now cleverly leverage misleading thumbnails as their primary weapon. This calculated use of provocative visuals and text is a persistent effort to barter on a politics of division, jeopardizing communal harmony while attempting to dodge direct regulatory scrutiny—a trend CJP has documented through numerous NBDSA orders obtained against these channels between 2022 and 2024.

Related

The Cost of Clicks: how thumbnails encourage misleading and hate news consumption

From government cheerleaders to agent provocateurs: the (mis) use of thumbnails on YouTube

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

The post NBDSA issued advisory to all broadcasters, tickers and thumbnail should conform to the actual of the discussions 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.

The distinction between the themes of thumbnails and the actual content of video is stark, often serving merely as a trigger to provoke viewers into clicking on sensational videos. This tactic exploits ongoing, contentious issues that evoke curiosity and generate excitement among audiences. Thumbnails designed to capture attention ask questions like, “What will happen next?” This psychological appeal plays into a fundamental human tendency to seek out information about impending developments (and often, accompanied by a sense of apprehension, or doom).

Media channels compete fiercely to deliver the latest updates, often prioritizing sensationalism over accuracy.

For example, when gangster Atiq Ahmad was transferred from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh in Umesh Pal murder case, media outlets sensationalised the event with dramatic thumbnails reading “Encounter” or “Accident,” creating an atmosphere of anticipation.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/zCIOkJVgJBk?si=afQvPRSXq-eq9bgQ

From “Ab Hoga Khel” to “Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai,” the pursuit of engagement in Indian media has increasingly prioritised sensationalism, leveraging eye-catching punctuation like exclamation marks and question marks. This strategy aims to captivate viewers, often at the expense of truth. As headlines grow more dramatic, they foster an environment ripe for misleading news and toxic narratives. Thumbnails designed to grab attention can misrepresent the actual content, leading to a cycle of misinformation. In this race for views, media outlets often harvest hate and divisive content, exacerbating communal and social tensions.

The lure of sensationalism

The YouTube media environment is a bustling arena where competition for viewer attention is fierce. In this race, headlines have transformed into clickbait, carefully crafted to provoke emotional responses rather than inform. The use of punctuation marks like exclamation points and question marks has become a hallmark of this sensationalism. A simple headline can shift from informative to inflammatory with just a few strategic characters.

Take, for instance, the phrase “Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai” (Something Big Is Going to Happen), this phrase evokes curiosity and anticipation, especially for J&K reporting and the issue involves communal agenda. It draws viewers in, promising excitement or drama. When paired with an exclamation mark, the urgency escalates, making it almost impossible for viewers to scroll past without clicking. But what lies behind these headlines often falls short of the promises made, leaving viewers with distorted narratives that can shape their beliefs and attitudes in harmful ways.

Reporting of Bahraich violence

Pertinently, during the recent Bahraich violence, YouTube news channels of several media houses resorted to inflammatory and provocative thumbnails, effectively sensationalising the events to create a dramatic climax. Phrases like “100 Ghanto Main… Encounter Ke Baad, Force Ne Ghera Pura Bahraich! Bhage Musalman! Bhayankar Action Shuru” dominated their narratives, casting the incident in a sensational light that fueled fear and division. Further inflammatory headlines, such as “Bahraich Hinsa par Yogi ka tagda aylaan, sunte hi kamp uthe ‘Musalman’!”, served to criminalize a particular community, reinforcing harmful Islamic stereotypes and framing the narrative as a government versus Muslim conflict.

This approach not only misrepresents the complexity of the situation but also positions UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as a savior figure in the face of alleged threats. Media coverage linked various incidents—from the Durga Puja pandal dispute to the murder of Ram Gopal Mishra and the arrests of suspects—using hate-filled thumbnails to garner mass viewership through sensationalism. By prioritising provocative imagery and sensational headlines, these channels contribute to a divisive atmosphere that undermines community cohesion.

Thumbnails:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/JFt7lrJU6dw?si=5eHeBS6XNlT7MRil

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/80TIOrOTCcQ?si=0KL8V6fIJlc40spw

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/r5_AysKMOZY?si=0-CRcTP6uTqqADoq

How the Waqf board law was analysed

YouTube news channels have manipulated the Waqf Amendment Bill, framing it as a communal battle that amplifies Muslim concerns about its potential consequences. Major media houses have exploited this sensitive issue by using provocative thumbnails featuring banners of the Waqf Board and images of Muslims protesting, effectively narrating a narrative of government versus Muslims. This sensational approach oversimplifies a complex legal issue, overshadowing the genuine concerns of the community with a polarized view.

The subsequent introduction of thumbnails promoting the “Santan Board” as a competing entity further blurs the importance of the amendment in its legal and contextual sense. By reducing a nuanced discussion to a sensationalised spectacle, these channels contribute to an atmosphere of division and fear, undermining the constructive dialogue needed to address the implications of the Waqf Amendment Bill. This manipulation detracts from the real stakes involved, distorting public perception and perpetuating communal tensions.

Thumbnails:

Link: https://youtu.be/cVkeEdN6xnI?si=s7Iv49EKFCGKjtBn

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/rwh_wE8TQ6w?si=TwutaSpz_9C_4wbn

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/akyznFPS9Qo?si=hvUldxA5BSUmqKzL

Link: https://youtu.be/VyK6nQ_hSUw?si=1IMMU3KLmtNdks_g

Insensitivity in reporting J&K news

The use of thumbnails for reporting, particularly concerning Jammu and Kashmir, has become increasingly insensitive and sensationalised, exploiting the region’s struggles with terrorism and other basic necessities in rural areas, for ratings and viewership. As Jammu and Kashmir grapples with ongoing terror attacks that significantly impact the lives of its residents, it is disheartening to see journalists and anchors using these life and death issues as mere fodder for TRP-driven programming.

Many reports on the situation in J&K lack factual context and credible sources, further contributing to a distorted narrative. Sensational thumbnails on platforms like YouTube—such as “Kashmir Main Kuch Bada Bone Wala Hain,” “High alert,” and “Bada Khatra”—illustrate this troubling trend. These phrases not only exaggerate the situation but also foster unnecessary fear and anxiety among viewers.

Moreover, the inclusion of unrelated figures, such as UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in headlines about Kashmir, adds to both the confusion and sensationalism. A thumbnail proclaiming “Kashmir Main Yogi-Shah! Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hain” exemplifies how media channels prioritise clicks over responsible reporting.

This relentless pursuit of sensationalism often features alarming visuals, such as bombs and gunfire, to evoke dramatic imagery in viewers’ minds, disregarding the sensitivity required when discussing the real lives affected by such terror activities. By sensationalising these issues, media houses not only undermine their credibility but also show a blatant disregard for the lives and struggles of the people in Jammu and Kashmir.

Thumbnails:

1 of 6

Link: https://youtu.be/BJgx6hAb_yo?si=WoIDqUaofYdccoA3

Link: https://youtu.be/jpbnR-_A_lM?si=g6QD4MTgaYKdEjET

Link: https://youtu.be/FGbSBnqk6Xc?si=RwR0V8sE4Wf2Bv9T

Link: https://youtu.be/X8gCL-ns6v0?si=d1z4qXBgWucItHYf

Link: https://youtu.be/WQdByDzh2Bs?si=5-zJOYOzX9YuyLgB

Link: https://youtu.be/1DaCKrQydY0?si=VBEbnb1taEzcfXoH

Baba Siddiqui murder and sensational thumbnails

In the current media landscape, misleading thumbnails have proliferated, particularly surrounding the tensions circulated on media between Bollywood actor Salman Khan and gangster Lawrence Bishnoi.

Headlines like “Salman Khan Apologizes to Lawrence Bishnoi” and “Salman Met Lawrence in Jail” attempt to create a dramatic climax to their ongoing saga, often sensationalizing the narrative without factual basis. Other thumbnails suggest absurd scenarios, such as Lawrence “catching” Salman or claiming Yogi Adityanath has launched 5,000 commandos to apprehend him.

Further sensationalism includes claims that Bishnoi will donate a gold crown to the Ram Mandir to garner sympathy from devotees, or that Salman is fleeing to Dubai to evade Bishnoi’s wrath. There are also wild suggestions of a settlement happening in Sabarmati or that Bishnoi is poised to win an election in Mumbai. In an even darker twist, thumbnails hint at Lawrence being killed, adding to the sensational nature of these narratives.

Such thumbnails, used by multiple prominent media houses, are often devoid of substance and context. They prioritise clicks over accuracy, fueling misinformation and contributing to a climate of fear and confusion among viewers.

Thumbnails:

1 of 9

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/Qj5iK16ejfE?si=BIGEENXeJ8m9wkM-

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/vYGaYxEXvRo?si=N-Vf40yVhKrHqc1b

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/4AVy_3hMNGE?si=j_e2sSrqMbAbRF7S

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/YjjkxPFKyyw?si=43g64sQLoRXdnzvj

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/2_XfTCc5IZc?si=ehYGNLO-8I-6MTiU

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/V815BHS_7Kc?si=Out0I3VhQXKzwea0

Link: https://youtube.com/post/UgkxDWyRlittS8DXonMvJWOiDrXkqEWUrTBK?si=ioCxML7OVQ0HpWbu

Link: https://youtube.com/post/UgkxDWyRlittS8DXonMvJWOiDrXkqEWUrTBK?si=ioCxML7OVQ0HpWbu

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/niSOYgZedCg?si=1VG2e7blB9VYb_Dj

Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand Mosques Dispute

In September 2024, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand experienced unexpected communal tensions stemming from disputes and protests over the alleged construction of mosques in Sanjauli (Shimla), Mandi, Kullu, and Uttarkashi. During this volatile period, YouTube channels largely chose to emphasise agenda-driven and communal hate thumbnails like “Land Jihad” “Hindu Jag Gaya”, again “Kuch Bada Hone Wala hai”, which tainted the factual context of these sensitive issues. Instead of advocating for peace and harmony in the affected areas, these channels leveraged sensationalism to attract views, disregarding their responsibility as major news platforms.

With millions of viewers relying on these channels for information, the decision to use inflammatory thumbnails has the potential to escalate tensions further, breeding misinformation and hatred among interfaith communities. Rather than fostering understanding and dialogue, the focus on sensational headlines exacerbates divisions. As media outlets have a crucial role in shaping public perception, it is imperative that they exercise caution and sensitivity in their reporting. Responsible journalism should prioritize factual accuracy and promote community harmony, especially in times of heightened conflict of communal issues.

Thumbnails:

1 of 5

Link: https://youtu.be/o2nYfBiECcM?si=YlMC0fHzMWuaAKKJ

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWwCBHWHQO8&pp=ygUTSU5ESUEgVFYgbGFuZCBqaWhhZA%3D%3D

Link: https://youtu.be/JMqNnlwo610?si=hStAi93bPO8bnEwL

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJpJF7knTA

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1mrZtW5heg

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttXrRxGot_w

Thumbnails for Uniform Civil Code

While the implementation of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) affects every religious denomination, the issue is often singularly focussed on the ‘Muslim reaction.’ For example, a Times Now anchor focused an entire program on what Muslims would supposedly lose with a UCC enforcement. The introduction and thumbnail prominently featured religious symbols and imagery, framing the narrative to suggest that the UCC is designed to curtail the special rights of Muslims compared to other citizens. This portrayal implies that the justification for implementing the UCC hinges solely on limiting the rights of a particular community, rather than discussing the issue in general perspective. Such a skewed representation not only misleads viewers but also fosters division by creating an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding around the UCC’s intentions. In this context, sensationalism overshadows the broader discussions around the UCC, ultimately distorting public perception and dialogue around a crucial legislative issue.

Thumbnails:

1 of 5

Link: https://youtu.be/bl30OoFtK58?si=L72k0TBvJ1gk9a42

Link: https://youtu.be/VeYGGdPveSU?si=8PCQ7faKFUxJ7rx7

Link: https://youtu.be/2371gEjEyig?si=gN4z6Oy2dYITtSBE

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/h-gZzZ-fkSQ?si=lySZ7GfvrnhdAhD4

Link: https://youtu.be/BpYKKWeOb54?si=6HsCuDltN6CooKGb

YouTube’s Thumbnail policy

Under YouTube’s “Thumbnail Policy,” it is explicitly stated that thumbnails and other images violating the platform’s Community Guidelines are prohibited. This policy encompasses all visual elements, including those used in banners, avatars, community posts, and other features.

YouTube has made it clear that users can report thumbnails or images that breach these guidelines through established reporting procedures. By encouraging active user participation in monitoring content, YouTube empowers its community to help maintain a safer online environment.

However, the responsibility doesn’t solely lie with users; YouTube must also enhance its moderation efforts and algorithms to proactively identify and remove misleading and harmful thumbnails before they reach a wider audience. By prioritising the enforcement of its policies and promoting responsible content creation, YouTube can significantly reduce the impact of sensationalism and misinformation on its platform, fostering a more informed and respectful discourse.

YouTube’s Thumbnail Policy provides that;

Don’t post a thumbnail or other image on YouTube if it shows:

• Pornographic imagery
• Sexual acts, the use of sex toys, fetishes, or other sexually gratifying imagery
• Nudity, including genitals
• Imagery that depicts unwanted sexualization
• Violent imagery that intends to shock or disgust
• Graphic or disturbing imagery with blood or gore
• Vulgar or lewd language
• A thumbnail that misleads viewers to think they’re about to view something that’s not in the video

Although, the above list isn’t complete.

Despite these stated guidelines, sensationalism bordering on targeted hate, persists. The quest for clicks on YouTube channels has transformed the media landscape into one where sensationalism reigns supreme, often at the expense of truth and integrity. Thumbnails designed to provoke curiosity and generate excitement frequently misrepresent actual content, leading viewers down a path of misleading narratives and hate-driven rhetoric. Phrases like “Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai” capture attention but fail to deliver on their negative promises, distorting perceptions around critical issues such as communal tensions and social unrest. This relentless pursuit of engagement encourages the consumption of inflammatory content, exacerbating divisions within society.

Therefore, it is imperative for YouTube and media channels to take a stand against provocative and harmful digital content. They must prioritise the removal of insensitive thumbnails, especially concerning sensitive issues, and commit to responsible journalism that fosters informed discourse rather than sensationalism. By doing so, media outlets can help restore trust, promote social harmony, and contribute to a healthier public dialogue—one that values truth over clicks.

Related:

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

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

CJP Impact: YouTube responds to CJP’s complaint, takes down hate filled content!

The post From ‘Ab Hoga Khel’ to ‘Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai’: the trap set by thumbnails appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP highlighted in its complaint that the show titled “Coffee Par Kurukshetra: यूपी में पत्थरबाजों की फौज कहां से आई? UP Bahraich Violence | CM Yogi”, was surrounding the ongoing tension erupted in Bahraich’s Maharajganj area in Uttar Pradesh.

As per CJP’s complaint to channel, the ‘Coffee Par Kurukshetra’ show on India Tv, host Sharma targeted the Muslim community, propagated anti-Islam theories and spread a divisive agenda. Based on the premise set through the details of multiple incidents across the country, chosen specifically to paint the Muslim community as aggressive, the impugned show begins. The participants present during the show were: Professor Sangeet Ragi (Professor, Political Science Delhi University, Pradeep Singh, Shantanu Gupta and the show began with host Saurav Sharma introducing the topic of Bahraich violence before the guests. The narrative consistently framed Muslims and Islamophobic propaganda in a way that reinforced negative stereotypes. Muslim majority areas were labelled as “sensitive” solely because of their demographic composition, fuelling a false narrative about the Muslim population, their festivals, and religious practices.

Further, the guests urged Hindus to oppose the Azaan and emphasizing exaggerated or imagined threats from the Muslim community, the narrative deepened divisions and heightened communal tensions. This deliberate framing contributed to a more polarized atmosphere, fostering mistrust and hostility between communities.

In complaint, CJP stated that “Professor Ragi’s remarks, invoking Maharshi Arvind to suggest that Hindus will eventually need to “take sticks and come out on the streets” to confront the “mind-set of Islam,” are profoundly dangerous. By portraying Muslims as enemies of the country and framing violence as an inevitable and even necessary response, Ragi is fuelling communal hatred and inciting potential violence.”

It was contention of the CJP that the host failed to intervene as participant Professor Sangeet Ragi made provocative statements intended to pit the Hindu community against the Muslim community. Instead of challenging these divisive remarks, host Saurav Sharma reinforced them by citing a Dainik Bhaskar report about a religious flag being hoisted in Amroha. Ragi immediately corrected him, stating that the flag had actually been raised on a temple, further spreading misinformation, as CJP highlighted in its complaint.

One panellist, Shantanu Gupta, also remarked during the show that“we are hearing Namaaz five times and what are we hearing in Namaaz five times, ‘Allah is the greatest no other god is worthy of worship’, which means no other god is worthy of worship. We are hearing this five times, and what are we saying, Mata ki Jai and in this we are not saying anything against anyone, but what are they saying in Azaan, ‘No other god is worthy of worship.”

CJP pleads in its complaint that Shantanu Gupta’s claims are not only false but also indicative of a broader misinformation campaign aimed at inciting communal tensions. His assertion that B.R. Ambedkar identified three specific reasons for conflict between Hindus and Muslims is misleading and taken out of context. Moreover, Gupta’s interpretation of Islamic practices, particularly the wording of the Azaan, is deeply flawed. The Azaan is a call to prayer that expresses the oneness of God, not a declaration of animosity towards other faiths. This misrepresentation distorts the essence of religious practices and fosters an unnecessary narrative of hostility. By framing the Azaan as inherently exclusive or provocative, Gupta perpetuates divisive stereotypes that further alienate communities and stoke fear.

CJP pointed out that this kind of rhetoric not only deepens divisions between communities but also legitimises vigilantism and mob justice under the guise of protecting Hindu interests. His suggestion that society will awaken and take matters into its own hands without reliance on political or organisational structures is a direct call for unchecked aggression, promoting an atmosphere where law and order are abandoned in favour of violent confrontation. Such statements are not just provocative but perilous, as they incite societal unrest, encourage hatred, and could lead to widespread violence against the Muslim community.

In complaint, CJP stressed that “According to the guidelines of the News Broadcasting Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA), hosts are expected to maintain neutrality and avoid favouring one community over another. However, this expectation was clearly not met. As evidenced by the videos and highlighted statements, both the host and participants seemed focused on questioning whether Hindus in India should “open their eyes” to the so-called “agenda of Muslims.” As an anchor of a news channel, which is supposed to uphold a neutral and unbiased theme, Sharma failed to introduce any non communal topics into the debate.”

CJP’s complaint to channel dated October 21, 2024 can be read here

Related:

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for communal bias in their news segment on the arrest of singer Altaf Hussain in Assam

CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: A look at the repeated violation of ethics and guidelines by Indian television channels

Complaint filed against IndiaTV by CJP for stoking fear and spreading anti-Muslim propaganda under the guise of Bangladesh crisis

The post CJP files complaint against India TV’s anti-Muslim show appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This propaganda is an attempt to derail the current discussion on misguided Waqf Bill. This campaign falsely claims that the DMC has suggested and DWB has demanded lands of Hindu temples. The fact is that neither DMC nor DWB ever suggested or demanded that temples built on Waqf land be demolished or their land be returned to the DWB. This is an unmitigated lie.

The DMC report of 2019 on some West Delhi mosques (https://archive.org/details/dmc-report-on-illegal-mosques-delhi) was prepared to examine the claim of the then BJP MP Mr Parvesh Verma that “illegal” mosques have been built in his parliamentary constituency and that such mosques should be demolished.

Mr Parvesh Verma had sent his complaint to the Delhi Lt. Governor in June 2019 claiming that 54 “illegal” mosques have cropped up in his constituency (West Delhi) during the last 20 years. He demanded that action should be taken against these mosques. In other words, he wanted these mosques be demolished. When no action was taken on his complaint, Mr Verma re-sent his complaint to the L.G. the next month.

On the publication of reports in the media about this communication to the L.G. by Mr Verma, as the then Chairman of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC), I formed a 5-member committee consisting of two Muslims, two Christians and a Sikh. All of them were reputed members of society and were active in legal and human rights fields. The committee inspected all the mosques on the list provided by Mr Verma, inspected their papers and finally presented a detailed report to the Commission saying that none of these mosques is illegal while some of them were centuries-old and thus protected as ancient monuments. At the same time, the Committee came across a number of illegal temples found in the vicinity of the so-called “illegal” mosques and at times built on the same plot of land as the mosques.

In its report, the Committee mentioned these temples along with their locations and photographs, although Mr Verma had missed them.

Copies of the said DMC report were sent to the L.G., Delhi Chief Minister and even to Mr Parvesh Verma himself. The report was also released to the media during a press conference. Thereafter, Mr Verma never raised that issue. Now, after five years, Zee News suddenly remembered that report but (deliberately) potrayed this in a skewed, totally wrong context. Zee News presented it claiming that DWB wants to grab temple lands, while the report only passingly mentioned that some temples in the vicinity of the so-called illegal mosques stood on Waqf lands.

Our committee had inspected each and every mosque on Mr Verma’s list and found that no mosque in the list was “illegal”. All were legal while some were centuries-old. During its visits, the Committee came across illegal temples found in the area and discovered that some of them were built on Waqf lands. The Committee registered this fact in its report but did not make any demand on the said lands of the illegal temples. The DWB too did not stake any claim on such lands.

The propaganda aired by an entranced, ‘godi media’ now is totally concocted, brazenly motivated. This campaign obscures the real purpose and findings of the said report. It is an attempt to misdirect the current discussion on the Waqf issue and pave the way to drastic changes in the Waqf law as planned by the Modi government.

A few days back a reporter of Zee News phoned me saying that next day they are holding a panel discussion on the issue on their channel. He wanted me to participate in the said discussion. I apologized saying that for the last four and a half years I do not talk to Godi media due to bitter past experiences about its bias and lies. The said reporter quickly apologised and ended the call.

Next day a reporter of Zee Salam, the Urdu section of Zee News, phoned me for an interview. I repeated what I told earlier to his colleague. He assured me that Zee Salam is different and that my interview will be carried in full with no cuts. After this, I accepted to meet him. He came in the evening and recorded a long interview with me in which I explained the gist and the circumstances and the result of the DMC report and how it is being twisted now. I also gave him a printed copy of the said DMC report. That interview was not carried that night. Upon my enquiry, the reporter told me that the interview will be carried next day. On the following day, Zee News assembled six persons including three saffron-clad Hindutvites. The panel included an advocate who was a member of the said DMC committee. He tried to explain the issue but was not allowed by the anchor to complete his explanation while time was amply given to others including a saffron-clad sadhu who bluntly announced that if you take the land of one temple, we will take ten mosques!

Later, a reporter of a Hindi newspaper talked to me on the same issue but I ended the call when, instead of listening to me, he kept blurting out his understanding of the issue on the Godi media lines.

This propaganda continues on various Godi media and Hindutva platforms. The fact is that these people are not after truth. They can utter any lie in order to serve their agenda. The agenda is dangerous and divisive, to generate lies, half-truths about India’s minorities, the Muslims. 

(The author is a former Chairman, Delhi Minorities Commission)

The post Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC) did not demand land of Hindu temples; former Chairperson DMC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the complaint, on August 18, Priyank Kanoongo, Chairman of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), made a series of allegations on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter). He claimed that government-funded madrassas in Bihar are teaching from books like “Talimul Islam” that describe non-Muslims as “Kafir,” or those who do not believe in Allah. Kanoongo further alleged that Hindu children are enrolled in these madrassas, but the Bihar government has not containing books printed in Pakistan, criticizing UNICEF for its involvement and labelling it as “appeasement.” Kanoongo argued that madrassas are unsuitable for basic education and called for their dissolution, suggesting that children should instead attend regular schools.

At the outset, CJP highlighted that in both these shows, the anchors have the framed the narrative in such a skewed manner that the Madrassas across the country have been painted as suspicious places that are attempting to brainwash children and create the image of the Madrassas and respective teacher as enemies of this country.  

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “the language used in these questions is extremely Islamophobic as it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and fosters suspicion towards the Muslim community. The unsubstantial implication that madrassas are involved in conspiracies while questioning the content of their educational materials through unfair portrayal of Islamic schools as breeding grounds for extremism is not just and neutral coverage of an important issue. This generalisation ignores the diversity within Islamic education and promotes a narrative of fear and mistrust. Additionally, the use of terms like “Kafir” in a negative context vilifies Islamic beliefs and suggests an inherent hostility towards other religions, further alienating Muslims. Moreover, this kind of language promotes an “us vs. them” mentality, deepening divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims. By casting suspicion on the Muslim community and misrepresenting their beliefs, the questions contribute to the marginalization and discrimination of Muslims. This Islamophobic rhetoric not only misrepresents the religion but also encourages hostility, making it harmful and divisive in both social and political contexts.”

The report presented by host Rakesh Pandey contained the same statement of NCPCR chairperson Priyank Konoongo wherein he is saying that the syllabus of the Madrasas is such that it is not suitable for Hindu students, and creates an extreme opinion in the mind of the Muslim students regarding non-Muslims. The report also includes statements made by a Madrasa Principal, namely Mashroof Ahmad Qadri Nadvi, wherein he can be seen responding to the Times Now Navbharat reporter by stating that the present controversy is being created without any reason and is a distortion of understanding of the Islamic scriptures. Regarding the meaning of the word ‘Kafir,’ Principal Nadvi explained that it is an Arabic word meaning “denial.” He further clarified that in the Arabic context, a “Kafir” is someone who denies God or other truths.

CJP stated that “the host’s failure to moderate the discussion fairly, allowing derogatory language and accusations to go unchecked, further exacerbates the problem. By not challenging or correcting the inflammatory statements made by participants, the host implicitly endorses a narrative of extremism and radicalism being insubstantially associated with madrasas. This approach undermines the credibility of the debate and encourages a hostile environment where productive dialogue is replaced by sensationalism and divisiveness. Such coverage does a disservice to the audience, as it obscures the real issues at hand and prevents a meaningful exploration of the concerns surrounding religious education, ultimately contributing to a climate of intolerance and misunderstanding”.

In complaint CJP also cited the linguistically meaning of the word “kafir” for the sake of convenience. In which it has been stated that ‘linguistically, the Arabic word “Kafir”1derives from the root “kafara,” which means to cover or conceal. According to classical Islamic sources, “Kafir” literally means someone who covers or hides something. For instance, the night is referred to as “Kafir” because it conceals everything with darkness. Similarly, a farmer is called “Kafir” because he buries seeds in the ground. In Islamic terminology, “Kafir” denotes someone who rejects Islamic teachings and is considered unable to perceive the divine signs and guidance. The term is not intended as an insult to other religions but rather signifies a refusal to accept Islamic faith.”

Based on the extracts of the statements made by the speakers, the complaint states that both shows failed to provide a fair and nuanced exploration of the issue, focusing instead on sensationalism and divisive rhetoric. By presenting madrassas as breeding grounds for radicalism and using biased framing, these broadcasts contributed to the spread of Islamophobic sentiments and distorted the public’s understanding of Islamic education. The portrayal of madrasa education as inherently problematic, without acknowledging the diversity and context of these institutions, underscores the biased and harmful nature of the coverage provided by both shows.

However, the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board denied the allegations raised by the NCPCR Chairperson Kanoongo. When TNN reported questioned Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board, Mr. Abdul Salam Ansari over the allegations of Muslims being imparted radical and divisive education against non-Muslims in the Madrassas of Bihar. Responding to the same, Ansari clarified that “this kind of syllabus is not in my Madrasa board. Whatever syllabus of 1st to 8th class of Bihar Government is approved by SCERT, all the syllabus are valid in my madrassas”. The reporter then referred to the allegations raised by the NCPCR Chairperson Kanoongo, to which Deputy Director Ansari replied by stating that “See, we do not have any information about this, it is not appropriate to comment on it until the official information comes”

The Complaint may be read here:

Related:

Complaint filed against IndiaTV by CJP for stoking fear and spreading anti-Muslim propaganda under the guise of Bangladesh crisis

Human Rights Watch reports that Modi made at least 110 Islamophobic remarks during 2024 election campaign

Bangladesh Situation Tumultuous, But Does Not Signify Islamic Extremist Dominance

The post CJP files complaint against TNN anchors for broadcasting misleading debate show appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chopra has also posted three photos in the said social media post, where he can be seen casually walking and feeding cows along with the former president of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).

His post on X can be viewed here:

अयोध्या दौरे के दौरान @b_bhushansharan के साथ उनकी गौशाला गया। pic.twitter.com/IeswK6Y8BV

— Aman Chopra (@AmanChopra_) January 17, 2024

This comes after multiple wrestlers in December had returned their awards in protest to a close aid of Singh, namely Sanjay Singh, being appointed as the president of the WFI. Bajrang Punia had returned his Padma Shri award and Vinesh Phogat had also returned her Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award and Arjuna Award. Both of these, who had led the Wrestlers protest against Singh since January 2023 and shed their light on the exploitative culture prevailing at the WFI had also written separate open letters addressed to PM Modi expressing their anguish and disappointment. Later, Virender Singh Yadav had also supported the Wrestlers in this movement, and had returned Padma Shri award.

It is crucial to note that Sakshi Malik, who was also the main force behind the Wrestlers protest had announced at a conference that she will be retiring from wrestling.

It is also pertinent to highlight here that the sexual harassment and sexual abuse case against Singh is ongoing in the Delhi court and is at the stage of framing of charges. Arguments against Singh by the Delhi Police have come to a conclusion and the counsel for the complainants, the six wrestlers who have raised the allegations against Singh, will be beginning on January 20.

In the arguments submitted by the Delhi police through Additional public prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava that Singh had “outraged the modesty” of the women wrestlers who filed harassment charges against him at every opportunity he got. The APP also told the court that the former WFI chief “knew what he was doing” and his intention was to outrage the modesty of the wrestlers, which he also tried to cover up. It was further submitted that Singh justified that his acts were carried out in a father-like capacity while reacting to the victims’ statement that Bhushan used to touch their breast on the pretext of checking their breathing capacity.

Related:

Wrestler Sakshi Malik quits wrestling as close aid of sexual harassment accused Brij Bhushan gets elected as president

Sexual harassment, stalking and molestation accused Brij Bhushan granted two day interim bail by Delhi Court

Delhi Police on Brij Bhushan sexual harassment case: “Liable to be prosecuted and punished for sexual harassment, molestation and stalking”

The post Journalist Aman Chopra casually visits a gaushala with sexual harassment accused Brij Bhushan Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Both mentioned shows were based on the current ongoing conflict between a militant group Hamas and Israel. On October 7, an unprecedented attack was launched by Hamas on Israel which had reportedly resulted in the death of 1,400 people. In the retaliatory attacks and air strikes that have been launched by Israel in Gaza, at least 3,700 people have been killed, most of which were innocent civilians. While both innocent Israeli citizens and Palestinians have suffered casualties in this ongoing conflict, in India, this issue is being given a communal colour.

The two debate shows attempted to influence its audience with a skewed twist to the said conflict and painted the ones supporting the Palestinian cause of life, liberty and freedom from occupation as a “Muslim issue”. The two shows built a one-sided narrative that Muslims, leaders of the opposition and students of the left organisation protesting in support of Palestine were supporting the illegal activities of Hamas as well.

Through the complaint, we have highlighted that both the anchors of the debates, namely Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, framed the narrative in such a partisan manner that Indian Muslims were shown as sympathisers of the militant group of Hamas due to their “religious connection”. In Pandey’s Rashtravad show, he had formulated the following question as the premise of the debate:

1. “Will there be support of terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?
2. Has the ‘Muslim leadership’ been exposed in this Israel-Hamas conflict?
3. Who is building the ‘Hamas think tank’ in India?”

As is evident, the said questions were formed in a way that portrayed the Muslim community and Muslim leaders supporting Israel in a suspicious and negative light. While the debate itself was biased, the host had concluded it by stating that “let me tell you why the leaders of the opposition says all this, it is because you find people in the country who are willing to go to a funeral of our Prime Ministers and who protest on the day that Yakub Menon underwent his death sentence. It is because these people think that they will appease the sentiments of a particular group that they make such statements.”

In Naina Yadav’s debate show, the question “whether the people of India will also support Hamas and are the leaders of the opposition instigating people?” was posed to the participants. The question in itself was biased and leading. Both of these shows contributed to the stigmatising and polarising environment that has been created for the Indian Muslims in the wake of escalating conflict in Palestinian and Israeli territories.

The complaint highlighted the duties of a host that are prescribed by the NBDSA (News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority) guidelines. The said guidelines state that hosts of a news segment are supposed to and expected to take a neutral stand, introduce a neutral theme and not side with a particular community to put any other community on the spot. And yet, in contravention of the guidelines, both the hosts Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav were keen on leading the debate with the question of whether the Muslim leaders of the opposition, protestors and the Muslim community are supporting Hamas and creating a ‘Hamas think tank’ within India. The complaint then highlighted the codes of ethics and principles of self-regulation as laid out by the NBDSA which were violated by Times Now Navbharat through these shows.

The complete complaint can be read here:

Related:

NBDSA: CJP ESCALATES COMPLAINT TO AUTHORITIES AGAINST TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT DEBATE SHOW

CJP SENDS COMPLAINT AGAINST MEDIA TRIAL ON ASI SURVEY OF GYANVAPI MOSQUE BY TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT

CJP VICTORY! NBDSA ORDERS REMOVAL OF CONTESTED DEBATE SHOW AIRED BY TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT

CJP COMPLAINS AGAINST 3 SHOWS OF TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT

The post CJP sends complaint to Times Now Navbharat over debate shows giving communal colour to the Israel-Hamas Conflict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Founded by a man named Raghvendra Pratap Singh and Akash Mishra in March 2017 according to LinkedIn, Rajdharma operates out of New Delhi and, according to information sourced from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs filing, is registered as Rajdharma Media LLP. The company’s primary focus seems to be producing digital media content, with a pronounced emphasis on news and current affairs. Their reported employee count is of 2-10 individuals.

Rajdharma has witnessed an unprecedented surge in popularity over the past eight months, with its subscriber count skyrocketing from 19.2 lakh to a staggering 2.9 million. This meteoric rise in viewership has left many intrigued, prompting a closer examination of the channel’s content and affiliations. The rapid rise of ‘Rajdharma’ on YouTube has piqued interest, prompting scrutiny of its content, contributors, and affiliations. The channel’s tendency to showcase interviews and reports that seem to lean towards a particular ideological stance raises concerns around the nature of media and content it produces, and it’s wilful tag of being a proponent of journalistic integrity.

Central to the channel’s content is Archana Tiwari, a self-proclaimed “journalist”, identified as an anchor at Rajdharma. Her association with the channel seems to be instrumental in shaping its narrative and vice versa. Tiwari’s recent viral video interview featuring an elderly Muslim man from Nuh has sparked controversy due to her aggressive line of questioning and perceived insinuations of criminality. In the interview, she appears to suggest that the Muslim community is responsible for acts of violence and tries to implicate the elderly man in these alleged incidents. The video drew attention due to her persistent questioning even when the man stated he was unwell and had no idea about what she was talking about.

Tiwari’s Twitter activity also caught attention. Although her account dates back to 2016, the majority of her tweets appear to be from August 2023, showcasing congratulatory messages from right-wing and BJP supporters.

राम जन्मभूमि मंदिर द्वितीय तल के निर्माण का कार्य भी तेजी से चल रहा है। श्री राम जन्मभूमि मंदिर के द्वितीय तल के निर्माण की खूबसूरत और विहंगम तस्वीरें आप देख सकते हैं।

भगवान श्री राम की मूर्ति 15 जनवरी से 24 जनवरी 2024 के बीच उपयुक्‍त तिथि को स्‍थापित की जाएगी l#जयश्रीराम pic.twitter.com/BdFoIP0Tlr

— Archana Tiwari (@ArchanaaTiwari) July 21, 2023

The affiliations of other ‘Rajdharma’ employees further raise further questions about the channel’s credibility. Prabhat Ranjan Mishra, a self-claimed “reporter and anchor”, and Ashwini Choubey, labelled as a ‘Content Writer,’ at Rajdharma.

A quintessential example of ‘Rajdharma’s’ political inclinations can be seen in an interview conducted by Tiwari with Ajay Bisht aka Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in 2022. The interview merely a ten minute chat and is notably flamboyant and easy going in its questioning and avoids any critical inquiries, focusing instead on praising the political leadership and policies in place in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP).

The programme “Sirf teen sawalon yeh CM Yogi ka interview” or “CM Yogi’s interview only in three questions,” for instance. The style, formatting and the dialogues can even fulfil all the pre-requisite of a scripted advertisement; the resemblance is uncanny. The first question, for instance, is the manner in which Tiwari asks just how has the CM made UP so safe for woman, as opposed to the atmosphere of fear they lived in 6 years earlier to which the CM replies with a smile asserting the “necessity for women’s safety”. There is no mention of gruesome incidents of rape and violence Dalits and Muslim women in the state, nor even of the stark case of Hathras, where a Dalit girl was brutally raped and left for dead, which shook the country in September 2020. As of today August 17^th 2023, this video has almost a million views.

Yogi Adityanath has been featured in quite a few videos by Rajdharma. According to the Caravan Magazine, it was the minister’s PR agency that arranged for the video segments with YouTube content creators like Rajdharma and others.

The views on the YouTube channel range from 20,000 to 2 million. What is noteworthy is this particularly genre of videos the YouTube Channel produces in which working class, often elderly, Muslims are captured on camera as the Youtuber, often Archana Tiwari, aggressively asks hostile and provocative questions. The channel then twists the answers of the interviewees, no matter how harmless they may be, into a sensationalist headline.

For instance, one YouTube video featured an old Muslim man who is asked of the demolitions in going on in Nuh. He replies that these constitute a harrowing attack on Muslims. Tiwari goes on to repeatedly ask him if he is afraid of Yogi Adityanath, even though he is the CM of another state. The man states in the affirmative. Tiwari pounces on to that, in a triumphalist vein, and goes on to repeat the man’s fear-filled reply with much glee and aplomb, seemingly marvelling at how the fear of this chief minister pervades populations (Muslim) in other states as well. This can hardly qualify as journalism or reporting.

Furthermore, this video has about 2 million views. One of the highest viewer counts on the channel. Higher even than the current view count of the Yogi Adityanath interviews, which stands at a modest 9.3 lakh in comparison.  In fact, this pattern exists for most of the videos which show Muslims being humiliated or aggressively accused by the YouTube present on the field.

Amongst these interviews, the channel also features content on topics such as the building of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. Several videos ranging in topics which include headlines on Rahul Gandhi, Asaduddin Owaisi. Headlines such as “Bhumi Pujan ko sunkar aap ki aankhein bhar aayengi” (Your eyes will well up with tears once you listen to this Bhumi Pujan), feature in the channel, which additionally also has an entire series of videos dedicated to the Sushant Singh Rajput controversy, titled “Justice for Sushant Singh Rajput”.

The Sushant Singh Rajput controversy occurred when the actor reportedly killed himself in June 2020, at which time the right wing engaged in a massive online campaign asserting that his death was a “conspiracy”. Available video and text content on this YouTube channel really itself makes the argument that this YouTube channel is the part of an industry that engaged in content creation that markets “news as entertainment”. However the content orientation is being increasingly consumed as a substitute for journalism and reportage which marks a concerning challenge for the future of journalism in India as the government increases curbs on the freedom of an autonomous and independent media, while allowing with impunity, hate content of this kind, across mediums.

Related:

Distorting facts about Muslim population growth at the Digital Hindu Conclave

Hate Hatao: CJP’s Campaign Against Division and Discrimination

No, India is not home to crores of illegal immigrants, ‘Bangladeshis’ or otherwise

Growing calls for social and economic boycott of Muslims surfacing on social media, plea in the Supreme Court

The post Woman seen heckling old Muslim man not “reporter” but part of right-wing ecosystem of hate appeared first on SabrangIndia.