This is not only a vindication of CJP’s relentless media watchdog efforts but also an institutional acknowledgment that prime-time news debates can fuel communal hatred when stripped of neutrality and balance.

The Spark: Bahraich Violence and its media afterlife

The case traces back to events of October 13, 2024, when communal violence erupted in Bahraich’s Maharajganj area during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Loud music played near a mosque led to clashes, gunfire, and the death of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, sparking retaliatory violence across the area. Shops, homes, hospitals, and vehicles were vandalised or set ablaze.

Just two days later, India TV aired Coffee Par Kurukshetra, ostensibly to discuss the incident. But instead of sober reportage, the show sensationalised the tragedy, demonised Muslims, and presented the violence as part of a larger “civil war” allegedly being prepared by Muslims against Hindus.

The episode was hosted by Sourav Sharma, with panellists including Professor Sangeet Ragi, Pradeep Singh, and Shantanu Gupta — all of whom used the platform to make sweeping, inflammatory claims against Muslims.

The complete complaint may be read here.

The Complaint

On October 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint, later escalated on November 6, 2024, underlining the show’s dangerous narrative and violation of broadcasting standards.

CJP pointed to several troubling aspects:

• Loaded language and visuals: The anchor introduced the show with terms like “stone-pelter army”, “extremist Muslims”, “civil war” and “conspiracy”. Aggressive visuals and background music heightened the fear-driven narrative.
• Vilification of Muslims: The broadcast portrayed Muslims as perpetual aggressors and “outsiders,” even invoking Partition to argue Hindus had historically suffered because of Muslims.
• Misuse of religious practices: The Azaan was singled out as disruptive; panellists questioned why Hindus should tolerate it. Muslim festivals were painted as threats to Hindu ways of life.
• Distortions of historical figures: Gandhi and Ambedkar’s words were misquoted or wrenched out of context to argue that they too had warned against Muslims.
• No counter-voices: No Muslim speakers or neutral voices were invited. The discussion was entirely one-sided, with the host tacitly endorsing the communal tone.
• Dangerous calls to action: Guests openly suggested Hindus should “come out with sticks” to defend themselves, with rhetoric escalating to cosmic metaphors of “gods versus demons.”

CJP stressed that airing such a programme without any verified police investigation or neutral reporting amounted to spreading disinformation, promoting hostility, and abandoning journalistic neutrality.

The Broadcaster’s Defence: Freedom of press or abdication of duty?

India TV, in its reply dated November 5, 2024, defended the programme by arguing:

• The show was live, unscripted, and based on free debate; responsibility lay with guests, not the broadcaster.
• The channel did not endorse guest views, which were “diverse perspectives.”
• Freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) protected the airing of controversial opinions.
• CJP’s complaint had “selectively quoted” panellists and distorted context.

India TV insisted the host had asked probing questions — such as whether Ram Gopal’s removal of a flag justified his killing — and claimed that presenting historical parallels and references to riots was legitimate.

The Hearing: CJP vs. India TV

The matter was heard by NBDSA on May 29, 2025. CJP reiterated that the show, aired at a time when no official police findings were available, had irresponsibly created an “us vs. them” dichotomy, depicted Muslims as violent conspirators, and stripped the broadcast of neutrality.

The broadcaster doubled down, arguing that controversial views cannot be censored in a democracy, and the complainant had failed to show factual misquotations.

NBDSA’s Findings: A one-sided, communal narrative

After reviewing the broadcast and submissions, NBDSA made several critical findings:

1. Deliberate theme and panel selection

• • The broadcaster had pre-selected a divisive theme and only invited speakers supporting that narrative.
  • No dissenting or balancing voices were included, making the debate fundamentally biased.

The order noted “The Authority found that a particular theme was chosen and thereafter only those persons who have strong views in support of that theme were invited to express their views.”

2. Violation of neutrality

• • Anchors are obliged to moderate and prevent communal provocation.

The order noted “The broadcaster did not include the speakers who could express other side of the picture, and thus the discussion was not balanced and was one-sided. This is clear violation of principle of neutrality under the Code of Conduct. The broadcaster is advised to have such discussions in the programmes keeping in mind the principles of neutrality.”

The Order: Strong directions against India TV

NBDSA’s order issued the following directions:

• Content removal: India TV must delete the impugned broadcast from its website, YouTube channel, and all online links. Written confirmation of compliance must be submitted within 7 days.
• Institutional circulation: The order will be circulated among all NBDA members, Editors, and Legal Heads.
• Public record: The order will be hosted on NBDSA’s website, included in its Annual Report, and released to the media.

The Authority clarified that while its findings apply to broadcasting standards, they do not determine civil or criminal liability — keeping the scope strictly within media regulation.

The order noted that “NBDSA further also directed the broadcaster to remove the videos of the impugned broadcasts, if still available from the website of the channel, or YouTube, and remove all hyperlinks, including access, which should be confirmed to NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the Order.

NBDSA decided to close the complaint with the above observations and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

NBDSA directs NBDA to send:

• A copy of this Order to the complainant and the broadcaster;

• Circulate this Order to all Members, Editors & Legal Heads of NBDA;

• Host this Order on its website and include it in its next Annual Report and

• Release the Order to media.”

Why this is a victory

The importance of this order lies in:

• Explicit recognition of one-sided narratives: The order highlights how “debates” can be structured to push communal agendas by excluding balancing voices.
• Anchor accountability: By holding the host responsible for failing to intervene, the NBDSA sets a precedent that anchors cannot hide behind guest opinions.
• Content removal, not just warning: The directive to remove all online traces of the show is stronger than usual, signalling zero tolerance for such broadcasts.
• Validation of civil society monitoring: CJP’s meticulous monitoring, complaint drafting, and legal follow-through stand vindicated, showcasing the role of civil society in holding powerful broadcasters to account.

Conclusion

The NBDSA’s decision reaffirms that freedom of the press cannot be a licence to vilify minorities or erode communal harmony.

For CJP, this win represents the power of consistent vigilance, evidence-based complaints, and commitment to secular values. At a time when hate speech in mainstream media is often normalised, this order proves that institutions can still deliver accountability when pushed with precision and persistence.

This is, without doubt, a small but vital step towards reclaiming media as a forum for truth, balance, and harmony — not hate.

The complete order may be read here.

Image Courtesy: jiotv.com

Related:

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

NBDSA issued advisory to news channels that tickers and thumbnails should conform to the actual version of the discussion

NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat to avoid presumptions in sensitive religious reporting for broadcast on “Madrasas Teachings”

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

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

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

The post NBDSA pulls up India TV for communal, one-sided broadcast; upholds CJP complaint against broadcast appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Reports indicate that the police were instructed to register the case under new penal provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, specifically “promoting enmity between groups” (Section 196) and “acts against national integration” (Section 197), after initially declining to file an FIR, suggesting a judicial order was preferred.

The Broadcast’s Framing Under Scrutiny

In the complaint filed, Thakur argued that to deem Partition as an “unfinished project” was dangerous language that lent credence to questioning the legitimacy of Muslims who chose to remain in India after 1947.

Kashyap remarked during the programme: “यह विभाजन धर्म के आधार पर हुआ लेकिन मैं आपको दिखाती हूं कि जिस मकसद से ये विभाजन किया गया था वह मकसद कभी पूरा ही नहीं हुआ.” (This Partition happened based on religion, but I will show on the big screen that the purpose for which this Partition was carried out was never fulfilled.) She referenced migration figures that suggested that India has a population of four crore Muslims, of which only 96 Lakh migrated to Pakistan, and more Hindus migrated into India. She compared the number of Hindus emigrating from East and West Pakistan to Muslims emigrating from India. She used this as evidence that the religious basis for Partition had not been fulfilled.

The complaint points out that these numbers were inconsistent (at times 96 lakh, at other times 72 lakh) and were used to inflame division. Further, the social media caption accompanying the broadcast — “Out of 4 crores, only 96 lakh Muslims went to Pakistan! What has happened to the purpose of Partition?” — intensified the attempt at divisiveness. Thakur claimed this framing was “venomous, destructive, and divisive,” emphasizing the timing of the post, aiming to inflame possible animosity rather than facilitate debate, on the eve of Independence Day.

In a nutshell, the complaint states that the framing of the episode and selective statistics crossed the line from historical discussion to communal provocation, raising the question of Muslims’ belonging in India and undermining nation-building.

The Targeting of the Anchor, and not the Network

The complaint focuses entirely on Anjana Om Kashyap, completely ignoring the liability of the news channel and the producers of the show. This illustrates a typical prosecutorial trend: complaints about speech that airs on broadcast usually starts with the anchor, who is the most visible face of the programme. They frame the conversation and speak the words on air, which makes them the most identifiable responsible person.

Legally, this is grounded in Section 196 and Section 197 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Section 196: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or community, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.”

Section 197: “Whoever, by words either spoken or written… does any act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, regional or language groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity or which is prejudicial to the integration of India.”

As these provisions target the speaker or publisher of offending words, it is obvious that the anchor will be the first possible target. In contrast, attaching liability to the producers or the network would require some evidence of intent (at the organisational level), such as editorial instructions or policy documents, evidence that complainants are virtually never in possession of at the time of filing.

Nevertheless, broadcasters are subject to the terms of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which disallows certain programming. Rule 6 of the Programme Code, 1994 states, programming that “offends good taste or decency; criticizes friendly countries; attacks religions or communities; or is likely to encourage or incite violence or contain anything against maintenance of law and order, or which promotes anti-national attitudes”. Enforcement of this act is administrative, with warnings, advisories, and the suspension of the transmission.

In practice, then, while anchors personify the criminal complaints through the BNS, networks face longer regulatory and civil enforcement under the Cable Act (i.e., through the NBDSA censoring channels, on multiple complaints, for coverage depicted bias). It is this distinction that explains that Kashyap is in the first position in naming; even as it remains an open question, it ought to aptly reflect organization-wide editorial responsibility.

The Need for Networks to Bear Responsibility

Although anchors are a visible part of the television programme, they do not simply determine what is “in” and “out” of a broadcast. Even when anchors say what we call “the cue,” editorial parameters on framing, tickers, and promotional captions, e.g., “Out of 4 crore Muslims, only 96 Lakh went to Pakistan! Why was the purpose of Partition not attained?” unequivocally involve producers and management as well. When we advocate that the performance of values in context rests on anchors, we obscure the ability to hold the system accountable for shared risk.

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, provides a statutory avenue to litigate network-level liability. The 1995 Reg Act includes Rule 6 of the Programme Code stating that programmes cannot (i) attack or denigrate religions or communities or (ii) likely to encourage or incite violence. The prohibitions apply to the corporate entity as the broadcaster; the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting could issue advisories, order programming take-downs, and suspend licenses of broadcasters in violation.

The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) decisions establish that networks do shoulder accountability, engaging even where an individual’s utterances lead to systemic failures in providing appropriate editorial guidance.

Consequently, a two-pronged strategy is required. The BNS may impose criminal liability on the anchor for their words on air, and yet there are regulatory and self-regulatory structures that can scrutinise the network. Only by joining personal and institutional accountability can remedies, or responses, be more than just a symbolic sanction and can provide robust monitoring of inciting broadcasts.

Law, Liability and the Limits of Broadcast Freedom

Anjana Om Kashyap’s complaint is not just a single incident of a journalist failing to uphold self-regulation, but part of a broader, troubling trend regarding journalism in Indian broadcast media. Over the last decade, prime time debates have blurred the line between reporting the news and inflammatory rhetoric, with news anchors embracing combative formats that normalize steady and increasing polarization. Courts and regulators have had to resort to warning or restraining these excesses, recognizing the tension between free speech, the right to express opinions, Article 19 (1) (a) the fundamental right to freely express opinion and feelings in India, and state responsibilities under Article 19(2) to reasonably restrict in the interests of harm, public order and peace.

Judicial rulings created problems with this balancing act. In the Sudarshan News “UPSC Jihad” case (2020), the Supreme Court stated free speech did not give license to cast aspersions or malign any community or individual, and restrained the broadcast temporarily pending consideration of a code of ethics. Before and after the Sudarshan News ruling, High Courts have intervened with varying balances. The Delhi High Court in 2020 cautioned broadcasters that the constitutional threshold did not allow hate violence to abide. Overall, precedential rulings show us courts are not reluctant to intervene if and when the media, as news reporting, crosses the threshold from commentary critical of violence or hate to incitement.

Interventions before the NBDSA have already illustrated the efficacy of complaints in recalibrating the course. The NBDSA, in recent years, has censured channels such as Times Now Navbharat and Zee News for coverage that was found to be partial; ordered the revocation of a misleading ticker; and noted, when addressing anchors participating in sensitive debates, that neutrality is required. These decisions clarify that journalists and anchors, as custodians of public deliberation, must practice restraint and cannot rely on the protection of free speech to underwrite their framing when it leads to communal discord.

The Lucknow case is part of a broader effort to hold mainstream media accountable for its third-party functions. Free speech is one of the pillars of democracy in India, but it is not absolute; Article 19 (2) lays out the balancing act between liberty and public order, or harmony. When behaviour or content from a newsroom turns the journalist or a news anchor into a provocateur, it creates communal discord and political polarization, which undermines the credibility of journalism, therefore, the right to free speech and academic freedom. Legal interventions – criminal complaints, Cable Act enforcement, or internal rules/regulations – are not meant to silence the press, but to remind them that the right to speak correlates with the responsibility to inform responsibly, and contribute to the common good through public deliberation.

Balancing Free Speech and Communal Harmony

The Lucknow court’s order against Anjana Om Kashyap represents a clear signal from the judiciary of rising impatience with primetime broadcasts that shift from hard news commentary to communal provocation. By doing so, the court’s action says not only that accountability of the anchor is needed, while the network is virtually let off the hook – it addresses this issue unevenly. However, this court ruling is also a possible opportunity to consider how the judicial, institutional, and experiential liability may be expanded to ensure responsibility for both anchor and network. The constitutional question still to be resolved is how to balance free speech with the state’s obligation to protect public order in a state of discontent. Speech can only be sanctioned for discomfort, not for disingenuous interruption of social harmony. For a democracy like India, the work is not to punish one anchor or one show, but rather to build systemic safeguards – through criminal law, policy regulation, and ethically responsible newsroom practice – that allow journalism to inform, interrogate, and unite stories rather than mislead and divide stories.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Image: livelaw.in

Related

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

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

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

NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat to avoid presumptions in sensitive religious reporting for broadcast on “Madrasas Teachings”

CJP Impact! Two favourable orders on complaints against Sudhir Chaudhary’s ‘Black and White’ shows

The post Between Free Speech and Public Order: Dissecting the complaint against Anjana Om Kashyap 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 complainant, Ghorpade, had alleged in the complaint that this broadcast violated NBDSA’s regulatory standards, which are designed to prevent content that promotes superstition, glorifies the supernatural, or contributes to religious intolerance. At the heart of the complaint is Shastri’s self-professed supernatural abilities and his inflammatory statements regarding Hindu nationalism and other religions. The program, titled “Baba Bageshwar Exclusive Interview,” is claimed to have allowed Shastri to make statements without adequate disclaimers or counterpoints, which Ghorpade argues could mislead viewers and incite religious disharmony.

The following sections provide a detailed breakdown of the complaint, the broadcaster’s response, the complainant’s counterarguments, and the final ruling by NBDSA.

Issues raised by the complainant

Ghorpade filed the complaint on July 11, 2023, two days after the program aired, citing concerns over how the program presented Shastri’s controversial views without sufficient context or disclaimers. Specifically, Shastri claimed supernatural abilities, stating he could locate missing animals, predict elections, and discover hidden resources, such as diamonds, through mystical means. Additionally, he made bold assertions about converting India into a “Hindu nation” and used language that could be interpreted as inflammatory towards other religious groups.  Ghorpade’s grievance was that News18 India had violated NBDSA’s Code of Ethics by allowing this content, which, he argued, glorified superstition, risked misleading viewers, and potentially incited communal tension.

The complainant raised multiple concerns regarding the nature and content of the broadcast, which, he argued, contained misleading information and reflected bias. He pointed out that the broadcast painted individuals involved in a negative light without sufficient factual basis, potentially damaging their reputations. According to the complaint, the program failed to offer a balanced perspective, choosing instead to highlight certain narratives over others, which resulted in “sensationalism over factual reporting.”

The complaint cited specific examples from the broadcast that allegedly violated NBDSA’s guidelines on impartiality and objectivity. Ghorpade’s submission underscored that the broadcaster’s portrayal was not only inaccurate but was presented in a way that amplified a single viewpoint, neglecting alternative perspectives that were crucial to an unbiased understanding of the issue.

Broadcaster’s submissions

News18 India defended itself by emphasising that the interview with Shastri was live, making it challenging for the anchor to fact-check or control Shastri’s spontaneous statements. The broadcaster argued that the views expressed during the interview were solely those of Shastri and were neither endorsed nor supported by the channel. News18 India also highlighted that Shastri was a prominent figure whose activities had captured public interest, and, as such, there was legitimate news value in covering his perspectives. The channel claimed its anchor made efforts to clarify that Shastri’s claims were personal beliefs and not objective truths.

In addition to this, the broadcaster defended its editorial choices, asserting that the program had been created within the bounds of journalistic freedom and served a legitimate public interest. The broadcaster argued that its intent was to inform viewers about pertinent issues, and it claimed that the broadcast was factually accurate. Furthermore, they maintained that editorial decisions were made in accordance with standard practices, emphasising that the program was not designed to mislead or harm any party involved.

The broadcaster further cited its right to freedom of expression, insisting that its reporting provided a necessary platform for public discourse on critical issues. They claimed that their team had followed due diligence, presenting the story in a responsible manner. According to the broadcaster’s submission, the program’s approach was “consistent with the norms of ethical journalism” and in line with industry standards. 

The complainant’s rebuttal

In response, Ghorpade countered that broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that the content aired on their platforms does not contravene ethical standards, even if made by guests. He argued that News18 India’s decision to feature Shastri—whose controversial views were widely known—without more stringent oversight, violated NBDSA guidelines. Furthermore, he contended that the program’s lack of sufficient rebuttal or critical questioning could lead viewers to accept Shastri’s supernatural claims as credible. Ghorpade requested strict action against News18 India to reinforce that broadcasters are accountable for the statements of their guests, especially when these statements are divisive or irrational.

Decision of the NBDSA

After carefully considering both the complaint and the broadcaster’s defence, the NBDSA ruled in favour of Ghorpade, finding that the broadcaster had indeed violated its standards. The authority concluded that the program “lacked a balanced approach,” a requirement that is integral to fair and responsible journalism. In the order, the NBDSA remarked that while freedom of the press is vital, it must be exercised with responsibility to avoid harm or misinformation.

The NBDSA instructed the broadcaster to issue a public apology to address the misleading aspects of the broadcast. Additionally, it directed the broadcaster to take corrective actions to prevent similar incidents in the future. “This decision,” the NBDSA stated in its order, “should serve as a reminder to all media organisations about the necessity of upholding ethical journalism standards.” The ruling made it clear that sensationalism should never replace factual reporting, and it emphasised the importance of presenting a balanced narrative.

The Authority noted that broadcasters have the editorial freedom to invite guests; however, this freedom is not without limits. NBDSA found that Shastri’s statements promoting superstition and making divisive religious claims were irresponsible and risked promoting communal disharmony. The Authority criticised the broadcaster for not issuing clear disclaimers and not challenging Mr. Shastri’s claims more rigorously.

As a result, NBDSA issued a warning to News18 India, advising against inviting guests likely to promote superstitious beliefs or socially divisive opinions. It also directed the broadcaster to remove the interview from all digital platforms and confirm this action in writing within seven days. The NBDSA stressed the importance of responsible journalism and reminded News18 India of its obligation to adhere to standards that ensure content does not mislead or promote irrational beliefs.

The NBDSA’s decision in this case underscores the vital role of media accountability and ethical reporting standards in protecting public trust. By ruling in favour of Ghorpade, the NBDSA has reaffirmed that journalistic freedom must be balanced with a commitment to integrity and impartiality. This ruling serves as a precedent, reinforcing that media organisations are responsible for avoiding sensationalism and presenting a fair, balanced view to their audiences. The NBDSA’s order not only addresses Ghorpade’s concerns but also sends a clear message to the media industry regarding the importance of upholding credibility and trust in journalism.

The complete order can be viewed here:

Related:

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

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

Indore Muharram Poster Misunderstood: right-wing claims ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ message, despite common tribute

The post NBDSA orders News18 India to remove broadcast promoting superstition and religious intolerance based on complaint by activist Indrajeet Ghorpade 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.

In the detailed complaint, CJP has highlighted the problematic stance taken by the anchor while dealing with the said case wherein a man, who happened to be Muslim, had allegedly murdered two children, who happened to be Hindu, and given it a communal twist. It was argued by the complainant that the show had been designed in such a way that it gave a one-sided communal view of an issue that did not warrant for any such sectarian narrative.

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!

The complaint also states that “While the complainant surely acknowledges the heinous and brutal nature of the crime, we also wish to highlight the problematic statements made by the anchor throughout the coverage of the show. From using derogatory and stigmatizing phrases such as “Talibani style of murder”, the anchor has indulged in Muslim bashing throughout the half hour long show and tried to fan religion-based communal tensions.”

Including extracts from the shown wherein the anchor, Pradeep Bhandari can be observed dragging in the religious identities of both the accused and victims unnecessarily, the complaint included extracts from the show. It can be observed on watching that this tactic was utilised to bash the entire Muslim population. Even during the debate, the panellists of which were two Muslims and three Hindus, an intensely polarising environment was constantly created for the Muslim participants. As has been noted in CJP’s complaint, the anchor was even observed posing questions to the participants from the Muslim community on the debating panel in an accusatory manner, while an urbane and inclusive attitude was displayed towards participants from the majority Hindu community.

Moreoever, the complaint states “It is also essential to highlight here that every attempt made by senior lawyer Asghar Ali to shed light upon the laws governing encounter by police or the missing motive in this matter was deemed as sympathy for the Muslim accused by the panellist, and even the whole Muslim community. The anchor, who brought in many previous instances of bomb blasts and legal counsels defending those accused, conveniently forgot the right to a legal counsel and defence that every accused/incarcerated has been guaranteed by Indian laws.”

The complaint further also pointed out that the same 35-minutes debate was played in a loop and turned into an 11-hour coverage, resulting in an even higher potential of generating bias, even hatred as repetitious such coverage is known psychologically to have this impact on the viewer. With this, the complainant has urged the broadcaster to remove the above-mentioned content from all social media accounts of Zee’s channel and issue a public apology for the communal reportage.

Notably, the broadcaster has till April 3, 2024 to respond to our complaint. In case the broadcaster fails to reply to our complaint or the complainant is not satisfied with the reply, the said complaint will be escalated to the News Broadcasting Digital and Standards Authority (NBDSA).

The complete complaint can be read here:

Related:

7 shows broadcasted by mainstream news channels to be removed orders NBDSA, fines imposed in some cases

CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: How persistent monitoring put a check on unbridled hate, one channel at a time

News Channels causing rift in society, says SC while hearing hate speech cases

The post Budaun Double murder case communalised by Zee News during its debate segment, CJP sends complaint appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On February 29, activist Indrajeet Ghorpade received four favourable orders from NBDSA. There orders were issued by the statutory commission, presided over by retired Supreme Court judge Justice AK Sikri, upon three complaints filed by the complainant against three separate news channels for airing news programmes that were violative of the guidelines set by the NBDSA. Through the three orders, a monetary penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed upon Times Now Navbharat Rs 1,00,000, while News 18 India has to pay a fine of Rs 50,000. Furthermore, the commission has issued a warning to Aaj Tak. Additionally, all three channels have been directed to remove the online uploads of the offending programs within seven days. Notably, all the three have been found guilty of airing content that spreads hatred and communal disharmony.

1. Order of Times Now Navbharat:

Complaint: On June 3, 2023, activist Indrajeet had filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat. He had flagged the tickers and headlines showcased during the show that had been aimed at demonising and spreading hatred against the Muslim Community. The complainant had also highlighted the many generalised statements against the Muslim community that were made during the show with no basis. Notably, the murder of Sharaddha Walker was repeatedly given a communal angle and used to colour Muslim men as suspicious.

Order: NBDSA imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on Times Now Navbharat after finding anchor Himanshu Dixit to have targeted the Muslim community and generalised inter-faith relationships as “love jihad”. In its order, the commission took objection to the Times Now Navbharat program on “love jihad” and observed, “on a perusal of the impugned broadcast, it appears that at the very beginning of the broadcast, the anchor has concluded that men from a certain community lured women from another community by hiding their religious identity and then committed violence or murders against such women and every such violence or murder committed on women of a certain community related to ‘love jihad’. This is evident from the questions raised and statements made by the anchor during the impugned broadcast. When some of the panellists expressed their concerns regarding the communal angle being given to such alleged incidents and regarding selective cases of violence against women where the perpetrator belonged to a particular community, the anchor shouted them down and did not allow them to express their views.”

In furtherance to this, NBDSA also observed that there may be some instances where boys from a particular community married Hindu girls, however the same does not give a warrant for news anchors to make generalised statement. The order stated, “Some such instances should not lead to making generalized statements regarding inter-faith marriages by giving it a communal colour. Every citizen, from whichever religion, has a right to marry a person of his/her choice, irrespective of the religion to which he/she belongs. Merely because a Hindu girl married a boy of another faith would not tantamount to love jihad unless it is established that such a Hindu girl was duped or coerced into the marriage. Further, because of few incidents of such forced marriages, an entire community cannot be branded. Thus, it was not proper to generalize the incidents with the tickers such as “Love तो बहाना है … Hindu बेटियाँ निशाना हैं” Jihadiyon se Beti Bachao”.

NBDSA further pointed out that the term “love jihad” should be used sensibly in future broadcasts since religious stereotypes can damage the country’s secular fabric. NBDSA considered that if incidents had been discussed or debated independently, they would have fallen under the bounds of journalistic freedom and stated “It is the generalization of these incidents by targeting the entire community, which is found to be violative of the principles of Impartiality, Objectivity and Neutrality under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards (“Code of Ethics”) and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage relating to Racial and Religious Harmony. In the impugned broadcast, the anchor had also violated Clauses (f) and (h) of the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates”.

The complete order can be viewed here:

2. Order of News 18:

Complaint: A total of four shows that had been aired by News18 were complained against by activist Indrajeet. It had been contended by the complainant that these four shows. All of which were based around the themes of ‘Love Jihad’, had violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines relating to neutrality, accuracy, fairness, religious harmony, sensationalisation of crime, negative stereotyping and good taste.

Order: Through its order, the NBDSA slapped a fine of Rs. 50,000 on News 18 India for three shows, two of which were anchored by Aman Chopra, and one by Amish Devgan. These shows were found to have communalized the Shradda Walker case as “love jihad.” Notably, the remaining one broadcast was a subject-matter of an FIR registered in Bharatpur, Rajasthan and thus, the commission could not take cognizance of the same.

In the order, the commission stated that “while the media has the right to conduct debates on any topic of its choice, however, it may have been inappropriate for the broadcaster to haveconducted several debated on the subject of “love jihad” while linking it to the Sharaddha Walker murder case”.

It further added that “NBDSA stated that the term ‘love jihad’ should not be used loosely and should be used with great introspection in future broadcasts as religious stereotyping can corrode the secular fabric of the country, cause irreparable harm to a community and create religious intolerance or disharmony.”

The complete order can be viewed here:

3. Order of Aaj Tak:

Complaint: The third complaint had been filed by activist Indrajeet against the ‘Black and White’ show anchored by Sudhir Chaudhary and aired on Aaj Tak. Through the complaint, the complainant has specifically pointed to the false statements made by the host to target and create hatred and fear against the Muslim community. In the complaint, the complainant wrote that “the broadcasters chose to look away from the rampant discrimination that Dalits and Muslims face. Instead, it ran a show portraying Muslim people as rioters and Muslim areas as mini-Pakistan.”

 Order: In its order, NBDSA observed that there would not have been a problem with the broadcast if the broadcaster had confined its analysis to the incidents of communal violence, but the tickers that were shown during the programme portrayed a completely different picture. Additionally, NBDSA noted that the violence committed by a few miscreants was generalised by the anchor to target a particular community.

The order stated “NBDSA observed that there would have been no problem with the broadcast if the broadcaster had confined its analysis to the incidents of communal violence. However, by broadcasting the following tickers ‘today Muslim areas, tomorrow Muslim country’, a completely different colour had been given to the programme.”

With this, the authority directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the said broadcast from its channels and websites within 7 days of the order.

The complete order can be viewed here:

4. Order of India Today

Complaint: On June 30, 2023, a complaint against a programme titled “Nudity sparks outrage at USA pride parades- How India’s LGBTQ+ lead Responsibility” aired by India Today had been filed by activist Indrajeet. Through the complaint, the complainant has emphasised upon the false images that were show during the show to spread hatred and homophobia. In the complaint, the complainant had stated that “a simple reverse image search can help separate facts from fake news. However, it is clear that the broadcaster was either incapable of fact-finding or had malafide intent to sensationalise and spread fear against minority communities.”

Order: Noting that the broadcaster had utilised images sourced from USA and made false assertions regarding them to instil fear amongst the audience regarding the LGBTQIA+, NBDSA observed that the visuals and images used were “totally out of context” and were not part of the incident covered was a violation of the principle of accuracy. With this, the commission ordered the broadcaster to edit the video of the said broadcast by expunging the objectionable parts or if that is not possible, to remove the video, from all websites and channels within 7 days.

Apart from following the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines, members were also circulated a set of guidelines for broadcasting on issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ community, for “strict compliance” after the commission noted that several complaints had been received by concerning reporting on LGBTQIA+ issues.

The complete order can be viewed here:

Other orders issued:

In addition to the aforementioned four orders, NBDSA had issued more such orders. Another ‘Black and White show’ hosted by Sudhir Chaudhary on former US President Barack Obama’s comments on the protection of minorities in India while PM Narendra Modi was on a state visit to America came under the scanner of the authority. On the complaint filed against the same, the NBDSA found that apart from finding “a violation of the principles of Objectivity and Neutrality”, the broadcast had violated the Specific Guidelines for Anchors, which stated that “all programmes must be presented in an impartial, objective and neutral manner”.

As per a report of the Indian Express, the order stated that by using words “Tukde Tukde Gang”, “Khalistani in Punjab” and “Pakistani supporters” instead of confining its discussion to Obama’s statement, the broadcaster had failed to present a controversial issue with sensitivity and objectivity. With this, NBDSA slapped the broadcaster with a fine of Rs. 75,000 and directed them to remove the video of the show. In addition to this, the broadcaster was also advised by the commission to ensure that “in future broadcasts, controversial subjects are fairly presented with strict adherence to the principles of Neutrality, Impartiality and Objectivity in the broadcast”.

Another complaint had been filed against an episode the ‘Black and White show that aired on Aaj Tak in March 24 last year. . Notably, the show had aired a day after a Surat court convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of defamation for a 2019 speech about thieves with the surname Modi. The said complaint had been filed by Youth Congress president Srinivas B V on a fictional video of Rahul Gandhi that was shown in the programme. In its decision, NBDSA observed that the “story of the robber and the imputation it carried” with Gandhi’s conviction was “not in good taste” and “should have been avoided”. The NBDSA also advised the channel to be “careful while airing such fictional videos” in future.

CJP complaints to NBDSA over the years:

Since 2018, Citizens for Justice and Peace has been consistently monitoring news programmes being broadcasted contentiously and with the aim of spreading its partisan agenda. Over the years, a total of 23 complaints have been filed by the human rights organisation with the NBDSA. Out of these 23 complaints, 8 have been filed against Times Now Navbharat, 3 against Zee News, 4 against Aaj tak and 2 against Times Now.

In addition to this, out of the complaints filed, 4 had Sudhir Chaudhary as its host/anchor, 2 had been hosted by Aman Chopra and 7 were against shows hosted by Rakesh Pandey. Notably, a total of 7 complaints remain pending with NBDSA and the arguments are yet to take place. Out of the remaining 15 complaints that have been decided by the commission, 13 have resulted in removal of the contentious shows. Additionally, in two cases, monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 and Rs. 25,000 were also imposed.

Details of the complaints filed can be viewed here:

Related:

CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: How persistent monitoring put a check on unbridled hate, one channel at a time

CJP Impact! NBDSA orders removal of two Times Now Navbharat shows (videos)

CJP Impact! NBDSA orders AAJ TAK’s Sudhir Chaudhary show to be pulled down, censors second

CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA

The post 7 shows broadcasted by mainstream news channels to be removed orders NBDSA, fines imposed in some cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Love jihad” is now entrenched in the public landscape. The term is today wielded by an aggressive majoritarianism, woven into a dominant caste Hindu narrative of religious extremism, Islamophobia, and communal hatred that has crept into Indian courtroom discourse as well.”

– Teesta Setalvad, co-editor, Sabrangindia & Secretary, Citizens for Justice & Peace, 2020

The epithet “jihad” (in fact Jihad is an Islamic term that means “an obligation to lead a principled life” has been deliberately misinterpreted to become a slur). This slur has been devised by aggressive forces of bigoted majoritarianism and supremacy to slur and stigmatise all that is Islamic and Muslim.

From the Covid-19 Pandemic lockdown (2020) onwards when “respectable” television channels too telecast such slurs on their Hindi and even English language network telecasts, the term #CoronaJihad first gained ground.

Thereafter in the past three years, every couple of months, a well-oiled ecosystem of targeted hate speech that starts with BJP functionaries giving the “dog whistle” top-down in their public (read election) speeches is then picked up systematically by far rightwing speakers in their publicized diatribes. Then promptly comes the next level. What amplifies this systemic hate-mongering is the use these epithets that are then put to in several commercially driven “media” channels which –regardless of the first principles of independent and no-partisan content– create television debates constantly amplifying the term. Finally, these are morphed into easy to digest (sic) hate clips on WhatsApp groups and social media platforms!

Over past months the order can be reversed, with compliant media outlets actually generating the telecasts to provide fodder for the public diatribes!

The result? Open display of bigotry, Islamophobia and hate against Muslims is normalised.

The latest epithet to be added to a long, prejudicial terms is #Gaming Jihad.

Following its “success” in disseminating propaganda about the Covid-19 pandemic being spread because of one two day public gathering at Nizamuddin in mid-March 2020 (#CorononaJihad), it was “Hindu women being targeted by the Muslim men, terming it ‘Love Jihad’”.

Then came “Hindu majority being ‘out-populated’ by the Muslim community”= #‘Population Jihad;

Then it was “Muslims illegally capturing government land”=‘Land Jihad

Let’s not forget vicious propaganda unleashed against Islamic educational institutions #MadrassaJihad!

Now there is one more slur. Another different, yet similar, form of world manipulation and propaganda is being promoted systemically by the electronic media channels. Hysteric efforts are being made by media persons with clear allegiance to the Hindutva right to brainwash people into believing that another form of threat to Hindu children exists and this is #Gaming jihad.

What is this ‘#Gaming jihad’?

Reports on News Bharati (June 5, 2023), DNA (June 9, 2023) and Firstpost (June 8, 2023)were amongst the first to come out on this issue of “Gaming Jihad”. Here is how the propaganda on television channels works:

#Gaming Jihad: Muslim youth along with “Maulvis of Masjids (Mosques) use the medium of mobile games like ‘The fortnite’ to brainwash Hindu and Jain kids into converting to Islam by saying reading Aayats from Quran that can help them win games in. According to this narrative that feeds into the insidious “conversion to Islam” theory peddled even in movies like the Kerala Story, this phenomenon, #GamingJihad has come as a “shocking development” at a time when Hindu girls were just becoming aware of the Islamist concept of the ‘Love Jihad’ through movies and “news”. Thus, to fulfil their ultimate goal (which is to ensure a huge demographic shift!) , the “Islamic extremists” have now come up with new concepts to trap the Hindu girls and convert them to radical Islam.

The reports on these channels go further.

Propaganda Narrative behind #Gaming Jihad goes further Once kids do win the game by a set of tricks allowed by the app itself (The fortnite) they start believing that it is the power of these Quranic Aayats and would then be prepared and willing to even convert away from their religion.

Thereafter, says this narrative, these newly appointed Muslim youths in this network are then used to take Hindu and Jain kids onto another ‘Discord‘ chat app, show them Zakir Naik videos to brainwash them to the next level. The perpetrators, says this narrative, mainly use these games and chat apps to target teen-aged Hindu and Jain boys to convert to Islam.

The Citizens for Justice and Peace team has analysed these electronic media channels spawning the latest brand of slur.

The reports on #GamingJihad also say that though the concept of ‘#Gaming Jihad’ is new to India, its roots can be found in Pakistan.

Deconstruction of Propaganda Narrative:

There are no specific allegations that can be pin-pointed in these reports and programmes. It could be individual reports of a criminal complaint filed in some parts of the country, often where the BJP is in power. The television journalists (anchors) do little ground level homework to question or query the police version of the complaint or speak to the alleged “victim complainants.” Within hours that one incident becomes the basis for a new level of hate propaganda

The Ghaziabad case- the “racket of gaming jihad”

In early June 2023, reports of the Ghaziabad police catching a man, Abdul Rehman, who reportedly used to teach ‘verses from the Quran’ to minor children playing video games in the name of “winning” these games became public. A former member of the local mosque committee, Abdul Rehman was alleged to be “committing jihad by brainwashing these minor children to convert to Islam”, as was reported by the Firstpost on June 8, 2023.  It was then alleged that Abdul Rahman used to tell minor children about the greatness of Islam, and the weaknesses of their religion, as provided by the First post.

If the report provided by the Firstpost right-wing media is to be believed, this type of “jihad” case came to light when the parents of a minor boy, hailing from Ghaziabad, were shocked by their son’s actions. Their minor son, for the past few days, used to leave home on the pretext of going to the gym five times a day, but in reality, he was offering prayers at a mosque. After this, the minor’s father lodged a complaint in the police station. On May 30, the police registered an FIR in the said case, in which the cleric of the mosque in Sanjay Nagar Sector 23 of Ghaziabad, Abdul Rehman, and the accused named Baddo was mentioned.

As provided by the DNAIndia newspaper just a day later on June 9, 2023, the police have named both of them as accused. Abdul Rehman has been arrested by the police, but Shanawaj Masud Khan of Sajia Apartment, P.S. Mumbra, Thane, Maharashtra, who is believed to be the mastermind of this Cyber Gaming Jihad, is still out of the grips of the police.

This whole story of the Ghaziabad police busting an online conversion racket seems to be somehow inspired by the controversial film ‘The Kerala Story’, as is indicated in in the DNAIndia report, which depicts a group of non-Muslims women converted to Islam “by brainwashing them” and thereafter they are recruited by the ISIS. Kerala story was released on May 5, 2023.

Media coverage of the said issue

As soon as these reports were released, Aaj tak and Times Now were one of the first channels that took up this opportunity to unleash extremely unprofessional content.

Aaj Tak released a one-hour Black & White with Sudhir Chaudhary over the same, with the following description ‘There has been a big disclosure on religious conversion in Ghaziabad. An online gaming conversion racket was busted in which it was found that 4 children were influenced and changed their religion. Is mobile converting your child’s religion?’

Sudhir Chaudhary, who was hosting the show, started the show by telling his audience about how at least four cases of minor boys falling prey to this new type of ‘Jihad’ have surfaced in India, and how they viewed can express their opinions on the same by tweeting with the hashtag of gaming jihad. It is clear that the motive behind urging the viewers of the show was to ensure that the said hashtag starts trending on Twitter, and the reach of their propaganda increases.

The anchor then starts peddling his own theory (unsubstantiated by any factual cases), alleging that it is possible that four lakh minor  boys might have fallen victim to this ‘#Gaming Jihad’. We have attached a picture below depicting how Chaudhary has made this baseless exaggeration in his show, with the aim of instilling fear in the mind of its audience, convincing them that this is a conspiracy of the Muslim community.

Chaudhary called this form of #Gaming jihad a part of the Islamic conversion business model, something that all the Hindu parents must be wary of. He also called this the work of an international racket of conversion, aimed at converting Hindu young men into hardline Muslims. While Chaudhary was giving this report, videos showing Muslims walking on road, and offering prayers were also being shown. He also purported that this gaming jihad was made specifically for Hindu boys, as Hindu girls were anyway being targeted under Love Jihad.

The said video can be viewed here:

https://www.aajtak.in/programmes/black-and-white/video/sudhir-chaudhary-show-conspiracy-of-jihad-in-mobile-games-tmc-distributing-2000-notes-more-analysis-1710360-2023-06-06

Times Now Navbharat and TV9 Bharatvarsh also dedicated news segments on the said issue, both of which used this term “online gaming jihad”, and spread hatred and instilled fear in the minds of the Hindu population. The anchor of the TNN said that “the most dangerous thing is that the accused Maulvi not only committed jihad and converted the minor boy, but also made him a 5 time namazi.” (someone who prays five times a day).

Right wing leaders and agencies were quick to act

The right-wing ecosystem stepped in. As reported in the Indian Express, Maharashtra Women and Child Development Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha, on May 6, said a committee will be set up to look into online games related to religious conversion. Lodha told media persons, “There are shocking things happening in the name of online games. Such games are targeting the youth and small children. They are being lured to change their religion.”

“To check this religious conversion menace under online games, the state government’s women and child development ministry will constitute a committee. It will look into the online games and related aspects. We will submit the report to home ministry,” Lodha had added.

Lodha also said that the home department will play a crucial role in this matter. After the matter came to light, he said, we got to know a person who was involved with it fled. The matter will have to be proved and those involved behind such gaming will have to be nabbed, he added.

Apart from this, on the same day, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), an agency of the central government, also wrote to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) to initiate an enquiry against online gaming platform “Fortnite” and instant messaging social platform “Discord” for their alleged involvement in religious conversion of a minor boy in Ghaziabad.

“The Commission has come across a news article, wherein it has been informed that two men including a Caretaker of a Mosque in Ghaziabad and a man from Mumbai were involved in religious conversion of a minor boy through an online gaming platform, Fortnite,” said NCPCR’s Chairperson Priyank Kanoongo in a letter to Alkesh Kumar Sharma, Secretary, Meity., as reported by the Indian Express. The commission said, “The minor boy was lured into conversation through the said gaming platform, Fortnite and then brainwashed into religious conversion over another social platform, Discord.” The commission also requested for an enquiry to be initiated against Fortnite and Discord and an action-taken report submitted within 10 days.

It has become so easy for channels, such as Zee News, Aaj Tak, Times Now and Network18, to show up any single instance, act or crime as a “conspiracy of the Muslim community.” All they need to do is add the epithet ‘#Jihad’. As soon as some piece of news is reported, the pattern swiftly emerges. Political figures, elected representatives feed on such “news” panel discussions generated by an identifiable set of electronic media channels. Repeat offenders among news anchors are Sudhir Chaudhary, Arnab Goswami, Deepak Chaurasia, Amish Devgan, Anjana Om Kashyap and Rohit Sardana. They serve the perennial need of the regime in power to stigmatise and target one section of Indians, Muslims reducing their existence to a cornered lot, suffering physical and mental indignity and harm, always threatened by physical violence.

Was adding the epithet, “jihad” to this issue at all warranted?

The question Indian media needs to ask itself, and this is a serious professional challenge, is whether this level of unprofessional media conduct befits these electronic media outlets. Be it print media where tested principles laid down by the Press Council of India apply or broadcast and digital media, where guidelines of the News Broadcasting and Digital Statutory Authority (NBDSA) apply, each and all of these instances violate time-tested provisions. This is not to mention provisions of Indian criminal law, weak as they be in their application towards hate-driven inciteful speech and utterances. In the global world too, every standard known has been and continues to be breached with impunity lending voice to the argument made since 2020 that #GenocideJournalism is what is at play, cynically and systemically in India today.

Related:

Times Now Navbharat: Where hate sells like hot cakes daily

TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT USES ‘MAZAAR JIHAD’ IN A SHOW, CJP SENDS COMPLAINT

NBDSA: CJP ESCALATES COMPLAINT AGAINST TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT’S ‘ZAMEEN JIHAD’ SHOW

ANOTHER COMPLAINT TO TIMES NOW ON POLARISED DEBATE OVER MADRASSA SURVEY IN UP

RW mobilises masses; people get on streets to demand “love jihad” law

The post What lies behind the latest Islamophobic slur ‘#Gaming jihad’? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the coronavirus contagion is growing in India, some of the media is still going all guns blazing to keep spreading the communal hatred contagion in the country.

Aaj Tak, a Hindi news channel with a history of shows with a communal angle to its credit, has once again put out a news programme in a clear bid to single out minority religious organizations and an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protest in Delhi in particular, and ostracize them for not taking precautions to prevent the deadly Covid-19.

Its primetime show titled Halla Bol presented by the channel’s executive editor Anjana Om Kashyap, opened with showing how all the major temples in India, mostly the ones runs through a trust – the Siddhivinayak Temple, the Akshardham Temple, the Vaishnodevi Temple, The Shirdi Sai Dham, Trimbakeshwar Temple, The ISKCON temple at Vrindavan had all closed their doors to the public to fight the pandemic.

It also mentioned how the number of guests were reduced at the Kashi Vishwananth Temple and that the frequency of the Ganga Aarti in Benaras was reduced to limit the number of visiting devotees.

The show then went on to mention that these temples had been closed as per the decision of the temple managements as a responsible step towards the safety of the citizens. Then, it targeted, though indirectly, the mosques and Gurudwaras still open and the Shaheen Bagh protest at Delhi in particular.

Why is Aaj Tak giving this a communal slant by claiming that only Masjids and Gurdwaras are open and all Temples are closed.

Except for a few major ones, all temples are open. pic.twitter.com/Hqu83Bg7hs

— Aditya Menon (@AdityaMenon22) March 18, 2020

Singling out Shaheen Bagh protesters

The anchor singled out the Shaheen Bagh protest for continuing despite the public advisory given by the Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal which banned a crowd of more than 50 people at any religious, social, political or cultural gathering. However, she failed to inform her viewers 

It must be noted that post the Delhi government’s orders, the Shaheen Bagh protestors have taken strict measures to reduce the number of people at the protest site, apart from getting it sanitized. They have volunteers with a temperature gun to test people entering the site, have disallowed children from being present there and have installed sanitizers throughout the protest area.

The show presenter also forgot to mention that weddings were spared in the CM’s advisory. The number of people attending a wedding could be around a 100, while at the time of presenting the show, the number of people at Shaheen Bagh was less than 40. Don’t weddings count as community events where the threat of the virus is real too?

The media has been targeting Shaheen Bagh once again amid the coronavirus scare posing it to be the only threat to the lives of the people. 

Building a communal narrative

Though the presenter did not come down heavily on the Gurudwaras throughout the show for not being shut down completely, the channel went on to criticise mosques saying that mosques were not shut, even though all the temples were. This, forgetting that major temples like the Kashi Vishwanath temple were not completely shut and had only placed visitor curbs and sanitization facilities in the premises. The channel also did not mention how Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath is unwilling to cancel the Ram Navami Mela to be held in Ayodhya from March 25 to April 2, 2020. She also forgot to mention how completely defying the ban on large public gatherings, thousands of people participated in an annual religious procession – the Kadiri Narasimha Swamy Brahmotsavam in Andhra Pradesh on Sunday.

Also, most mosques have issued directives suspending mass prayers that take place on Friday and have restricted the number of devotees entering the premises to offer prayers. Instead of showing the true picture, the channel failed to mention how the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) which is home to around 20 mosques, asked students and staff to stay away from Friday prayers and stop ‘wuzu’ (collective washing of hands) and maintain a distance between each other while offering prayers.

The channel also did not mention how Christian bishops and top clergymen had issued official communiques and advisories against large gatherings at masses and prayer services, exempting parishioners from attending services to check the spread of the virus. In fact, the Bishop of Delhi has put on hold all services till March 31. But the show did not highlight any proactive measured taken by members of religious minorities.
 

Conclusion

Through its TV programming, Aaj Tak has not only engaged in spreading communal hatred, but also insinuated that if the corona virus spreads in Delhi, only minorities will be to blame. This is a classic example of ostracizing minorities and also a smear campaign against the anti-CAA campaign, a fight that is being taken up to protect the identity of the minorities. It is just another attempt of the channel appears to side disproportionately with the ruling government to paint the Shaheen Bagh protesters who are staging a legal protest, as those who can bring harm to the nation. The TV programme did not in any way revolve around the safety of the Shaheen Bagh protesters or the safety of the general public, but instead was aimed at spreading vitriol against them.

Not only was the TV programme communally charged – proof being the ticker showing that mosques and gurudwaras are open while temples are shut, it also holds the potential to go viral on social media to further deepen the communal divide – the continual agenda of the alleged state-sponsored media.

Channels like Aaj Tak have been issued advisories by the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) in the past. It is time, the same is done again to ensure that news channels deliver real news to the public and not engaged in state-sponsored agenda.

Related:

“Does the Coronavirus ignore wedding parties, and attack only peaceful protests?”

Mumbai local trains likely to be suspended after city’s first Covid-19 death

The post Aaj Tak’s communal agenda surfaces as it targets Shaheen Bagh, mosques over Covid-19 appeared first on SabrangIndia.