Author: Seshadri Satyanarayanan
The media landscape is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the rapid proliferation of technology and the expansion of digital platforms. Digital and social media have emerged as powerful channels for the swift and widespread dissemination of news and information. The coverage of recent protests in India’s national capital has illustrated this shift vividly. Images and videos of demonstrations, unruly conduct by some protesters and the resultant police action circulated extensively across social media platforms, often through accounts run by individuals and content creators who were largely unknown until recently.
Instagram’s algorithms, in particular, enabled several content creators to garner millions of views despite having relatively few followers. Some of these individuals on the ground described themselves as journalists and alleged that law enforcement personnel had prevented them from covering the protests freely. A few went further, alleging that they had been assaulted by police personnel on duty and subsequently lodged complaints. The protests also witnessed heated exchanges among content creators on the ground, with rival groups resorting to derogatory labels such as “Godi Media” and “Pappu Media”.
In a democracy, the independence of the press-often described as the “fourth estate”-is indispensable. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, from which press freedom is understood to flow. Yet, the recent protests at Jantar Mantar have brought an important question into sharper focus: Is press freedom an unrestricted licence, or must it be accompanied by professional responsibility and accountability?
This raises several pertinent questions. Should those who identify themselves as media professionals be expected to adhere to the basic principles of journalistic ethics? Does creating and uploading content on social media automatically qualify someone as a journalist? Can individuals claim journalistic credentials merely by delivering monologues before a camera or carrying a microphone bearing an identity label? And can social media influencers legitimately present themselves as journalists without meeting any identifiable professional standards?
These questions acquire greater significance in light of news reports that press cards, fake profiles and microphones were distributed for Rs 599 to Rs 1,799 through organisations like the Indian Press Union, without any media experience. If such claims are substantiated, they point to a disturbing possibility: journalistic identity could be reduced to a commodity, available to anyone willing to pay for it.
The proliferation of videos and reels generated during the protests at Jantar Mantar over the past three months, as well as during demonstrations elsewhere, has implications that extend beyond the immediate concerns of governments at the Centre and in the states. A more fundamental issue is at stake-the credibility of journalism itself. The sensationalism, clickbait-driven narratives and irresponsible conduct of some content creators and self-proclaimed journalists risk undermining public confidence in established media organisations.
Print and television journalists work within established editorial structures and are expected to uphold accuracy, fairness and responsible reporting. The Press Council of India oversees print media, while television news organisations follow self-regulatory mechanisms to address misconduct and maintain standards.
The challenge, therefore, is not to oppose digital media or question the legitimacy of independent content creators. Digital platforms have democratised information, enabled diverse voices to reach large audiences and often brought public attention to issues that might otherwise have received limited coverage. The concern arises when the absence of clear professional distinctions and accountability allows sensationalism to masquerade as journalism, potentially placing genuine journalists and the public at risk.
In conversations with several senior journalists, the author has encountered a recurring concern: some form of carefully considered framework may be necessary to preserve the credibility and integrity of journalism in this rapidly changing environment. A number of them believe that the growing presence of influencers and self-styled journalists at protest sites has complicated the work of bona fide reporters. In some instances, the conduct of individuals claiming journalistic privileges may invite restrictions that subsequently affect legitimate media professionals as well.
Interestingly, many of these experienced journalists are reluctant to articulate their concerns publicly or submit formal recommendations to the government. Their hesitation appears to stem from apprehensions about professional repercussions, possible backlash from sections of the media fraternity and the risk of being misunderstood. Their silence, however understandable, leaves an important debate unresolved.
Any proposal for government intervention would inevitably be contentious. If the government of the day initiates measures to regulate the activities of those claiming to be journalists, political opponents may portray the move as an attempt to intimidate the media or curtail press freedom. Such concerns cannot be dismissed lightly, particularly in a democracy where an independent press must be free to scrutinise those in power.
The answer, therefore, cannot lie in indiscriminate state control or in allowing the situation to remain entirely unaddressed. Any framework that may be considered must protect freedom of expression, avoid arbitrary restrictions and prevent the misuse of regulatory powers. It should also recognise the diversity of the digital ecosystem without creating unnecessary barriers for independent journalists and emerging voices. Above all, professional credibility must not become a privilege reserved exclusively for large or established media organisations.
The media fraternity must take the initiative, bringing together journalists, editors and professional bodies to develop transparent, constitutionally sound ways to distinguish responsible journalism from those who misuse the label. The emphasis should be on professional conduct, accountability and the protection of legitimate reporting-not on controlling opinions or suppressing dissent. It was a welcome move by the Press Council of India to issue guidelines for journalists covering protests and demonstrations. The guidelines seek to facilitate the effective discharge of journalistic duties while promoting the safety of media personnel, responsible reporting and better coordination among journalists, media organisations and law enforcement authorities.
Ultimately, the credibility of journalism cannot be safeguarded by governments alone, nor can it be sustained merely by invoking press freedom. Freedom and responsibility must go hand in hand. If those who have built their careers on the principles of journalism remain silent while public trust in the profession comes under strain, they risk allowing others to define its future.
The question remains: If not the government, and not the media fraternity, who will bell the cat? The ball is firmly in the court of the fourth estate.
The writer is a senior media professional; Views presented are personal.