Indian television debates have long ceased to be debates. They have become gladiatorial arenas, where truth is the first casualty and responsibility is an afterthought. Channels, including those run by self-styled “nationalist” anchors like Arnab Goswami, must accept that they have reduced what should have been serious national conversations into noisy slugfests.
Arnab may project himself as the face of independent and nationalist journalism, but the reality of his primetime shows betrays that claim. If one truly wishes to be a nationalist in spirit and practice, the first step is to deny oxygen to those who openly undermine the nation’s interests. Yet, night after night, prime slots are offered to political spokespersons—many of them habitual peddlers of half-truths and outright lies.
These panelists, often representing Congress and other opposition parties, are not invited to enlighten but to provoke. Their sole contribution is to rehearse the party script, repeat manufactured talking points, and inject venom into the national discourse. The outcome is predictable: the viewer’s blood pressure rises, but the quality of debate sinks further.
This is not journalism; it is spectacle. And worse, it is irresponsible.
If Republic TV or any channel truly believes in serving national interest, it should reimagine its panel composition. Why not invite seasoned academicians, retired bureaucrats, economists, or former generals who can enrich the discussion with knowledge and perspective? Why, instead, prefer spokespersons who thrive on provocation and personal attacks? By repeatedly giving a stage to the same political actors, channels are complicit in spreading misinformation.
As a former soldier who has served this country, I find it disturbing that our media does not recognize its responsibility. Political spokespersons are not educators; they are agents of distraction. Responsible media houses must ignore them. After all, today’s Indian viewer is not gullible—fact-check platforms are available, data is accessible, and lies can be quickly unmasked. The excuse that channels “must” include politicians for balance no longer holds water. Balance does not mean giving liars equal airtime with truth.
Print media is no less guilty. Some once-reputed dailies, followed for decades as gospel truth, have descended into irrelevance. Their editorial pages now resemble propaganda sheets—distorted facts dressed up as analysis. Newspapers that were once trusted are now treated with the disdain reserved for wastepaper, precisely because their editors chose agendas over accuracy.
Television’s decline is even more dramatic—anchors mistake noise for impact, and chest-thumping for patriotism. Arnab’s debates, for instance, are a case study in what not to do: chaotic cross-talk, uncontrolled shouting, and a complete lack of decorum. Viewers are left none the wiser. Instead of clarity, they get cacophony. Instead of analysis, they get accusations. This is not a debate—it is a circus.
And under the garb of “press freedom,” the rot deepens further. Unscrupulous panelists cross every line of decency, hurling abuses even at the highest constitutional offices, including the Prime Minister’s. How is this permissible? Freedom of expression is not freedom to slander. It is the responsibility of the media to uphold civility, not to normalize indecency.
Contrast this with more balanced anchors like Rahul Shivshankar, who—whether at Times Now earlier or at CNN today, or Rahul Kanwar, who quit India TodayTV to join NDTV—indeed have shown that debates can be conducted with discipline. Viewers can actually hear opposing views without being drowned in shouting matches. That is how debates should be.
The Indian media has reached a crossroads. It must decide whether it wants to remain an agent of chaos or reclaim its role as the fourth pillar of democracy. For that, responsibility—not ratings—must be the guiding principle. The time has come for a movement within journalism, led by editors who value credibility over sensation, who understand that the role of media is not to provoke but to inform, not to divide but to enlighten.
For far too long, Indian media has hidden behind the excuse of “what the audience wants.” No. The audience does not want daily doses of noise. They want truth, perspective, and respect. The credibility that newspapers and channels once enjoyed was built on responsibility. Today, that credibility lies in tatters because of mock debates and manufactured outrage.
Enough is enough. If Indian media continues down this path, it risks irrelevance. But if it rediscovers its responsibility, it can still redeem itself. The choice is theirs.
