Arnab Goswami, Sudhir Chaudhary and the media credibility crisis: Blaming algorithms, Ignoring the real issues

In the past, television channel editors decided which news stories were important and what audiences should watch. However, with the rise of social media algorithms and platforms such as YouTube, people can now access information directly. As a result, mainstream television channels no longer enjoy the same monopoly over news and information. Instead of relying exclusively on one-sided coverage, audiences are increasingly turning to alternative sources and independent journalists. Consequently, major television networks are losing viewers and facing substantial commercial losses. Fearing this loss of audience, many are now urging people to use their own apps while blaming algorithms for their declining reach.

Arnab Goswami of Republic TV has said:

An algorithm is a system that determines what content users see and how frequently they encounter it, based on their interests, viewing habits and various forms of engagement. Consequently, the reach of a video does not depend solely on the publisher's reputation or the number of followers it has. Short videos on Instagram have become particularly important to young people's political communication. The number of times a video is viewed, the number of people who share it and the number who endorse its message are all factors that can influence algorithmic distribution.

The reach of short videos on Instagram depends on several factors, including how long viewers watch them, whether they watch them again and whether they share them with others. Spontaneous videos, satire and personal accounts created by young people often differ from conventional forms of political campaigning. For instance, a video mocking a political leader's remarks can gain considerable traction on social media. Therefore, high viewership alone cannot establish the success of a political campaign.

Notably, a reel posted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi following Gyanesh Kumar's resignation attracted a substantial number of views. However, a significant proportion of viewers used it as material for satire, memes and reaction videos. In other words, a post's enormous view count does not necessarily indicate public support. Political communication is therefore changing alongside the evolution of algorithms.

In the past, newspapers, radio and television were the principal channels through which news of a protest reached the public. Today, a student at a protest site can record footage of a confrontation with the police on a mobile phone and circulate it within minutes. A journalist's questions, a protester's statement, the police's explanation and an eyewitness's account can all reach the public simultaneously.

This transformation has expanded opportunities to access information beyond the dominant narratives of mainstream media.

The algorithm vs mainstream television

The changing media landscape has weakened the traditional gatekeeping power of television news. Audiences can now encounter competing accounts of the same event, compare different perspectives and question the framing adopted by established news organisations. This does not automatically make social media more reliable, but it does mean that mainstream television channels no longer exercise the same control over how political events are presented and interpreted.

The growing influence of algorithms has also changed the relationship between political communication and audience engagement. Content that generates curiosity, amusement, anger or controversy can travel rapidly across platforms. Young people's spontaneous videos, satire and memes often reach audiences in ways that conventional political messaging cannot.

The distinction between visibility and support is particularly important. A political leader's video may attract millions of views because people agree with it, but it may also attract attention because people disagree with it, ridicule it or use it to create reaction videos. Engagement figures, therefore, cannot be treated as straightforward measures of political approval.

These developments pose a challenge to established television networks. Rather than examining how their editorial choices, credibility and presentation of news might be contributing to the loss of audience, some broadcasters increasingly blame the algorithms of American technology companies. Their calls for audiences to move to proprietary apps reflect an attempt to establish a more direct relationship with viewers, bypassing platforms over which they have limited control.

The politics of protest coverage

The controversies surrounding news coverage of the CJP protests illustrate the tensions between conventional television journalism and the changing expectations of audiences.

For instance, Sudhir Chaudhary's coverage on DD News of the youth-led protests demanding the resignation of the Education Minister attracted considerable attention. The headlines and subject matter of his programmes came under criticism. Instead of focusing on the protesters' principal demands or the allegations surrounding the NEET examination paper leak, the possibility of foreign influence appeared to receive greater emphasis.

In a post on X, Chaudhary wrote that nobody wanted Sonam Wangchuk to die. In his view, Abhijeet Dipke, one of the organisers of the protest, should persuade Wangchuk to end his hunger strike. He further suggested that if Dipke wanted to send a political message, he could undertake a hunger strike himself, but should not play politics with the life of an elderly person.

The post triggered strong reactions on social media. Critics questioned why, if a journalist was genuinely concerned about Wangchuk's life, that concern was not accompanied by questions about the government's role. After all, the protest's principal demands were directed at the government. Yet this aspect was virtually absent from the post.

Abhijeet Dipke, one of the protest's organisers, also responded publicly. His position was that an adult has the right to make his own political decisions.

Sudhir Chaudhary remarked:

"Many people today are comparing this Cockroach movement with Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement of 2012. Although this movement has not become like Anna Hazare's movement, it has instead turned into something resembling the Shaheen Bagh protest of 2019."

During the protests, people from different parts of the country began sending food to demonstrators at Jantar Mantar. Samosas, rice, momos, burgers, water and other food items arrived through Swiggy and Zomato. While many viewed this as a sign of public support, Sudhir Chaudhary commented on his programme that the movement, which had begun with a hunger strike, had supposedly turned into a "food festival".

He said:

"The movement that began with a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar has now turned into a food festival. Jantar Mantar has become something like a food court."

Whether the movement should be compared with Anna Hazare's anti-corruption agitation or the Shaheen Bagh protests is a legitimate subject for analysis. Similarly, whether the delivery of food to a protest site should be interpreted as an expression of public support or presented as an object of ridicule is an editorial choice. However, it is necessary to examine whether such presentations preserve the significance of the protesters' central demands.

The controversies surrounding this coverage raise a broader question: when does editorial interpretation begin to overshadow the issue at the heart of a protest? News organisations have every right to scrutinise movements, investigate their organisers and question their political affiliations. However, when commentary about a protest's participants and presentation takes precedence over its demands, audiences may begin to question whether the coverage adequately represents the event.

When reporting becomes controversial

Verifying protesters' statements, examining their political affiliations and questioning the organisation of a movement are all legitimate journalistic responsibilities. However, when an unsubstantiated possibility is presented as established fact, or political identities are given greater prominence than the central issue, questions inevitably arise about the impartiality of news coverage.

One significant example of the controversy surrounding Sudhir Chaudhary concerns his programme on Karnataka's Swavalambi Sarathi scheme. In a programme broadcast on Aaj Tak in September 2023, he claimed that religious minorities received subsidies to purchase commercial vehicles under the Karnataka government's scheme, while Hindus were excluded from the benefits.

Following a complaint by an official of the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation over these claims, a case was filed against Chaudhary and the media organisation concerned.

According to a report published by Newslaundry, the scheme also included separate provisions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, alongside religious minorities. Karnataka minister Priyank Kharge had stated that eligible members of these communities could receive subsidies through the respective development corporations. In September 2025, the Karnataka High Court gave Sudhir Chaudhary and Aaj Tak another opportunity to present their arguments in connection with their petition seeking the quashing of the FIR.

The controversy illustrates why examining the complete context of a government scheme is essential before presenting claims about discrimination or exclusion. The question is not whether journalists should investigate the distribution of public benefits, but whether their reporting accurately reflects the scheme's provisions and includes relevant information that could change how audiences understand the issue.

Similarly, news coverage of the Tablighi Jamaat during the COVID-19 pandemic brought the importance of fact-checking into sharp focus. This included coverage that associated religious identity with allegations of spreading the disease, as well as the circulation of incomplete video footage.

Such cases demonstrate how selective presentation, insufficient verification or the omission of relevant context can shape public perceptions. They also underline the distinction between investigating a legitimate public-interest issue and presenting an allegation in a manner that encourages audiences to draw conclusions unsupported by the available evidence.

The credibility of journalism depends not on avoiding controversial subjects but on investigating them rigorously, distinguishing facts from allegations and ensuring that reporting does not mislead audiences through selective presentation.

Rebuilding trust beyond the algorithm

It is important to recognise the growing divide between the language of conventional political campaigning and the ways in which younger generations use social media. This divide is partly technological and partly cultural. Traditional political messaging does not always resonate with the kinds of content young people prefer to watch and share.

Short videos, memes, satire and personal accounts allow young people to engage with political events in ways that differ from the conventional formats of television news. These forms of communication can make complex political developments more accessible, although they can also strip events of context or amplify misinformation. Social media, therefore, is neither inherently more democratic nor automatically more reliable than traditional journalism.

The controversies surrounding the Delhi protests, criticism of Sudhir Chaudhary's coverage, Arnab Goswami's remarks about algorithms and the growing importance of social media in young people's political communication together present a significant challenge to the news media.

Publishing news is no longer enough. There is a growing demand for media organisations to make their sources, context and evidence transparent, while clearly distinguishing news reporting from opinion.

Mainstream broadcasters cannot expect audiences to remain loyal simply because they have established brands, large studios or extensive distribution networks. Nor can they assume that launching proprietary apps will automatically restore public trust. A direct distribution channel may reduce dependence on social media platforms, but it cannot compensate for a loss of editorial credibility.

In this situation, the way to preserve the credibility of the news media is not to blame algorithms. It is to maintain rigorous fact-checking standards, correct errors, present the views of different stakeholders and ensure transparency in editorial decision-making