A Symbol of Shouting and Screaming Journalism

In television journalism, an anchor’s job is not to shout the news; it is to uncover the facts behind the news. It is not to turn a discussion into a competition of shouting; it is to place different opinions face to face with evidence. But there has long been criticism that the model created by Arnab Goswami in Indian television journalism has turned this basic principle upside down. On Republic TV’s prime-time shows, the verdict comes before the question, shouting is heard more than argument, and political labels appear more prominently than evidence. That is why the question inevitably arises: Is this journalism, or a political television show designed for TRPs?

Critics have long said that the “high-voltage” journalism Arnab Goswami claims as his specialty has actually become a broadcasting style that provokes the emotions of viewers. This tendency is even more clearly visible in the programmes he conducts against political opponents such as Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party. There is nothing wrong with asking tough questions to a political opponent. But when a journalist goes beyond the role of a questioner and reaches the point of portraying a political opponent as guilty in advance, the boundary between journalism and political propaganda disappears.

The language frequently used in Republic TV programmes about Rahul Gandhi stands as an example of this. His political decisions, Congress strategies, and the role of the opposition can be criticised with evidence. But mocking the individual, repeatedly addressing him with insulting adjectives, and conducting a discussion in such a way that damaging a political leader’s reputation appears to be its main purpose raises questions about journalistic standards. Similarly, criticising the Congress party is natural in a democracy. But criticism must have a basis; anger should not become the basis.

The most obvious feature of the Arnab model is “turning shouting into argument.” Interrupting a panellist while they are speaking, making several people speak at the same time, asking another question before an answer is completed, displaying provocative words in large letters on the screen, and making the anchor’s voice the centre of the discussion—these may create excitement for viewers. But the actual subject of the discussion disappears in that confusion. The Reuters Institute also referred to Republic TV debates as an example while examining the growing aggressive and populist political broadcasting style in Indian television news.

The real question here concerns the TRP culture. If the main standard becomes how many people watched the news rather than how well it was researched, journalism naturally runs towards sensationalism. In 2020, Mumbai Police began an investigation into allegations that TRP ratings related to Republic TV had been manipulated. Serious allegations were registered in this matter. Arnab Goswami and Republic TV denied the allegations. Later, questions were also raised about the method of the investigation. Therefore, it is not correct to describe this as a final determination of guilt. But the fact that the question of how a news organisation is gaining its viewership became such a major controversy is itself a warning for media ethics.

The criticism of Republic TV was not limited to India. Britain’s broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, imposed a fine on a Republic broadcast over biased and offensive comments. International media have also focused on several occasions on the growing “media trials,” shouting culture, and political polarisation in Indian television debates. This means that the issue is not merely about Arnab Goswami’s personal style; the impact of the broadcasting method he popularised on Indian television journalism must also be examined.

Several complaints and cases have been filed against Arnab and Republic TV broadcasts on different occasions. It must be clearly remembered that the filing of a case is not a determination of guilt. At the same time, it is also not correct to dismiss the fact that cases were filed as entirely a political conspiracy. Each case must be assessed only according to its evidence, investigation, and the decisions of the courts. Just as a journalist has legal rights, a journalist also has a responsibility towards the people.

An even more dangerous development is that other television channels are trying to imitate this Arnab model. An anchor shouts; viewers watch with excitement; viewership increases; advertisements increase. Then aggressive broadcasting appears commercially more attractive than calm, investigative, evidence-based journalism. As a result, news changes from a means of information into an object of entertainment. There is a danger that a broadcasting industry that increases political polarisation may emerge in place of the independent media needed by democracy.

The widespread appearance of satirical cartoons, memes, and criticism of Arnab Goswami on social media is also part of the public response to his style. However, social media memes cannot be treated as a scientific measure of public opinion. The real question is more serious—not whether viewers are watching those programmes, but whether they are receiving genuine, balanced, and evidence-based information.

Journalism means questioning those in power. But questioning the opposition is also part of journalism. Applying the same standard to those in power and to the opposition is true impartiality. Questioning those in power is not treason; questioning the opposition is not anti-democratic either. But the person asking the questions should not turn his political opinion into news, his anger into analysis, or his verdict into the people’s verdict.

Regardless of how popular Arnab Goswami may be personally, it is dangerous for the shouting model he created to become an ideal for Indian media. Because no matter how loud a journalist’s voice is, the truth is not made any bigger by it. No matter how intense an anchor’s anger is, evidence is stronger than it. No matter how large the words appear on the screen, reality is larger than them.

Shouting is not news. Sensation is not truth. A political slogan is not analysis. Insulting an opponent is not journalism. Provoking people’s emotions for TRPs is not public service.

For the media to stand as the fourth pillar in a democracy, it must question not only those in power but also itself. Otherwise, behind the slogan “We are raising our voice for the country,” what remains will not be the country’s interest at all—only a competition to make one’s voice heard more loudly.