Indian reporters from pro-government media outlets are increasingly facing heckling at protest sites, reflecting growing public anger over perceived media bias and the Narendra Modi government’s handling of demonstrations, Shoaib Daniyal wrote in Scroll.
In his analysis, Daniyal examines why journalists associated with “godi media” — a derogatory term used for news outlets seen as favouring the government — have become targets of protesters and how the rise of independent digital media is challenging the dominance of mainstream television channels.
The latest incidents took place on Saturday, when police detained protesters demonstrating against alleged vote rigging, as well as dozens of journalists covering the protests. Some reporters were also allegedly assaulted by police, Daniyal reported.
He noted that, while journalists faced police action, there were no reported instances of pro-government media outlets being targeted by the authorities. Meanwhile, some reporters from these outlets were heckled by protesters.
Similar incidents occurred in July during youth-led protests demanding the removal of India’s education minister over a paper leak controversy. The backlash reportedly became so intense that some senior journalists from pro-government television channels covered the demonstrations without displaying identifying logos on their microphones.
Daniyal traces the roots of India’s polarised media landscape to the final years of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, when widespread scrutiny of the administration contributed to its political decline ahead of the 2014 general election.
After coming to power, Modi built a strong pro-government media ecosystem through a combination of incentives and pressure, Daniyal argued. He said wealthy business figures seen as close to the prime minister came to control major media organisations, while owners viewed as hostile to the government faced pressure, including from central investigative agencies.
According to the columnist, this approach weakened press freedom but helped Modi consolidate his political position by giving the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a significant advantage in shaping public narratives.
The expansion of affordable internet access has since changed the media landscape, allowing smaller news organisations and independent content creators to reach millions of Indians outside the traditional pro-government media ecosystem.
Daniyal argued that audiences seeking journalism critical of those in power have increasingly turned to online platforms, including YouTube and Instagram, where independent political commentators have gained significant reach.
This shift, he wrote, helps explain why protesters increasingly view reporters from pro-government outlets as government mouthpieces rather than independent journalists. Some content creators have also recorded and circulated footage of reporters being heckled, drawing attention from online audiences critical of the BJP.
The columnist suggested that Modi has recognised the limits of relying on traditional media to promote his party’s messaging. The prime minister and his ministers have increasingly turned to social media videos to communicate directly with the public.
However, Daniyal argued that platforms such as Instagram offer a more competitive space in which the government has less structural advantage than it enjoys in mainstream media.
He also pointed to calls from some pro-government commentators to restrict foreign social media platforms and promote domestic alternatives that could be more easily controlled by the authorities.
Such a strategy would face practical challenges, he argued, as India lacks domestic social media platforms capable of matching major global services such as Meta’s platforms and X.
Daniyal concluded that as pro-government mainstream media loses influence and anti-BJP content gains traction online, the Modi government could find it increasingly difficult to control the political narrative in India.