The incident involving Abhijit Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party, being surrounded and confronted by social media influencers in Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, has become the subject of a major debate on the internet. There are two sharply contrasting views among social media users and the general public over whether the influencers’ conduct was justified.
One section of social media believes that there was nothing wrong with the influencers asking questions. Tribal children had tragically died from infectious diseases in villages in Balaghat. When Dipke visited the affected families, a woman influencer approached him with a microphone and questioned why he had arrived so late. Dipke himself apologized for the delay.
In the video, the influencers can also be heard saying, “Good roads have been built here. Can’t you see them?” Their supporters argue that it is legitimate to question the development and ground realities of the region rather than simply constructing a political narrative. The influencers also accused Dipke of “doing politics over dead bodies.”
Some argue that when a public figure or the leader of a political movement visits an area to understand a sensitive issue, ordinary citizens and content creators have every right to ask tough questions.
On the other hand, a large section of people considers this behavior completely inappropriate and disturbing. Local media workers and journalists have expressed surprise at how a group of social media influencers from outside the area suddenly arrived in such remote tribal regions. Some have even suggested that it may have been a planned attempt to disrupt Dipke’s visit.
The manner in which the car was surrounded, aggressive questions were repeatedly directed at him, and people later shouted, “He ran away, he ran away,” when he left, has led several observers to view the episode not as journalism or independent expression, but as personal targeting and an attempt to create a spectacle for social media content.
Critics argue that instead of questioning the government, the influencers surrounded opposition or activist leaders and thereby diverted attention from the central issue.
There is no doubt that questioning politicians or social activists on sensitive public issues is part of democracy and freedom of expression. But the manner, intent and language of questioning must also remain within certain limits. Too often, instead of meaningful discussion of real issues, the conversation is dominated by confrontation, heated arguments and personal attacks.
When someone is suddenly surrounded and confronted aggressively, they naturally become defensive. In such an atmosphere, it becomes almost impossible to arrive at a logical solution to a serious administrative problem or obtain a meaningful answer. At times, this approach appears to be adopted primarily to generate views and attract attention on social media.
That is why one side describes such encounters as a “reality check” designed to hold leaders accountable, while the other sees them as publicity-driven heckling that ultimately suppresses discussion of a serious issue.
There are fundamental differences between a professional journalist and someone who simply takes a camera onto the street. Those differences make responsible and disciplined journalism essential.
Professional journalism requires research before questions are asked. It is not merely about making allegations; it involves presenting evidence, figures and facts.
Professional journalism also operates within a code of ethics. Even the toughest questions are expected to be asked with civility, restraint and without subjecting anyone to physical or psychological pressure.
For a democracy to remain strong, the freedom to ask questions is as important as the responsibility to ask them with restraint. Journalism without boundaries does not lead to solutions; it merely creates disorder.
In an incident such as the one in Balaghat, where the deaths of children are an extremely serious and sensitive matter, the role of responsible journalism should be to expose administrative failures. When journalism loses that restraint, the entire issue can degenerate into a personal quarrel over “who said what to whom.” The real victims—the poor families who lost their children—are then pushed to the margins.
Social media platforms are designed in such a way that content receiving more views, shares and reactions is pushed by algorithms to an even larger audience. As a result, confrontation, provocation, anger and controversy often go viral much faster than calm conversations, document-based investigative reporting and fact-based analysis.
This has created a new “content culture” in which the question of how viral a video has become can sometimes matter more than the substance of journalism itself.
Surrounding someone, provoking a reaction, and then broadcasting that reaction as the headline may attract viewers, but it does not necessarily give the public a better understanding of the underlying problem.
The number of followers is not proof of credibility, and a viral video is not proof of factual accuracy.
To view the Balaghat incident merely as a dispute between Abhijit Dipke and social media influencers would be to underestimate its larger significance. In reality, it is a reflection of India’s rapidly changing media landscape.
On the one hand, social media has given ordinary citizens an unprecedented ability to express themselves. On the other, it has blurred the boundaries between information, opinion, propaganda, entertainment and journalism.
Today, everyone has the right to ask questions. But not every question is journalism. Every camera is not a news organization. Every viral video is not the truth. And every aggressive question is not necessarily a question in the public interest.
Therefore, the real question should not be who won or who lost.
The real question is this: After this entire controversy, are the actual causes of the deaths of those tribal children, administrative accountability and the problems faced by the affected families any clearer than before—or has the noise of social media swallowed those questions altogether?
It is for these very reasons that governments, the Supreme Court and regulatory institutions in India have been continuously tightening rules aimed at establishing accountability, transparency and ethical standards for digital influencers, social media content creators and traditional journalists.
Having “views” or “followers” does not give anyone an unrestricted licence to post anything they want.
Under the emerging regulatory framework, even an individual creator who is not a registered news channel but posts news or political content on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram or X may come within the regulatory ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Such creators are expected to behave responsibly, much like traditional media organizations.
If a creator uses artificial intelligence tools, voice cloning or face-swapping technology, the content may also be required to carry a clear disclosure that it is AI-generated.
Under the newer rules, if a court or an authorized government agency determines that certain content is unlawful or inflammatory, social media platforms and digital news publishers may be required to remove it within three hours. Previously, the applicable time limit was 36 hours.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute. Hate speech and reporting that contributes to social disorder can attract legal consequences, including penalties or account suspension, where applicable.
The introduction of stricter guidelines could therefore bring greater legal scrutiny to so-called “journalists” and influencers who use cameras to intimidate or harass people on the street without accepting any corresponding responsibility, or who disseminate false information.
Globally, the fundamental question remains: Does having a camera and a microphone automatically make someone a journalist?
Social media has placed the power to disseminate information in the hands of millions of people. But alongside that power have come growing concerns about the reliability of information, fact-checking, verification of sources and accountability.
Traditional journalism operates on the expectation that before an allegation is published or broadcast, journalists will gather facts, seek a response from the concerned parties and provide adequate context.
The freedom to question is indispensable to democracy. But so is the responsibility to question ethically.
When the pursuit of virality overtakes the pursuit of truth, journalism risks becoming spectacle. And when spectacle takes centre stage, the people who most need to be heard—the victims and their families—can disappear from the story.
---
*With Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Persons Association
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor