Republic TV has established itself as one of India’s most prominent English-language news networks, with Arnab Goswami serving as its Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief. Its prime-time coverage has also attracted sustained criticism from opposition politicians, journalists, and media observers who argue that the channel frequently adopts positions favorable to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its political outlook.
These criticisms are part of a broader debate over the role of television news in India’s increasingly polarized political environment. The question is not whether a news organization or its presenters can hold particular editorial perspectives; they can. The more important question is whether those perspectives are sufficiently distinguished from factual reporting, and whether competing claims receive fair and evidence-based treatment.
That debate was renewed by Goswami’s recent criticism of opposition figures including Rahul Gandhi and Yogendra Yadav. Goswami accused them of taking inconsistent positions on India’s electoral system, arguing that they accept the credibility of elections and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) when their political side performs well but question the process after electoral defeats.
Gandhi and other opposition figures have, in turn, raised allegations concerning electoral irregularities and voter-list discrepancies. Gandhi has alleged irregularities in electoral rolls in constituencies including Mahadevapura in Karnataka and has called for greater transparency from the Election Commission of India. Such allegations are politically consequential, but they also require careful examination of the underlying electoral records and evidence rather than being treated either as established fact or as inherently baseless.
The disagreement illustrates a larger problem in political journalism: competing claims can quickly become personalized contests rather than investigations of evidence. Questions about voter registration, electoral rolls, EVMs, election administration, and the conduct of political parties deserve scrutiny regardless of which party benefits from a particular outcome.
Republic TV has faced controversy over its coverage on other occasions as well. During the COVID-19 pandemic, its coverage of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation drew criticism for its portrayal of the Muslim organization and its alleged connection to the spread of COVID-19. Courts subsequently rejected criminal proceedings against members of the group in cases arising from the episode. The controversy became part of a wider national debate about communal framing in pandemic coverage.
The channel has also faced regulatory and legal disputes. In 2018, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) directed Republic TV to broadcast an apology concerning the use of expletives during political coverage. Republic TV subsequently removed the relevant video from some of its online platforms but disputed the regulator’s authority and did not comply with the order in the manner directed.
Following the 2020 Palghar mob-lynching case, Maharashtra police registered a case involving Goswami over allegations concerning inflammatory reporting and statements. In 2025, the Indian National Congress also initiated legal proceedings involving Goswami and BJP IT-cell head Amit Malviya over alleged dissemination of misinformation. These proceedings represent allegations and legal claims, not findings of guilt, and should be treated accordingly.
The larger issue extends beyond one broadcaster or one political party. Indian television news operates in an environment where political competition, commercial incentives, social-media amplification, and ideological polarization increasingly overlap. Strong editorial viewpoints can attract audiences, but they can also make it difficult for viewers to distinguish reporting from commentary.
This distinction matters particularly when broadcasters discuss elections. Allegations of electoral fraud, voter-list manipulation, or institutional misconduct should be investigated seriously when credible evidence is presented. At the same time, allegations should not automatically be treated as proven simply because they are made by prominent political figures. The same standard should apply to claims made by governing parties, opposition parties, journalists, and election authorities.
The responsibility therefore falls on news organizations to provide context, verify claims, correct errors, and give significant competing perspectives an opportunity to be heard. Holding political opponents accountable is legitimate journalism; applying different standards to political allies and opponents is much harder to defend.
Viewers ultimately decide which news organizations they trust. But television news also shapes the broader environment in which political disagreements take place. When complex policy and institutional questions are repeatedly presented as conflicts between opposing camps, public debate can become less about evidence and more about identity and loyalty.
India’s democratic institutions depend not only on elections but also on an informed public. That requires journalism capable of scrutinizing governments and opposition parties alike, distinguishing allegations from established facts, acknowledging uncertainty, and correcting mistakes when they occur.
The objective should not be journalism without opinions. Rather, it should be journalism in which opinions are clearly identifiable as opinions, factual claims are supported by evidence, and powerful institutions are subject to scrutiny regardless of their political affiliation.
A healthy public discourse requires room for disagreement. It also requires a common commitment to facts, accountability, and fair scrutiny. Those standards should apply to every newsroom, every political party, and every public figure.
---
*Social activist from Arunachal Pradesh
Comments