India’s Broadcasting Advisory and the Crisis of Media Credibility

The recent explosion near Delhi’s Red Fort, an incident that resulted in loss of life and raised concerns about security, has once again placed India’s media landscape under scrutiny. As details of the blast remain under investigation, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued a formal advisory to all satellite television channels, urging them to exercise the highest level of caution when reporting on the incident. On the surface, the advisory appears to be a routine step taken whenever a sensitive national-security event occurs. But the deeper issue goes beyond a single advisory. It reflects a growing crisis in India’s media ecosystem, where sensationalism has begun to overshadow responsible journalism, producing confusion rather than clarity.

The advisory highlighted that certain news broadcasters had aired content justifying the perpetrators’ actions, disseminated operational details, and even circulated videos explaining how explosive devices are made. The Ministry reminded channels of their legal obligations under the Programme and Advertising Code and the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act of 1995, cautioning that airing false, half-truthful, or violence-inciting content violates Rules 6(1)(d), 6(1)(e), and 6(1)(h). While framed as a protective response to a national security crisis, the advisory also touches upon deeper concerns about the role of media in shaping public perception in an age of hyper-politicised communication. As the government intensifies digital surveillance, deploying round-the-clock teams to monitor online radicalisation, it now faces the uncomfortable reality that mainstream news, driven by sensationalism rather than verification, poses its own risks.

The immediate trigger for the advisory was the conduct of several major broadcasters. In the hours following the blast, the pursuit of TRPs overshadowed the duty to inform responsibly. Rather than maintaining restraint while investigations unfolded, many outlets turned a tragedy into an infotainment spectacle. Channels released sensitive operational details, repeatedly aired leaked footage related to the primary suspect, and circulated contradictory information about the explosive material used. BBC Verify was forced to debunk AI-generated videos that went viral on social media, falsely purporting to show the explosion. Similarly, Neelesh Misra, a veteran journalist, also publicly questioned why investigations were being played out on television, a sentiment shared by many who viewed the coverage as reckless and counter-productive.

The broader pattern is even more worrying. Indian media outlets have increasingly relied on unnamed “highly placed sources,” creating an epidemic of unverifiable claims that lack accountability. In this case, many outlets rushed to link the Red Fort blast with the Kashmir-Faridabad terror module, treating an unproven connection as settled fact. Even before forensic teams had completed their assessments, some newspapers reported with full confidence that the “explosive signature” matched materials seized in Haryana. At the same time, other reports quietly admitted that investigators had not yet identified the type of explosive used. These contradictions highlight a serious decline in editorial oversight. Reporters repeat whatever interpretation they are given, without probing inconsistencies, while editors fail to flag gaps in evidence or emphasise that early findings are preliminary. The result is a media environment where speculation is presented as certainty, fuelling public confusion and weakening trust.

These trends reflect a deeper credibility crisis within India’s mainstream media. Criticisms of “Godi media”, outlets perceived as aligned with government narratives, are now commonplace. Sensationalism, hyper-nationalistic rhetoric, and aggressive primetime theatrics have replaced objectivity, harming India’s regional image and weakening its democratic information environment. International assessments mirror this decline: India has slipped significantly in press freedom rankings, while analysts argue that news coverage has become a “liability” to India’s regional influence. The issue is not merely domestic, misinformation and disinformation originating in Indian media reverberate across South Asia, as seen during Bangladesh’s recent political upheaval and during episodes of heightened tensions with Pakistan.

The advisory, therefore, raises an important question: is this intervention justified, or does it serve a strategic purpose? On one hand, the state has a legitimate responsibility to prevent the broadcast of content that could inspire copycat attacks, compromise investigations, or disrupt public order. Preventing the dissemination of operational details about explosive devices is indispensable for national security. On the other hand, the timing and tone of the advisory may also reflect political discomfort with the damage caused by false narratives circulating on television. This is not the first time Indian media has escalated misinformation during sensitive moments: research by the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate documented how Indian outlets amplified false claims during the outbreak of hostilities with Pakistan, including AI-generated visuals, recycled footage, and fabricated reports about military movements. The Red Fort case mirrors this pattern, where the government must simultaneously manage a security crisis and the crisis created by its own media ecosystem.

The Ministry’s advisory thus reflects a dual reality. It reinforces the need for responsible reporting during national security incidents, an essential requirement for any democracy. Yet it also exposes the structural weaknesses of an increasingly politicised media environment where truth decay, commercial incentives, and political influence overshadow journalistic integrity. Going forward, the solution does not lie in censorship, but in strengthening editorial standards, media literacy, and verification protocols. India’s media needs greater independence, not greater spectacle; more fact-checking, not more anonymous “sources.” Only then can journalism fulfil its democratic function, rather than becoming a liability.