Why Modi Won’t Ban Biased Media Channels: A Deeper Look

While Prime Minister Modi’s government has been under scrutiny for its approach to media, it is important to examine why it may not have taken stricter actions against biased media outlets, such as NDTV Aajtak. This exploration includes the challenges faced by the government, the role of media in a democratic society, and the potential consequences of censorship.

The Role of Media in Society

The media plays a crucial role in a democratic society, serving as a watchdog and mirror reflecting the actions and policies of the government. However, many argue that media with an anti-national bias serve to demonize the government and sow discord. Such content often lacks factual accuracy and contributes to a skewed public perception. Some might argue that showing the ‘mirror’ is anti-national, implying that the government should continue to permit a free and uncensored press.

Government’s Lack of Moral Courage and Authority

One key reason behind the government’s inaction is the lack of moral courage and authority. The current government, led by Prime Minister Modi, has faced criticism for its inability to take decisive action against biased media outlets. There is a perception that the government lacks the necessary clout to effectively control the media, especially when it comes to preventing the spread of biased and potentially harmful content.

Supporters of Biased Media Within the Government

Further complicating the issue is the reality that many mainstream media channels, both print and electronic, are either promoted or managed by the current BJP government or its supporters or stooges. These channels often promote fake news or baseless narratives, making it difficult for the government to take a strict stance against anti-national content produced by other media outlets. This creates a complex web of interests and alliances within the media landscape.

Legal Approaches to Media Regulation

Instead of resorting to direct censorship, the government is working on legal means to address the issue. Every legal process requires time, patience, and thorough investigation. By taking a legal approach, the government can ensure that any actions against media outlets are based on solid evidence and adherence to the law. This method also allows for a fair and transparent process, which is crucial in a democratic society.

Challenges and Fears of Violence

The government also faces challenges related to potential backlash from political opponents. In certain regions under non-Congress rule, there have been instances of violence against media outlets supporting the opposition. Similarly, the fear of violence from left-wing parties poses another significant hurdle in any attempt to impose tough measures on the media. These challenges underscore the complexity of media regulation in a fragmented political landscape.

Total Censorship: Not the Preferred Approach

Given the constitutional and democratic principles at play, the government has been hesitant to resort to total censorship. Such an approach is often seen as an overreach of power and could have far-reaching implications for press freedom and democratic practices. The government seeks to strike a balance between maintaining national security and upholding the rights of the media to operate freely.

Constructive Criticism vs. Baseless Accusations

Constructive criticism and healthy debate are essential components of a thriving democracy. While it is important to address criticisms of the government, labeling opposition media as anti-national is not the solution. The Supreme Court plays a critical role in determining sedition cases, and it is the judiciary, not politicians, who should make such decisions. Criticizing government policies constructively can lead to necessary improvements and reforms, whereas blind acceptance may result in the perpetuation of flawed policies.

In conclusion, the government’s inaction towards biased media channels is multifaceted, involving challenges of moral courage, legal processes, and the complex dynamics within the media landscape. Balancing the need for a free press with the preservation of national security and unity remains a crucial task for policymakers in any democratic society.