In an age of expanding media and social platforms, the real test of journalism lies in its commitment to facts, accountability and public interest
New Delhi, September 23, 2026: The distinction between a journalist and a propagandist is becoming increasingly difficult to identify in today’s rapidly changing media environment. With television channels, digital platforms, social media networks and independent content creators multiplying, citizens have access to more information than ever before. Yet the abundance of information has also raised an important question: Is journalism continuing to function as a mechanism of public accountability, or is it increasingly becoming an extension of political and ideological camps?
The question is not limited to any particular journalist, organisation, political party or media house. It concerns the credibility and democratic purpose of journalism itself.
A common criticism of contemporary media is that it has become divided into competing camps. Some platforms are perceived as consistently defending government decisions, while others are seen as highlighting shortcomings in almost every government action. Each side has its own audience, arguments and ideological support base.
However, disagreement with a government does not automatically make journalism anti-government, just as reporting a government’s achievements does not necessarily make a journalist a supporter. The fundamental issue is whether the journalist is independently examining facts and asking questions in the public interest.
Journalism Is About Accountability, Not Allegiance
The role of journalism is neither to stand permanently with those in power nor to oppose them by default. Its essential function is to scrutinise the exercise of power.
When a government introduces a policy, journalists should examine why the decision was taken, what evidence supports it, how public money will be used, who is expected to benefit and what possible consequences may emerge. Similarly, when opposition parties make allegations or promises, those claims also require verification.
The standard should remain consistent regardless of who makes the statement.
Political identity should not determine the intensity of journalistic scrutiny. Facts and public interest should.
Where Reporting Ends and Propaganda Begins
Propaganda generally seeks to build public support for a particular person, ideology, institution or political position. Journalism, by contrast, is expected to provide verified information, establish context and enable citizens to understand an issue.
The difference is often visible not merely in the final headline but in the process behind the story.
Professional reporting requires journalists to examine sources, verify claims, seek relevant documentation, provide context and, where appropriate, give concerned parties an opportunity to respond. When a conclusion is decided in advance and information is selectively chosen to support that conclusion, the distinction between journalism and advocacy becomes increasingly blurred.
This does not mean journalists can never express an opinion. Opinion journalism and analysis have a legitimate place in the media. The important requirement is that readers should be able to distinguish reporting based on verified facts from interpretation, commentary or political advocacy.
Mistakes Can Happen — Accountability Matters
No journalist or newsroom is immune from error. Facts can be reported incorrectly, sources may provide incomplete information and important context can sometimes be missed.
The credibility of journalism is therefore not based on an unrealistic expectation of perfection. It is also reflected in how a newsroom responds when an error is identified.
Corrections, verification of sources, transparent clarification and continued scrutiny of one’s own reporting are important elements of responsible journalism.
Objectivity, meanwhile, should not be misunderstood as giving equal weight to every claim regardless of the evidence. If one claim is supported by substantial documentation while another lacks credible evidence, responsible journalism should present that difference clearly rather than creating an artificial equivalence.
Asking Questions Is Not the Same as Opposing the Government
A journalist questioning a government decision is not necessarily acting against the government. Questioning is a fundamental part of democratic accountability.
Governments exercise authority on behalf of citizens and therefore remain subject to public scrutiny. At the same time, opposition parties and political organisations also make claims, raise allegations and propose alternatives. These too should be examined through evidence and facts.
Unfortunately, public debate increasingly focuses on the perceived political identity of a journalist rather than the substance of the journalist’s questions.
A reporter may be labelled as belonging to an opposing camp simply for questioning a government policy. Conversely, a journalist who presents factual information supporting a government decision may be described as a government supporter.
Such labelling can shift attention away from the actual issue: whether the information presented is accurate, relevant and properly verified.
The Audience Also Shapes Modern Journalism
Political pressure is not the only challenge confronting news organisations. Audience behaviour has become another powerful influence.
Many readers and viewers prefer information that confirms opinions they already hold. Digital platforms can further strengthen this tendency by rewarding content that attracts attention, engagement and strong reactions.
This creates a difficult environment for journalism. Media organisations may feel pressure to produce content that satisfies a particular audience rather than content that challenges assumptions or introduces uncomfortable facts.
The result can be an information ecosystem in which citizens increasingly consume separate versions of reality.
The Real Test Is Consistency
A credible journalist should be prepared to ask difficult questions even when the answers may be uncomfortable for the journalist’s own audience.
Government decisions should receive scrutiny where necessary, but legitimate achievements should also be reported accurately. Opposition allegations should be examined carefully, but valid concerns raised by the opposition should not be ignored simply because of their political origin.
Consistency is therefore an important test.
If scrutiny changes according to the political identity of the person being questioned, journalism risks becoming advocacy. If the same standards of verification are applied to governments, opposition parties, institutions and influential individuals, journalism strengthens its public credibility.
Journalism and the Citizen’s Right to Know
The ultimate beneficiary of responsible journalism should be the citizen.
The purpose of reporting is not to tell people what political conclusion they must reach. Elections and political choices belong to citizens. Journalism has a different responsibility: to provide reliable information that allows citizens to form their own judgments.
A journalist should be willing to ask: What happened? Why did it happen? What evidence supports the claim? Who is affected? What does the available data show? What do official records say? What do independent sources indicate? And what remains unknown?
These questions are often more important than the political identity of the person answering them.
The Challenge Ahead
Journalism today operates under pressure from governments, opposition groups, advertisers, media owners, social-media audiences and sometimes even its own readership.
Maintaining professional independence under such circumstances is not easy.
Yet the credibility of journalism is ultimately tested when facts become inconvenient. A newsroom’s commitment to public interest becomes meaningful when it is willing to publish verified information even when that information disappoints its own audience or challenges its preferred narrative.
Journalism is neither political loyalty nor permanent political opposition. It is a discipline built around facts, verification, context, questioning and accountability.
A democratic society needs journalists who can question those in power, examine the claims of the opposition, verify their own sources and remain willing to reconsider their assumptions.
The journalist’s responsibility is not to determine who should govern. That decision belongs to the electorate.
The journalist’s responsibility is to ask those who govern what they have done, why they have done it, who will benefit, who may bear the cost and who will be accountable for the outcome. The same questions should be directed at those seeking power.
When journalism continues to question every side, verify every important claim and place public interest above political allegiance, it retains its democratic purpose.
When questioning disappears and conclusions are predetermined, the number of information platforms may continue to grow—but journalism itself begins to diminish.
— Dr. Priyanka Saurabh, PhD (Political Science), poet and social thinker