In the cacophony of India’s digital media landscape, few outlets have stirred as much controversy as the YouTube channel 4PM News, spearheaded by Sanjay Sharma. With sensational thumbnails and provocative headlines like “FIR Against PM Modi” or “Nagpuris Attack Rakesh Tikait,” 4PM News has amassed a significant following. However, the channel’s recent ban has sparked a heated debate: Is Sanjay Sharma a fearless journalist exposing uncomfortable truths, or a peddler of jingoism profiting from divisive narratives? This story delves into the rise and fall of 4PM News, the accusations of sensationalism, and the broader implications for honest journalism in India.
The Rise of 4PM News
Sanjay Sharma’s 4PM News emerged as a digital phenomenon, capitalizing on YouTube’s vast reach to deliver content that resonated with India’s polarized audience. The channel’s formula was simple yet effective: eye-catching thumbnails, hyperbolic titles, and stories that often leaned into controversy. Headlines such as “Big Scandal Broke Out in the Matter of Chair” or “Shamelessness After Pahalgam” were designed to grab attention, regardless of the substance behind them. These stories, often laced with unverified claims or exaggerated narratives, found a ready audience in a country where political loyalties run deep.
Sharma positioned himself as a crusader for truth, claiming to uncover scandals that mainstream media ignored. His videos, delivered with theatrical flair, appealed to viewers seeking validation of their biases. Whether it was alleging conspiracies against Prime Minister Narendra Modi or amplifying local disputes into national controversies, 4PM News thrived on outrage. The channel’s subscriber count soared, and with it, Sharma’s revenue from YouTube ads and sponsorships.
Sensationalism Over Substance
Critics argue that 4PM News is less about journalism and more about entertainment disguised as reporting. Sanjay Sharma’s content often prioritizes shock value over factual accuracy. For instance, the claim of an “FIR against PM Modi” was based on flimsy speculation, with no credible evidence to substantiate it. Similarly, the “Nagpuris’ attack on Rakesh Tikait” story inflated a minor altercation into a communal flashpoint, stoking division for views. Such tactics, critics say, are reminiscent of Mastram—a fictional character known for lurid pulp fiction that captivates but lacks depth.
Journalism, at its core, demands rigor, verification, and a commitment to public interest. 4PM News, however, often bypasses these principles. Sharma’s videos rarely cite primary sources, relying instead on hearsay or selective clips to construct narratives. The channel’s thumbnails, with their bold fonts and exaggerated imagery, are designed to mislead viewers into clicking, even if the content fails to deliver on the promised scandal. This approach, while lucrative, undermines the credibility of journalism as a profession.
The term “jingoism” has been increasingly applied to Sharma’s work. His stories often play to nationalist sentiments, vilifying perceived enemies of the state or amplifying divisive rhetoric. This is not fearless journalism but a calculated strategy to exploit India’s polarized climate. By framing every issue as a battle between “us” and “them,” 4PM News fuels animosity, leaving little room for nuanced discourse. The result is a form of media that entertains but rarely informs.
The Ban and the Backlash
The ban of 4PM News by YouTube, citing violations of community guidelines, ignited a firestorm. Supporters of the channel decried the move as an attack on free speech, arguing that Sharma was being silenced for challenging powerful interests. Some even alleged that the ban was orchestrated by the “Indi IT Cell,” a nebulous entity blamed for manipulating narratives. These defenders framed Sharma as a martyr for journalism, a lone voice against a corrupt system.
However, the reality is more complex. YouTube’s guidelines prohibit content that promotes misinformation, incites hatred, or violates copyright laws. 4PM News had repeatedly flirted with these boundaries, with videos that spread unverified claims or used copyrighted material without permission. The ban, far from being a conspiracy, was a consequence of the channel’s reckless approach to content creation. Yet, the outrage over the ban highlights a deeper issue: the conflation of sensationalism with journalism.
Some journalists and commentators have condemned the ban, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for free expression. They point out that YouTube’s moderation policies are often opaque, and bans can disproportionately affect smaller creators. However, others counter that defending 4PM News is a disservice to honest journalism. To equate Sharma’s jingoistic content with principled reporting is to blur the line between truth and propaganda. Those who champion the channel’s cause, critics argue, either misunderstand journalism or are complicit in its erosion.
The Challenge for Honest Journalism
The saga of 4PM News raises a pressing question: How can honest journalism survive in an era dominated by sensationalism? The success of channels like 4PM News underscores the allure of Mastram-style content—flashy, provocative, and instantly gratifying. In contrast, traditional journalism, with its emphasis on research and restraint, struggles to compete for attention. The economics of digital media further exacerbate this challenge. YouTube rewards high engagement, incentivizing creators like Sharma to prioritize clicks over credibility.
The audience, too, plays a role. India’s vast digital population, with varying levels of media literacy, often gravitates toward content that confirms their worldview. 4PM News thrives because it delivers what its viewers crave: drama, outrage, and simple narratives in a complex world. This dynamic creates a vicious cycle, where sensationalism drowns out substantive reporting, and honest journalists are sidelined.
Yet, there is hope. The backlash against 4PM News from within the journalistic community signals a growing awareness of the need to reclaim the profession’s integrity. Veteran journalists and media organizations have called for stricter standards, both for creators and platforms. Initiatives to promote media literacy among viewers are gaining traction, aiming to equip audiences with the tools to discern fact from fiction. Meanwhile, independent outlets committed to rigorous reporting continue to carve out niches, proving that quality journalism can still find an audience.
The Road Ahead
The ban of 4PM News is not an attack on journalism but a reckoning for those who exploit it. Sanjay Sharma’s brand of jingoism, cloaked in the guise of fearless reporting, has done more harm than good. By prioritizing profit over principle, he has contributed to the erosion of trust in media. The challenge now is to rebuild that trust, not by defending sensationalism, but by championing accountability and accuracy.
The debate over 4PM News is a microcosm of a larger struggle in India’s media landscape. As digital platforms continue to shape public discourse, the line between journalism and entertainment grows increasingly blurred. The survival of honest journalism depends on the collective efforts of journalists, platforms, and audiences to prioritize truth over spectacle. Until then, the allure of Mastram will continue to cast a long shadow, tempting creators to trade integrity for influence.
In the end, the story of 4PM News is a cautionary tale. It reminds us that journalism is not about who shouts the loudest or earns the most. It is about serving the public with facts, not fun. Sanjay Sharma may have made money, but at what cost to the profession he claims to represent? The answer lies in the empty promise of his thumbnails—sensational, seductive, but ultimately shallow.
