In the polarized landscape of Indian media, where news channels often double as battlegrounds for political narratives, the ethical responsibilities of journalists and broadcasters are under constant scrutiny. A particularly contentious issue has emerged around ABP News’ popular show hosted by Sandeep Chaudhary, where the absence of official Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokespersons has raised questions about the practice of inviting individuals labeled as “representatives” of the BJP or Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) without formal affiliation. This practice, often perceived as a workaround to fill airtime or fuel debates, poses serious ethical dilemmas about misrepresentation, journalistic integrity, and the impact on public discourse.
The BJP’s reported boycott of Sandeep Chaudhary’s show, as noted in posts on X, stems from perceptions that the anchor’s hard-hitting style and critical stance damage the party’s image. This absence creates a vacuum in debates, especially on a show known for its confrontational format, “Seedha Sawal,” where political representatives face tough questions on issues like elections, governance, and security. To address this gap, the show sometimes invites individuals described as BJP or RSS “representatives,” even if they lack official designation from these organizations. This practice raises a fundamental ethical question: Is it justifiable to present someone as a spokesperson for a political or ideological group without their explicit endorsement?
From a journalistic standpoint, accuracy and transparency are non-negotiable. Labeling an individual as a representative of the BJP or RSS, when they are merely sympathizers or loosely affiliated, risks misleading viewers. The BJP and RSS are structured organizations with designated spokespersons tasked with articulating official positions. Inviting someone outside this framework—say, a political analyst or a local leader with ideological leanings—without clarifying their unofficial status, blurs the line between fact and assumption. This can distort the public’s understanding of the party’s stance, especially on contentious issues like the Pahalgam terror attack or Delhi elections, frequently discussed on Chaudhary’s show.
Moreover, this practice undermines the principles of fairness and balance. If the show’s format thrives on grilling representatives from all sides, substituting a non-official voice for the BJP while pitting them against official spokespersons from rival parties, such as the Aam Aadmi Party or Congress, creates an uneven playing field. The stand-in may lack the authority or knowledge to defend the party’s policies, leading to a skewed debate that serves sensationalism over substance. This not only compromises the show’s credibility but also risks alienating viewers who value informed discourse over theatrical confrontations.
The ethical implications extend to the broader media ecosystem. By framing debates around unofficial representatives, the show may inadvertently amplify polarizing narratives, reinforcing perceptions of bias. Some viewers already believe Chaudhary’s show targets the BJP, a sentiment that could intensify if the audience feels misled about who speaks for the party. This erodes trust in media as a whole, at a time when public skepticism about journalistic motives is already high. Furthermore, misrepresenting affiliations could expose the show to legal or reputational risks if the BJP or RSS objects to unauthorized voices claiming to represent them.
On the other hand, some might argue that inviting ideological proxies is a pragmatic response to the BJP’s boycott. A news show cannot function without diverse perspectives, and excluding BJP-aligned voices entirely would skew the narrative in the opposite direction. Yet, this justification falters when weighed against the need for transparency. A simple disclaimer-clarifying that the guest speaks as an individual, not an official representative- could mitigate ethical concerns while preserving the show’s dynamic format.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with Sandeep Chaudhary and ABP News to uphold journalistic standards. Misrepresenting affiliations, even unintentionally, undermines the pursuit of truth and risks manipulating public perception. In a democracy as vibrant and divided as India’s, media outlets must prioritize clarity and accountability over ratings-driven spectacle. By ensuring guests are accurately presented, Chaudhary’s show can maintain its reputation as a platform for hard-hitting journalism without compromising on ethics.
