From government cheerleaders to agent provocateurs: the (mis) use of thumbnails on YouTube Are Indian TV channels using provocative thumbnails to trigger reactions while dodging scrutiny?

08, May 2025 | Aman Khan, CJP HW Team

Experts on the impact of visual perceptions explain how this is an inherently selective process, influencing both thought and emotion. Indian commercial television channels, that have already positioned themselves as mouthpieces of the powerful have, over the past decade, been (mis)using visual communication to barter on a politics of division and alienation, especially geared to the ideology of the current regime in power. Faced in the past few years, with a serious credibility crisis and competition from Independent media on YouTube –and equally critically, also reined in by persistent citizens’ efforts to curb the hate on commercial electronic media through the invoking of NBDSA guidelines followed by take-down video orders (directives), these sensationalist digital tools that have been previously brazenly wielded to ignite religious discord and endorsing religious stereotypes in content are now being cleverly leveraged towards misleading click-baits, visual and text on/in the thumbnail.

This long analysis by the CJP Hate Watch team examines and analyses this new and disturbing phenomenon.

Also read: Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news and CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: A look at the repeated violation of ethics and guidelines by Indian television channels

Through the calculated use of misleading clickbait, visuals, and text, there is a persistent effort to jeopardise the nation’s communal harmony and even directly provoke violence. Channels like Zee News, Times Now Navbharat, Aaj Tak, and News 18 India have come under scrutiny for their reporting practices. Orders passed by the NBDSA in 2022, 2023, 2024 –obtained by CJP–point to this trend.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

Now, in what appears to be a careful bid to escape this monitoring –on the basis of guidelines that have evolved to ensure neutrality in portrayal of issues and their analysis/interpretation – channels have shifted tack: several of them are, arguably and disproportionately using images featuring prominent Muslim politicians like Asaduddin Owaisi to visually frame any news related to the Muslim community, regardless of his direct involvement in the same. This visual shorthand, clearly perpetuates a subtle yet insidious stereotype, linking diverse issues to a singular, conservative and aggressive Muslim identity. Whereas our team’s close and analytical look at the entire content in the slow, or the role of the anchor appears ‘neutral’, the trigger lies in the thumbnail, ensuring click-baits.

Another example is the say, the reporting on recent incidents like the recent Murshidabad violence (post the passage of the controversial Waqf Amendment Act of 2025) that raises serious questions about journalistic ethics. The evident overuse of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s image in thumbnails and tickers, often accompanied by trigger-phrases signifying approval, like “Yogi Action” or “Yogi Style Action”– even when the news pertains to events outside his jurisdiction—points to attempts to inject a specific aggressive, bullying narrative. Given Adityanath’s strongman image and association with vituperative Hindu nationalism, this visual framing appears designed to evoke a particular triumphal and negative sentiment and moreover, to cater to a specific viewership.

Further, the alleged use of thumbnails featuring both Yogi Adityanath and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in reports about the Murshidabad violence, alongside reports of “forced Hindu migration” framed as a consequence of Muslim dominance in Bengal, further fuels concerns. Such visual juxtapositions and narratives, when presented in a misleading or exaggerated manner, risk creating a climate of fear and suspicion between communities. The apparent haste and lack of ethical boundaries in the pursuit of viewership, as evidenced by the language and visuals employed, paint a concerning picture of a section of the Indian news media seemingly abandoning its responsibility to report truthfully and fairly.

The coverage of the Waqf Act debates further exemplifies this trend. The consistent pairing of Owaisi’s image and the repeated use of terms like “Maulana, Maulana” in tickers during these discussions seem to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes and potentially demonise religious leaders within the Muslim community. This pattern suggests a deliberate attempt to frame issues through a communal lens, potentially exacerbating existing societal fault lines.

Selective visual communication and its negative impact

As experts on visual communication say, this is an inherently selective process. The negative effects on individuals and society of such persistent use of selective attention is emotionally skewed: such attentional bias is therefore often associated with negative or threat-related stimuli, which can impel us to focus on ‘threatening information’ over more neutral stimuli (information and news) in our environment that, in turn leads us collectively to ruminate on distressing thoughts Research suggests this may be a contributing factor to emotional disorders. None deny that over the past decade and more, Indian society has been subject to, or become a victim of such perniciously crafted negative selectivity geared cynically to ensure the alienation of, discrimination towards particular, politically targeted sections.

As this simple visual explanation on attentional bias from The Digitak Kab tells us there are four types of selective perception.

The four stages of selective perception include:
Selective Exposure, Selective Attention, Selective Comprehension, and Selective Retention

To ensure neutrality in reportage and communication, requires a committed non-partisan approach. In simple language, being open-minded. In fact, being open-minded and empathetic is known to be one of the best ways to avoid perception bias. Societally, especially in an environ that has traditionally thrived on pluralism and diversity, is to ensure constant exposure to a wide range of people, opinions and cultures. The more such depiction is rich and nuanced, the more successful will visual communication be in challenging stereotypical assumption.

CJP’s HW Team studied and analysed electronic media coverage and depiction in past weeks and here is what we found.

Zee News

Zee News, consistently vying for viewership, frequently exhibited hasty and insensitive reporting, often disregarding factual accuracy and context. The channel has faced reprimands, including fines, from the NBDSA for its communal and misleading broadcasts. Its thumbnails and clickbait tactics often amplified stereotypes and sensationalism.

Fiction over fact: Zee News’ race for ratings

In its coverage of the Waqf Act issue, Zee News employed inflammatory Hindi captions such as “Jiska Dar Tha Wahi Hua! Waqf Kanoon Par Tagda Jhatka, Muslimo Main Jashan” (What was feared has happened! Big blow on Waqf law, celebration among Muslims), “Supreme Court Ka Order! Khud He Phas Gaye Musalman” (Supreme Court’s order! Muslims themselves got trapped), and “Supreme Court Se Faisla, 21 Crore Muslimo Main Bhagdadh! Live” (Decision from Supreme Court, stampede among 21 crore Muslims! Live). These phrases aimed to create a sense of dramatic tension and portray the Muslim community in a negative light, suggesting celebration at a setback or mass panic from Supreme Court hearing. (The matter is still pending before the Supreme Court).

Polarising thumbnails: icons of power vs. the ‘other’

Furthermore, thumbnails often juxtaposed images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, UP CM Yogi Adityanath, and AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi with text like “Waqf Bill Par Palte 24 Crore Musalmaan, Pure Desh Hadkamp! ‘3000 Crore Ki Property Jabt” (24 crore Muslims turned against the Waqf Bill, nationwide uproar! ‘3000 crore property seized’) and “Modi Ko Aisi Saja Denge! Maulanao Ne De Dali Dhamki, Lakho Muslimo Ne Ghere 6 Sahar” (They will give such a punishment to Modi! Maulanas have given a threat, lakhs of Muslims have surrounded 6 cities). The objective of these combinations was to link the Waqf Bill to a supposed nationwide upheaval by the Muslim community, framing it as a threat and invoking strong reactions against the minority group. The inclusion of Modi and Yogi Adityanath’s images likely aimed to resonate with a specific viewership that favours their political stance.

The channel further utilised aggressive and communal language in its thumbnails, such as “Ab Aar-Paar Ki Jang” (Now, a decisive battle), “Modi Ko Saja Denge” (They will punish Modi), “Waqf Gang Ko Yogi Ka Tagda Ultimatum” (Yogi’s strong ultimatum to the Waqf gang), and the derogatory “Miyan Ji Ka Naya Khoof Aa Raha” (The new fear of ‘Miyan Ji’ is coming – ‘Miyan Ji’ is a term sometimes used pejoratively for Muslim men). Other examples of sensational and stereotype-reinforcing thumbnails included “15 Minute..Musalmano Ko Court Main Devkinandan Ka Khula Challenge, Ucchal Pade Maulana” (15 minutes…Devkinandan’s open challenge to Muslims in court, Maulanas jumped up), “Danga Zone Main Lakho Musalmaan, Waqf Par Naya Plan” (Millions of Muslims in riot zone, new plan on Waqf), and “Azadi.. Karnataka Gherne Nikal Pade Lakho Musalmaan Aur Fhir..” (Freedom… Millions of Muslims set out to surround Karnataka and then…).

These captions collectively painted the Muslim community as reactive, prone to violence, and potentially threatening, thus perpetuating negative stereotypes for sensationalism and viewership. The channel’s consistent use of such language and imagery demonstrated a pattern of prioritising sensationalism and the endorsement of harmful stereotypes over responsible and factual journalism.

Times Now Navbharat

Times Now Navbharat exhibited a pattern of sensationalism and misleading reporting on sensitive topics. A key tactic involved the frequent and seemingly gratuitous use of Yogi Adityanath’s image in thumbnails, irrespective of the news story’s location or direct relevance to Uttar Pradesh. Given Yogi Adityanath’s substantial social media following, this strategy appeared to be a deliberate attempt to inflate viewership through clickbait.

Clickbait for sensation: the strategic use of Yogi Adityanath’s image

For instance, in its coverage of the Murshidabad violence, the channel employed Hindi captions like “CM Yogi Ne Khayi Kasam, Ek-Ek Hindu Ko Bachana Hai” (CM Yogi has taken an pledge, he has to save every single Hindu) and “Laato ke Bhoot, Baato Se: Murshidabad Hinsa Par Mamta Se Kya Bole Yogi” (Those who understand force, not words: What did Yogi say to Mamata on Murshidabad violence). The objective of using such text alongside Yogi Adityanath’s picture was to inject a Hindu nationalist angle into the narrative, capitalising on his image as a strong, decisive leader within that political leaning. This sensational framing aimed to attract viewers by tapping into existing social media trends where his supporters often invoke phrases like “Yogi Adityanath Style Action” in response to incidents of violence.

Waqf Act coverage: communal framing over legal nuance

Similarly, the channel’s reporting on the Waqf Act debates prominently featured Yogi Adityanath, using captions such as “Baba ‘Bulldozer Decision’ Lenge”, SC Se 555 Ka Intjaar,” (Baba will take a ‘Bulldozer Decision’, waiting for 555 from SC) and “Yogi Ki Table Par Waqf Ki 1.25 Lakh Files” (1.25 lakh Waqf files on Yogi’s table). The objective behind this consistent visual and textual association was to communalise the issue. By exclusively highlighting a Chief Minister known for his pro-Hindutva stance, the channel seemingly sought to frame the Waqf Act discussions along Hindu-Muslim lines, catering to a specific viewership segment and sensationalising the topic for increased clicks, rather than providing an objective analysis of the law.

Even when reporting on the legal challenge to the Waqf Act, the thumbnail read, “Owaisi, Sibbal, Singhvi Ka Chehra Utara, Supreme Court Ne Waqf Kanoon Par Modi Ka Kaam Aasan Kar Diya” (Owaisi, Sibbal, Singhvi’s faces fell, Supreme Court made Modi’s work easier on Waqf law). This caption, paired with the news of the legal challenge, aimed to portray it as a setback for Muslim leaders and lawyers representing them.

Engineered conflict: pitting leaders for spectacle

The channel also utilised thumbnails featuring contrasting figures like Asaduddin Owaisi and T. Raja Singh with captions such as “Waqf Bill Ke Virodh Main Owaisi Ki Hunkar, T. Raja Ne Diya Karara Jawab” (Owaisi’s roar in opposition to the Waqf Bill, T. Raja gave a strong reply). This pitting of opposing figures, along with the insensitive and incomplete phrase attributed to T. Raja Singh, “Tumhara Baap Bhi…” (Even your father…), served to create conflict and sensationalism, drawing viewers in with the promise of a heated exchange and appealing to potentially divisive sentiments. This approach prioritised sensationalism and clickbait over providing viewers with a nuanced understanding of the Waqf Act and the related discussions.

Aaj Tak

Similarly, Aaj Tak also appeared to engage in a comparable pattern of sensationalism, albeit to a seemingly lesser degree. Its thumbnails concerning the Waqf Bill, such as “Waqf Ka Waqt Aa Gaya!” (The time for Waqf has come!) and “Waqf Bill Se Musalmano ki Jameene Chinne Wali Hain?” (Will the Waqf Bill snatch away Muslims’ lands?), while perhaps less overtly inflammatory than some other channels, still employed a degree of sensationalism and potentially misleading framing. The phrase “Waqf Ka Waqt Aa Gaya!” (The time for Waqf has come!) Carries a sense of impending and significant change, potentially creating unease or excitement depending on the viewer’s perspective. The question “Waqf Bill Se Musalmano ki Jameene Chinne Wali Hain?” (Will the Waqf Bill snatch away Muslims’ lands?) Directly plays on potential anxieties within the Muslim community, suggesting a threat to their properties without providing factual context.

Even in the form of a question, such a thumbnail can contribute to the spread of misinformation and the amplification of fear for the sake of attracting clicks and viewership. While not resorting to overtly communal language or imagery to the same extent as some other channels, Aaj Tak’s use of these types of thumbnails still indicates a leaning towards sensationalism when covering sensitive religious and legal issues, potentially contributing to a climate of anxiety and suspicion.

India TV

India TV also mirrored this concerning trend in its reporting, employing provocative and misleading language that endorsed harmful stereotypes. During its coverage of the Murshidabad violence, the channel utilised phrases such as “Murshidabad…10 Hajar Dangai Nikle Jumme Ke Baad?” (Murshidabad…Did 10,000 rioters emerge after Friday?), “Owaisi Ka Ailan-e-Jung, Kitne Muslim Sang?” (Owaisi’s declaration of war, how many Muslims are with him?), “Modi vs Muslim Board”, and “Modi vs Maulana.”

Climax-oriented thumbnails: drama over depth

The objective behind these captions was to immediately frame the violence along religious lines, portraying Muslims as aggressors (“10 Hajar Dangai” – 10,000 rioters) and suggesting a confrontation between the Muslim community (represented by Owaisi and the “Muslim Board”) and the Hindu majority (represented by Modi). This sensational framing disregarded the complexities of the situation and aimed to create division

Furthermore, without official confirmation or statements, India TV aired shows with alarmist and unsubstantiated claims like “Murshidabad Se 10000 Hindu Visthapit, Muslim Sthaapit” (10000 Hindus displaced, Muslims settled in Murshidabad) and “Aaj Bengal ke Hindua Ka Kaleja Fhat Gaya” (Today, the hearts of Hindus in Bengal shattered). These emotionally charged and unverified statements served to create fear and resentment within the Hindu community, painting Muslims as displacing Hindus.

The channel’s use of the phrase “Modi Se Nafrat Sakht, Maulana Ka Waqf Waqf!” (Strong hatred for Modi, Maulana’s Waqf Waqf!) Further exemplified this pattern. By specifically highlighting “Maulana” (Islamic cleric) in opposition to the Waqf Act and linking this opposition to “Nafrat” (hatred) towards Prime Minister Modi, the channel aimed to stereotype religious leaders within the Muslim community as being inherently anti-government and harbouring animosity towards the Hindu leader. This deliberate portrayal contributed to the broader trend of media outlets using religious identity to sensationalise news and fuel divisive narratives for viewership.

News 18 India

News 18 India’s coverage of the Waqf issue employed thumbnails and titles that could be seen as sensational and potentially misleading. Phrases like “Waqf Act Ke Bahane Jute Muslim Kya Hain ‘Asli’ Agenda” (What is the ‘real’ agenda of deceitful Muslims under the guise of the Waqf Act?), “Bhu-Mafia Ya Islam, Waqf Aa Raha Kiske Kaam” (Land mafia or Islam, who is the Waqf benefiting?), “Jumme Ki Namaz, Masjid Adda” (Friday prayers, mosque as a hub), “Pradarshan Se Pahle, Delhi Main Muslimo Ka Jamawada” (Muslim gathering in Delhi before the protest), and “Waqf Ke Khilaaf Delhi Main Muslamano Ka Halla Bol” (Muslims’ outcry in Delhi against the Waqf) – these, coupled with images of figures like Owaisi and Maulana Arshad Madni, risk framing a complex matter through a narrow, potentially biased lens. This approach might inadvertently create a singular narrative that overlooks the broader context and possible repercussions of such hasty and attention-grabbing presentations.

Similarly, their reporting on the Murshidabad violence, with headlines such as “Bajrang Dal Ki Entry, Hil Gaya Pura Bengal” (Bajrang Dal’s entry, entire Bengal shaken) and “Didi..Tere Bengal Main Hinduo Ke Jaan Ki Kimat Kaya?” (Didi…what is the value of Hindu lives in your Bengal?), appears to prioritise sensationalism. Highlighting the Bajrang Dal in what seems like a ‘saviour’ role could amplify communal tones.

While the channel seemingly criticises the TMC government for allegedly failing to protect Hindus, it doesn’t appear to broadly question the government’s responsibility in preventing violence across the entire state. This particular style of reporting could unfortunately prioritise high viewership and TRP ratings by potentially communalising the narrative, possibly at the expense of fostering harmony and communal tolerance through the use of climax-oriented thumbnails and click-bait.

NBDSA and monitoring negativity on air

For the past six years or more, robust citizen’s campaigns have sought accountability from several electronic media channels in their portrayal and coverage. CJP’s HateWatch programme (HateHatao initiative) is arguably the most consistent keeping a hawk’s eye on hate violations on air. Through careful and calibrated analysis we have managed to track, complain and ensure that several of the most offending shows (videos) are pulled off air. These include those from among the very channels that have since now resorted to the use of the provocative and incendiary thumbnail and visual.

Increasingly the complaints made by CJP, to NBDSA, have, in a nuanced way been pointing out how often not the whole but a small portion (few minutes even) of a 50 minute show uses problematic language, positioning this in such a way that the entire coverage or its focus gets coloured and littered with manipulative metaphors collectively amounting to prejudice.

Now, we ask, is this the latest move, by these very same offenders to attract venality in viewer response without actually crossing the bar in either the content itself or the role of the anchor?

Narrative over nuance: missing the broader accountability

However, the examples of sensationalist reporting by certain Indian news channels raise serious concerns about the erosion of journalistic ethics and the potential for these practices to exacerbate communal tensions. The deliberate use of misleading visuals, inflammatory language, and clickbait tactics, often targeting religious minorities and framing sensitive issues through a communal lens, appears to prioritise viewership over responsible reporting. Given the pervasive reach of digital media, how can regulatory bodies and journalistic organisations effectively address this trend of irresponsible sensationalism and ensure that the media upholds its crucial role in fostering an informed and harmonious society, rather than contributing to division and discord?

Related

From ‘Ab Hoga Khel’ to ‘Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai’: the trap set by thumbnails

CJP urges for removal of contentious Aaj Tak show on Hemant Soren, sends complaint to channel

CJP alerts YouTube of two channels openly selling illegal firearms