NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints NBDSA issues warning to the broadcasters and their anchors for failing to ensure impartial reporting in sensitive debates, demanding removal of biased segments that fuel religious polarisation.

28, Jan 2025 | CJP Team

The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) issued two pivotal orders on January 27, 2025, on complaints filed by the Citizens for Justice and Peace, condemning communal and inflammatory reporting by Times Now Navbharat and Zee News. Both broadcasters were directed to remove contentious debate segments from all platforms after their anchors failed to uphold journalistic standards, instead enabling communal rhetoric and polarisation. The NBDSA reprimanded Times Now Navbharat for its biased portrayal of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023 and Zee News for communalising the Budaun double murder case in March 2024.

In both cases, the NBDSA highlighted the anchors’ partisan conduct, accusing them of steering debates towards religious bias, amplifying communal tensions, and failing to moderate inflammatory statements by panellists. The authority found that these broadcasts violated the Code of Ethics and Specific Guidelines for Anchors, deeming their removal essential to mitigate the harmful impact of their content. These orders not only hold anchors accountable for their role in perpetuating polarising narratives but also emphasise the critical need for ethical and responsible journalism.

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!

Order on complaint to Times Now Navbharat for giving Israel-Hamas conflict a communal colour during debates

Background of the complaint

On October 23, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat regarding two debate segments aired on October 16, 2023. The debates, titled “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ?” and “Rashtravad: हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है?”, addressed the Israel-Hamas conflict but framed the issue in a communal and polarising manner. The debates portrayed Indian Muslims, opposition leaders, and leftist student organisations supporting Palestine as sympathisers of Hamas due to their “religious connection”. CJP highlighted how such broadcasts stigmatised Muslims and painted the Palestinian cause as a communal issue rather than one about life, liberty, and freedom from occupation.

The complaint noted that the anchors, Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, adopted a partisan approach, posing biased and leading questions that portrayed the Muslim community and its leaders in a negative light. Pandey’s show suggested that Indian Muslims might support terrorism due to shared religious ties, while Yadav’s debate questioned whether opposition leaders were inciting support for Hamas in India. CJP argued that this rhetoric violated the NBDSA’s guidelines for neutrality and responsible reporting, contributing to a polarising environment and exacerbating communal tensions in India. Upon no satisfactory response from the broadcaster, the complaint was then escalated to the NBDSA on November 10, 2023.

Submissions by the complainants

1. Communal bias: The debates portrayed Indian Muslims supporting Palestine as being aligned with Hamas, despite no evidence to suggest such alignment.
2. Accusatory tone: Anchors framed polarising questions, such as “Will there be support for terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?” and accused opposition leaders of creating a “Hamas think tank” in India.
3. Unequal treatment: Panellists from opposition parties and Muslim backgrounds were treated with hostility, while ruling party representatives were given a platform to make communal diatribes unchallenged.
4. Misrepresentation: Clips of protests and statements supporting Palestine were selectively used to create suspicion, ignoring India’s official stance supporting a two-state solution.

The complainants cited Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India to emphasise the duties of anchors in conducting fair and impartial debates.

Submissions by the broadcaster

1. Support for India’s stance: The broadcaster argued that the debates aligned with India’s position on the Israel-Palestine issue, which condemns Hamas while supporting a peaceful resolution.
2. No violation of guidelines: The broadcaster claimed that the debates merely questioned statements by political leaders perceived as opposing India’s stance.
3. Aggressive tone justified: It defended the tone as necessary for sensitive topics and asserted that annoyance or irritation caused to some viewers did not violate broadcasting norms.
4. Fair reporting: The debates, according to the broadcaster, provided viewers with accurate information and sought to uncover the motives behind statements made by certain political leaders.

 

Decision by the NBDSA

After reviewing the footage, arguments, and submissions, the NBDSA noted that while criticism of Hamas falls under freedom of expression, the impugned broadcasts went beyond this remit and violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards.

Key findings in the order:

1. Communal colour: The NBDSA observed that the debates gave a communal tone to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Statements made by politicians in support of Palestine were conflated with support for Hamas. The debates also included biased and provocative questions such as, “Will there be support for terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?” and “Who is building the Hamas think tank in India?” These questions contributed to creating prejudice against a specific community.
2. Violation of anchor guidelines: The anchors failed to ensure impartiality. They permitted panellists, such as Mr. Shubham Tyagi, to make communal diatribes, and statements like comparing the Congress Party’s stance on Palestine to support for terrorist entities were not curtailed.
3. Targeting a community: The order noted that “the broadcaster exceeded the limits by targeting a particular community,” as evident in the framing of questions and the communal rhetoric during the debates.
4. Failure to provide balanced coverage: While the broadcaster claimed it was presenting India’s stance on the conflict, the NBDSA found that the anchors did not highlight India’s support for Palestine alongside its condemnation of Hamas, resulting in one-sided reporting.

Actions taken by the NBDSA:

The NBDSA concluded that the broadcaster’s failure to moderate the debates impartially and its communal portrayal of the Israel-Palestine conflict violated broadcasting standards. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring responsible journalism in sensitive discussions that can shape public opinion.

1. Warning issued: The NBDSA issued a formal warning to the broadcaster to adhere to the principles of neutrality and impartiality.
2. Removal of content: The broadcaster was directed to remove the videos of the said broadcasts from its website, YouTube, and any other digital platforms within seven days, confirming compliance in writing to the NBDSA.
3. Advisory for future broadcasts: The NBDSA advised the broadcaster to strictly follow the ‘Specific Guidelines for Anchors Conducting Programmes, Including Debates’ in future broadcasts, especially on sensitive topics.
4. Order dissemination: The NBDSA instructed the release of the order to the complainants, broadcaster, and media and its inclusion in its annual report.

The complete order may be read here.

 

Order on complaint to Zee News for communalising Budaun double murder case during debate

Background of the complaint

On March 27, 2024, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) lodged a detailed complaint with Zee Media Corporation Ltd. regarding a live debate segment aired on Zee News on March 20, 2024. The programme, titled “Debate on Budaun encounter LIVE: Encounter पर क्यों उठा रहे सवाल? Javed | Sajid | Breaking news,” focused on the Budaun double murder case, where a Muslim man was alleged to have murdered two Hindu children. The segment was broadcast repeatedly in a loop over 11 hours, amplifying its impact and raising concerns about a deliberate attempt to promote communal narratives. The actual panel discussion lasted over 35 minutes, during which the anchor and panellists were observed taking a problematic stance that injected a communal tone into an otherwise criminal case. 

CJP’s complaint highlighted the derogatory and communal language used by the anchor, such as referring to the crime as a “Talibani style of murder,” which unnecessarily linked the incident to the religious identity of the accused. It argued that the show was structured to propagate a one-sided sectarian perspective, targeting the Muslim community as a whole. Muslim panellists were subjected to accusatory questioning and a polarised atmosphere, while Hindu participants were treated favourably. CJP also raised concerns about the psychological impact of repeatedly airing such biased content and demanded its removal from all platforms, along with a public apology from the broadcaster. Upon no satisfactory response from the broadcaster, the complaint was then escalated to the NBDSA on April 17, 2024.

Submissions by the complainant

1. Communalisation of the incident: The complainant stated that the debate focused on the religion of the victims and the accused, despite the police and the family confirming there was no religious motive.
2. Use of “Talibani-style murder”: The murder was repeatedly referred to as “Talibani-style” simply because the accused was Muslim and used a knife.
3. Inflammatory remarks by panellists: Communally inflammatory statements were made by panellists, including accusations about madrassas and claims that Muslims consider non-Muslims as “kaafirs.”
4. Discrimination against Muslim panellists: Muslim panellists were interrupted, accused of sympathising with the accused, and forced to apologise, while inflammatory statements by Hindu panellists went unchecked.
5. Diversion from extra-judicial killings: The anchor diverted attention from discussions on extra-judicial killings and accused Muslim panellists of sympathising with terrorists.
6. Anti-Muslim diatribe: Statements such as “Hindus should avoid Muslim barbers” were made during the debate, with the anchor justifying such remarks.
7. Violation of guidelines: The broadcast violated NBDSA guidelines by giving a communal colour to the incident and fostering religious hostility.

Submissions by the broadcaster

1. Purpose of the debate: The broadcaster argued the debate aimed to highlight the silence of politicians on the double murder.
2. Anchor’s neutrality: The anchor stated at the start of the debate that communal politics should not be part of the discussion.
3. Efforts to control panellists: The broadcaster claimed the anchor attempted to prevent panellists from digressing from the main topic.
4. Balance of representation: Religious leaders were invited to ensure a balanced discussion.
5. Use of “Talibani-style murder”: The term was used to reflect the brutality of the crime, not to reference religion.
6. Disclaimer: A disclaimer aired during the broadcast clarified that the views expressed by panellists were personal and not endorsed by the channel.

Decision of the NBDSA

After reviewing the footage, arguments, and submissions, the NBDSA noted that while the broadcaster had every right to question the silence of the politicians on such incidents which have the tendency to disturb the harmony in the society, the impugned broadcasts went beyond this remit and violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards. The order stated that the anchor Merely because the suspect person belonged to a particular community, it was no reason to label the same as ‘Talibani-styled’ murder.

Key findings in the order:

1. Right to broadcast: The broadcaster had the right to discuss the incident and question politicians’ silence but failed to limit the debate to this aspect.
2. Communalisation of the incident: Labelling the murder as “Talibani-style” based solely on the religion of the accused gave the incident an unwarranted communal colour.
3. Violation of guidelines: The broadcast violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, Specific Guidelines for Anchors Conducting Programmes, and Guidelines to Prevent Communal Colour in Reporting Crime.
4. Failure to manage panellists: The anchor encouraged inflammatory rhetoric, allowed certain panellists to make derogatory statements unchecked, and failed to ensure fairness.
5. Disclaimers deemed inadequate: NBDSA held that disclaimers do not absolve broadcasters of responsibility for ensuring neutrality and adherence to guidelines.

Directions by NBDSA:

• Warning issued: The broadcaster was issued a warning for violating broadcasting guidelines.
• Removal of content: The broadcaster was directed to remove the broadcast from all platforms and confirm compliance within seven days.
• Circulation of the order: The order was to be shared with NBDA members, editors, and legal heads, hosted on the NBDSA website, included in the annual report, and released to the media.

The complete order may be read here.

 

Related:

CJP’s Landmark Victory Against Hate in Media | Times Now Navbharat Pulled Up by NBDSA

Championing Justice: CJP’s Guide to Filing NBDSA Complaints

CJP Victories 2023: NBDSA fines communal news shows

NBDSA orders mainstream news channels to remove shows, fines imposed