In his work On Heroes and Hero Worship (1840), Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle coined the idea that Media is the fourth estate of power and had a legitimate seat in the Parliament. By establishing the right to information, free speech, and expression, the state of India has also made it clear that constitutionally, she champions the belief that Media is the fourth pillar of her democratic setup.
However, it is also common knowledge that public discourses have been frequently used as carefully constructed narratives shaped by political imperatives and as tools of propaganda, irrespective of which government is in power. After all, media in all its forms participates in the attention economy. That is to say, news outlets specifically prioritise engagement-driven content, meaning polarising debates and controversies spread rapidly to gain larger viewership. In a consumption-centric market, this ensures that things such as influencer feuds & controversies get disproportionate coverage compared to more pressing societal issues.
Two recent instances—the coverage of the challenges during Mahakumbh 2025 and the media’s response to Ranveer Allabadia’s comments on "India's Got Latent" offer a compelling case study in understanding how selective governmental outrage and mobilization shapes public discourse and might dilute the idea of news media being an unbiased source of factual information in this country. This blog does not aim to scrutinise these two events individually but rather to analyse their differential coverage and governmental response, and hopes to lead the user to challenge the notion of the media as an impartial watchdog. If it doesn’t seem to serve that function, what could be the alternative?
The Mahakumbh, one of Northern India’s most anticipated religious events, attracts crores of devotees. The Mahakumbh in 2025 was wrought with several challenges. An estimated 4.8 crore gathering was expected to be present. While the grand festival gives devotees the chance to pray, the sheer mismanagement caused panic, death, and violence for many. A stampede caused the death of around 30 people. There were videos shared of women taking a holy dip and numerous cases of vandalism committed on trains due to overcrowding and lack of traveling facilities.
On a similar timeline, Ranveer Allahbadia, a well-known podcaster and social media personality, served as a guest on Samay Raina’s show India’s Got Latent. He asked one of the contestants a controversial hypothetical question that made headlines and sparked outrage online. A few news outlets and many netizens called him out for his “vulgar” comments. Online users were quick to point out that another popular comedian, Kanan Gill, made an identical joke about a decade ago that was mostly ignored. In digital media, whether such blindspots are intentional or not, the result is usually a skewed portrait of facts and news. Selective outrage in the media is the most commonly observed side of these blindspots. If we were to glance at the nature of the two different incidents mentioned above, we see a clear pattern of selective mobilization of government and media bodies.
Allahbadia, a single entity, had 3 FIRs filed against him and had the Supreme Court issued guidelines for him within the span of a few weeks. On the other hand, on account of spreading misinformation about the violence committed on trains and videos of women bathing, 13 FIRs were filed for 140 social media accounts, and as of the 5th of March, 1 arrest has been made. The Government of Maharashtra ordered an official inquiry on Allahbadia, and the Chief Minister of Assam publicly stated that FIRs have been filed against these comedians for their “vulgar remarks”. Meanwhile, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, made a statement saying that the violence occurring in the Mahakumbh was not highlighted to avoid panic.
The stark contrast in both outrage and involvement of public bodies in these two incidents is clearly visible. This is not an isolated event, it is a well-documented phenomenon. T.A. van Dijk covers this extensively in his work Power and the News Media. He notes that the process of news selection—what is covered and what is left out—is influenced by economic, political, and cultural factors. This selective reporting helps maintain existing power structures.
This is not to imply that crude jokes should be celebrated or that the problems with the Mahakumbh were completely ignored. But for the sake of consistency, why did several media outlets harbor a blind spot toward the Mahakumbh?
A closer look at the Mahakumbh and Ranveer Allahbadia episodes reveals more than isolated missteps—they expose a profound flaw in the assumption that media functions as an independent cornerstone for structural accountability. Recognizing the selective outrage and blind spots evident in these cases is essential for a more nuanced conversation about the media's role today. Decentralising news sources could aid in alleviating political pressure. A more grounded source of facts and news would let contextual and socially relevant issues come to light. One of the few criticisms of decentralised media is the lack of consistent content moderation and subjective highlighting of news. However, in a digital age with easy access to fact-checking, the risk of misinformation does not seem to be a valid criticism of a well-implemented, decentralised media system. Therefore, it naturally follows that we ask ourselves why we comply with the current state of media. If the checks in place for political power are redundant, why follow through and not reimagine media to better serve the purpose it was intended to do?
Nitin Kumar
