See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365366132

Expanding public debate? Examining the impact of India's top English

language political talk shows

Article in Media Asia · November 2022

DOI: 10.1080/01296612.2022.2140953

CITATIONS READS

2 159

2 authors:

Prashanth Bhat Kalyani Chadha

University of Houston University of Maryland, College Park
16 PUBLICATIONS 141 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 715 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Prashanth Bhat on 14 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Media Asia

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmea20

Expanding public debate? Examining the impact of

India’s top English language political talk shows

Prashanth Bhat & Kalyani Chadha

To cite this article: Prashanth Bhat & Kalyani Chadha (2022): Expanding public debate?
Examining the impact of India’s top English language political talk shows, Media Asia, DOI:
10.1080/01296612.2022.2140953

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2022.2140953

Published online: 13 Nov 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmea20
MEDIA ASIA
https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2022.2140953

ARTICLE

Expanding public debate? Examining the impact

of India’s top English language political talk shows
Prashanth Bhata and Kalyani Chadhab
a
Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA; bMedill School
of Journalism, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As a genre, current affairs talk shows occupy a distinct space Received 7 September 2022
within the Indian television universe. Typically built around a sin- Revised 16 October 2022
gle host and invited guests, talk shows constitute a relatively Accepted 19 October 2022
inexpensive format that most news channels deploy to market
KEYWORDS
themselves. Although the extent to which such shows enhance TV News; India; Times Now;
the potential of rational-critical debate has been widely investi- Republic TV;
gated in Western contexts, their implication for public deliber- Arnab Goswami
ation remains unclear, at least in the case of India. Through an
ethnographic content analysis (ECA) of such shows as represented
by Newshour aired on Times Now and The Debate aired on
Republic TV, this article explores the presentation styles adopted
by these programs and their content both in terms of the partici-
pants invited and the range of topics discussed. This research
found that instead of enabling meaningful deliberation on a var-
iety of important civic issues, television talk shows in India were
fixated on promoting religious majoritarianism, defending the pol-
icies of the Modi government, and advocating hyper-nationalism.
Further, employing a combative style and polarizing tone, talk
show hosts were found to stifle dissenting voices and forestall
free expression. Ramifications of such blatant partisanship among
current affairs talk shows for the Indian public sphere are
discussed.

Introduction
The rise of social media notwithstanding, television remains an important source of
political news across the globe. For instance, during the 2016 US presidential election,
the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that audiences identified cable news as
the most helpful source for obtaining election-related news (Gottfried et al., 2016).
Similarly, during the Covid-19 pandemic, cable news remained the main source of
news for people across the world (Jurkowitz & Mitchell, 2020), and is generally
regarded as one of the most trusted sources of information second only to govern-
ment updates (T
un~ez-L

opez et al., 2020). In many countries, television news remains
the primary source of political information and continues to “create media events

CONTACT Prashanth Bhat nrbhat2@uh.edu

ß 2022 Asian Media Information and Communication Centre
2 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

that reaches large percentages of national population within a single time period”
(Coleman, 2013, p. 25). Consequently, world over, TV news channels continue to
thrive, serving not only as information providers but also as agenda-setters that offer
“interpretive narratives” and “stimuli to interpersonal discussion” that shape public
understanding of social reality (2013, p. 21).
In particular, television news channels have been successful in countries such as
India, which have a long dialogic and argumentative tradition of heterogeneous
debate (Sen, 2005). In this context, Mehta (2008) has argued that Indian news chan-
nels have created “argumentative television” by tapping into the country’s lineage and
vibrant tradition of public reasoning, debate, and dissent. Arguably, the rapid prolif-
eration of private television news channels in India was spurred by the fact that the
news networks plugged into the country’s propensity for spirited debate and animated
argumentation. Indeed, far exceeding the global trends, the Indian television news
industry has witnessed exponential growth in the last two decades. The 1991 eco-
nomic reforms which opened the Indian market to global capitalism have had a sig-
nificant impact on the TV news landscape in the country (Thussu, 2008; Chadha &
Kavoori, 2012). From being a state-led institution in the 1980s, India’s television
news media has come to be dominated by commercially driven private players, where
the television news sector operates in accordance with the logic of market capitalism
(Devi, 2019; Thussu, 2019).
According to a report by the Reuters Institute of Journalism, as of 2021, India has
over 392 television news channels, making it one of the largest TV news markets in
the world (Krishnan, 2021). Further, dedicated news networks operate in more than a
dozen Indian languages, which have large geo-linguistic constituencies both within
the country and the South Asian diaspora (Thussu, 2019). Such rapid commercializa-
tion of television news has also increased the competition that necessitated TV chan-
nels to offer news programming that goes beyond regular news broadcasts and
one-way dissemination of information. Significant among such programming are
nightly political talk shows, which involve a host (news anchor) moderating a discus-
sion on a current affairs topic with six to eight guests, who represent diverse points
of view. Over the years, these studio-based political talk shows have become signifi-
cant players within the Indian media landscape driving political and public discourse
and setting the news agenda (Ranganathan, 2014). Also, the talk show format was
widely embraced by television networks because they are cheaper to produce and
involve low costs as news channels do not need to spend money sending reporters to
the field to do investigative journalism (Mehta, 2008; Devi, 2019).
Most of the 24-hour news channels in India air political talk shows during prime
time. For instance, among English-language news channels, NDTV offers We The
People and Truth vs. Hype; Times Now offers Newshour; India Today TV airs
Newstrack and News Today while Republic TV offers The Debate. According to the
data from the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), an agency that tracks
television viewership in India, these political talk shows are some of the most watched
prime-time programs in the country (Pundir, 2018; Becerril, 2020). Over the years,
these televised debates have gained popularity so much so that a few media commen-
tators have contended that they have become central to India’s political process and
 MEDIA ASIA 3

set the news agenda that even “print media is prone to follow” (Hasan, 2014). The
rapid proliferation of television sets, increasing mediatization of Indian politics, and
the rise of the urban middle class have further cemented the agenda-setting function
of political talk shows in India prompting media scholars to contend that they have
become a “popular culture equivalent of the public sphere for middle-class discus-
sions of pertinent political issues” (Khorana, 2013, p. 98). Indeed, in the last decade,
these talk shows have come to act as vital “cultural and political forum that circulate
conversations as a particular strength” in India (Jones, 2005, p. 195).
Scholars who study political talk shows albeit in Western contexts have long
argued that by facilitating the exchange of competing arguments and by making news
more interesting, such shows foster a “rational public debate” (Habermas, 1989),
which is crucial for the functioning of participatory democracy (Wessler & Schultz,
2007). However, the potential of such talk shows to offer a public space in which
democratic debate might be instigated or promoted—has not been extensively
explored in the Indian case. In other words, little research has been done to investi-
gate if the political talk shows aired on Indian news channels create enabling condi-
tions for meaningful public deliberation on civic issues. For instance, there hasn’t
been a scholarly investigation on the dominant and recurring topics covered in these
talk shows. There are also few insights on the extent to which such shows adopt nor-
mative ideals of professional journalism such as accuracy, neutrality, fairness, and bal-
ance. Also, the presentation styles embraced by hosts (news anchors/moderators) in
these shows have missed scholarly examination. Since television talk shows are “host-
centric” (Timberg & Erler, 2002) and the performance of the news anchors is likely
to influence the quality of the talk shows, it is important to scientifically evaluate
them to gauge their capacities to facilitate “rational-critical debate.” This article
attempts to fill this gap in the literature by critically examining the dominant topics
discussed in the political talk shows on India’s English-language news channels and
the presentation styles adopted by the hosts when moderating the panel discussions.
In doing so, this article aims to assess if political talk shows create inviting conditions
for a mediated public deliberation and contribute to the “rational-critical debate.”
To accomplish this goal, this research employs the ethnographic qualitative content
analysis (ECA) method to analyze the topics discussed on two of the most watched
studio-based political talk shows in India—Newshour aired on Times Now and Debate
aired on Republic TV. Further, this study also evaluates the presentation styles
embraced by hosts moderating both these shows. This empirical investigation will
hopefully shed light on the quality of these talk shows and the extent to which they
facilitate rational critical debate and contribute to the Indian public sphere.

Literature review
Aside from news, television has also long been regarded as providing a significant
arena for public debate on civic and political issues, with prime-time news and cur-
rent affairs shows occupying particularly significant space. Defined by varied formats
ranging from scenarios involving a single news anchor and invited guests to others
based on audience participation and characterized by an “emphasis on an unscripted
4 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

and conversational style” (Harmer, 2016, p. 1589), political talk shows not only repre-
sent the “primary means through which television presents and makes sense of polit-
ics” (Harmer, 2016, p. 1589), but have become a staple component of broadcasting
schedules all over the world (Wood & Kay, 2015). And although some media observ-
ers have criticized such shows for their sensationalist tone and spectacularization of
politics (Tolson, 2001), others have offered more optimistic assessments of
the format.
For instance, Harmer (2016) writes that “political talk shows offer a space for political
commentary that allows audiences to form their own political views by listening to
diverse opinions” (p. 1589). Meanwhile, Evans and Sternberg (1999) have noted that
unlike news delivered in the “old” and traditional fashion, “new” news genres such as
political talk shows provide audiences with information in a more entertaining manner
and serve as a source for enhanced political engagement. In a similar vein, other scholars
have identified political talk shows as enriching the public sphere. For example,
Harrington (2005)—who analyzed The Panel, an Australian talk show involving five
panelists discussing politics and current affairs—has argued that “through its discursive
format, and by making news more comprehensible and interesting, the program is able
to increase the potential for everyday “rational-critical” debate at the heart of the public
sphere” (p. 75). Citing studies that demonstrate decreasing interest in news and current
affairs, particularly among younger audiences (Buckingham, 2000), Harrington suggests
that the personalization, informality, and casual style of presentation that characterizes
shows such as The Panel, make not only important yet abstract concepts such as law and
politics “accessible,” to younger viewers but also facilitate rational-critical debate and
thus make a valuable contribution to the public sphere.
The significance of rational-critical debate as a constitutive element of the “public
sphere” was conceptualized by theorist J€ urgen Habermas who developed a discursive
model of democratic society, which identified communication as central for the main-
tenance and sustenance of democracy. Initially introduced in The Structural
Transformation of the Public Sphere (1991), this idea was subsequently expanded in
works such as the Inclusion of the Other (1996) and Between Facts and Norms (1996).
Habermas theorized that the bourgeois public sphere initially emerged in 18th-century
coffee shops, literary salons, public meetings, and parliaments across Western Europe
where “individuals and groups could shape public opinion, giving direct expression to
their needs and interests while influencing political practice” (Kellner, 2014). He also
emphasized the critical role of the media in the functioning of the public sphere, specif-
ically newspapers, which had then begun to emerge as a mass medium in the late 1700s.
However, Habermas concluded that while newspapers initially offered space for
rational-critical debate, the rise of the bourgeois constitutional state eventually resulted
in the transformation of the press from one defined by “conviction” to a mass media
based on “commerce,” dominated by private interests that failed to facilitate the
rational-critical debate that he deemed critical for democratic functioning (1974).
However, within the context of Indian television, the role of political talk shows, par-
ticularly in relation to rational critical debate or their implications for the public sphere,
has not been extensively explored. In fact, many theorists have expressed skepticism
about the application of Habermas’ theory to India, suggesting that the nation’s
 MEDIA ASIA 5

longstanding ethnic, religious, and linguistic variations combined with a history of col-
onization inhibited the formation of a public sphere of the type that developed in
Western Europe (Bhargava, 2005). Bhattacharya (2005, p.139), for instance, argues that
these variations instead gave rise to a “segmented public sphere” in the colonial context.
In the post-independence era, scholars have suggested that while India has witnessed the
rise of alternative forces that have challenged the forces of “community that previously
kept India’s public sphere weak,” resulting in “new possibilities for national discourse,”
this public sphere may well be based on the “cultural values and symbols of a dominant
group,” (Belair-Gagnon et al., 2014, p. 4). Others have asserted that the expansion of the
country’s media landscape that occurred in the wake of the country’s economic liberal-
ization in the 1990s and the concomitant growth of so-called “vernacular” media has
given rise to a fragmented public sphere (Neyazi, 2014).
But while the notion of the public sphere in the Habermasian sense thus remains
contested in the Indian context, the country has nevertheless seen the rise of a public
arena in which media plays an increasingly significant role. This is especially true in
the case of English-language political talk shows, which—because they address
elites—tend to have a disproportionate agenda-setting function not only in terms of
highlighting specific stories and issues but oftentimes in defining the terms of public
debate and discussion (Khorana, 2013). Put differently, political talk shows matter!
Consequently, this article analyzes the presentation style of the two most-watched
English language-based political news talk shows in India as represented by Newshour
in Times Now and The Debate aired on Republic TV. It also explores the dominant
topics discussed on these talk shows. In doing so, this research analyzes the implica-
tions of the manner in which they conduct political debates and present issues for
the country’s larger public discourse.

Methodology
The central idea behind this study is to examine the potential for rational public
debate in the political talk shows aired on Indian television news channels. To accom-
plish this goal, this research explores the topics discussed on Newshour, which is
broadcast on Times Now, and The Debate aired on Republic TV. In addition, this
research analyzes the presentation styles embraced by both television networks. Such
analysis is aimed at assessing if such styles create an enabling environment for the
conduct of meaningful debate on issues of importance for the Indian civic sphere.
The following research questions have guided our investigation:
RQ1: What presentation styles are adopted by hosts in the political talk shows aired on
Times Now and Republic TV?
RQ2: What are some of the dominant topics discussed on News Hour and The Debate
aired on Times Now and Republic TV respectively?

Data collection and sample

Political talk shows from Times Now and Republic TV were selected for analysis
because they attract the largest audience and have been consistently rated the most-
6 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

watched English news channels in India (Indiantelevision.com, 2020). While Republic

TV1 commands about 44.36 percent of the viewership among English news channels,
Times Now2 has about 26.36 percent of the viewership. Put together, both channels
dominate India’s 24-hour English-language news market (Republic Media Network
solidly maintains number 1 spot, 2022, Wanvari, 2019).
Since Newshour and The Debate are the most visible and commercially successful
political talk shows in Times Now and Republic TV (Nair, 2017), respectively, they
were chosen for analysis in this study. To investigate the research questions, video
links for Newshour and The Debate were collected for the time period between
August 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020 (60 days i.e., two months). The video links
(URLs) for these shows were collected from the official YouTube accounts of the
respective television networks (Times Now: https://www.youtube.com/c/TimesNow)
(Republic TV: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqusr8YDwM-3mEYTDeJHzw).
Episodes that were dedicated to special programs, i.e., those that did not include
debates, were removed from the data set because they were not relevant to the focus
of this research.
The final sample consisted of 60 unique episodes of Newshour and The Debate.
Since the duration of each episode is about 50 minutes excluding advertisements, a
total of 3000 minutes of prime-time recordings were collected for analysis. These vid-
eos were transcribed using a transcription software, which helped us clearly recognize
what each speaker had said. Additionally, each video from the data set was watched
multiple times in order to understand the context behind facial expressions, visual
symbols, voice modulations, and camera angles. Fields (1988) contends that such vis-
ual symbolic codes in the data are vital for a “rigorous, wholistic account of accounts”
(p. 183).

Data analysis
The data was analyzed using an ethnographic content analysis (ECA) method, which
is essentially a “reflexive analysis of documents” (Altheide, 1987, p. 65). A distinctive
and flexible methodological approach, ECA allows scholars to approach data without
preconceived categories, and lets themes emerge inductively. Put differently, this
method is “systematic and analytic but not rigid” (p. 68). Embedded in “constant dis-
covery and constant comparison” of relevant situations, settings, styles, visual sym-
bols, meanings, and nuances (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), ECA is an appropriate research
method to examine the communication of meaning, that is present in various forms
of information exchange, format, rhythm, and style, and in the context of the report
itself. This method has been used in the past to study the television network coverage
of the Iranian hostage crisis (Altheide, 1987), the study of illegal drug stories on the
nightly news (Jernigan & Dorfman, 1996), and analysis of parenting messages on real-
ity television shows (Kuhn-Wilken et al., 2012).
Following a “long preliminary soak” of the data to use Hall’s (1975, p. 15) term in
order to see “what is going on?” (Morse & Field, 1995, p. 36), we took an in-depth
look at each unit analysis (videos) in our data set. The process of analyzing Newshour
and Debate videos included open coding, which does not limit the definitions or
 MEDIA ASIA 7

range of categories (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Since one of the research goals was to
understand the presentation styles embraced in these political talk shows (RQ1), dur-
ing our analysis, we took extensive notes on the aural and visual styles, sound effects,
visual symbols including colors, graphics, and font visible on these shows. To assess
the dominant topics discussed on these political talk shows (RQ2), newscasts with
recurring themes were grouped into a category. Using axial coding, we further refined
the preliminary themes that emerged from initial open coding. Finally, we have devel-
oped three broad categories into which these topics can be grouped. These themes/
categories will be discussed at greater length in the findings section.

Findings
Advocating nationalism
Both Newshour and Debate dedicated several episodes to discuss topics with national-
istic and patriotic fervor. India’s border disputes with neighboring countries, espe-
cially, China and Pakistan were recurring topics for debates on these nightly talk
shows. However, most of these discussions adopted a pro-India stance and were
approached from a right-wing point of view. Invited guests who articulated a nuanced
argument or presented an alternative viewpoint, which differed from those expressed
by the news anchors, were disparaged as “anti-national,” “traitor,” “leftist,”
“dishonest,” and “un-patriotic.” The unmistakably right-wing and jingoistic positions
taken by Newshour, and Debate were evident in their sensationalist headlines. For
instance, Debate held a live discussion on “Pakistan spooked as India stares back at
China,” while Newshour conducted a panel discussion on “India’s third digital strike
on China; What is actually happening at Ladakh?” In such debates, news anchors
openly flaunted their “patriotism” by frequently referring to Pakistan and China as
“enemies,” “bullies” and “brutes” (Pakistan Spooked As India Stares Back At China,
2020). Majority of the panelists in such debates were retired Indian military personnel
and defense analysts who joined the news anchors in their verbal rebuke of guests
presenting pro-Pakistan and pro-China views. In a clear violation of the basic jour-
nalistic norms of professionalism, neutrality, and fairness, the news anchors continu-
ously interrupted, bullied, and heckled participants who challenged their opinion.
For example, in an episode of Debate aired on September 18, 2020, on a topic
titled, “Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan move backfires at UN,” news anchor Arnab
Goswami told Qamar Cheema a political analyst from Pakistan that he should be
“ashamed” (for being a Pakistani) and called Pakistan a “walking-talking disaster.”
When the panelist protested, Goswami asked him to “go jump” and ridiculed him for
mispronouncing a word by saying, “you speak English also like a Pakistani”
(Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan Move Backfires At UN, 2020).
Notably, both Newshour and Debate routinely used nationalistic “we” and “us”
when referring to India thereby blurring the lines between the news channel and its
audience. Such references also gave away the ideological beliefs espoused by the TV
networks and demonstrated their heavy-handed slant. In these panel discussions,
news anchors of both the networks positioned themselves as aggressive nationalists
and claimed to speak on behalf of all Indians often assuring pro-India activists in
8 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

Pakistan and elsewhere that “the people of India are with you” (Pakistan Spooked As
India Stares Back At China, 2020). For example, in a Newshour debate on India-
China border tensions aired on September 3, 2020, news anchor Padmaja Joshi said
in her opening remarks:
One thing is very clear. India is going to continue pushing back, resisting the bully like
never before. This is not the India of 1962. We are not going to sit around and keep
stepping back in the face of an expansionist China … .We are now sitting at dominating
heights. We stopped China from any further ingress. They were trying to get closer to
Pangong Tso … India, in addition to putting its troops in this critical valley area has also
deployed T-90 tanks, which means that we have in every way stopped China’s attempt
to try and get closer, get more troops into Pangong … .Which means every time China
tries to come in, they are going to be blocked and in the economic sphere, they are
going to be made to bleed (India’s third digital strike on China; What is actually
happening at Ladakh? 2020).
Panel discussions with nationalistic theme were not just confined to topics related
to India’s hostile relations with its neighbors. Newshour and Debate dedicated several
segments to discuss how certain non-profit and international human rights organiza-
tions are supposedly creating an anti-India propaganda at the behest of certain global
“vested interests.” In an accusatory tone, news anchors alleged that such groups delib-
erately exaggerated issues related to human right violations in the state of Kashmir
and diminishing freedom of the press and violence against minorities—in order to
tarnish India’s global image and “malign” the country. Calling upon the audience to
“be aware of such organizations,” news moderators went as far as to demand the gov-
ernment to take legal action against them for “anti-India” activities. Such panel dis-
cussions typically began with the news anchor providing a long and angry
monologue berating international groups for trying to “interfere in India’s internal
affairs” and supposedly violating local laws in procuring foreign funds for their activ-
ities. After such heavily slanted commentary, the stage is set for a one-sided discus-
sion where certain panelists join the news anchor in launching a verbal attack on
guests who disagree with them.
Apparently, the mass appeal of such talk shows lies in the news anchor “targeting”
panelists who support non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are supposedly
involved in “anti-India” work. This trend was visible in a segment of the Debate,
which discussed the international human rights organization Amnesty International’s
decision to leave India. Host Arnab Goswami started the show with a celebratory
tone by declaring that “anti-India and pro-Pakistan Amnesty International was forced
to shut shop in India” and claimed that he “hates the operations of this foreign
funded Amnesty.” He then asked his viewers to follow his live debate by tweeting
their views using the hashtag #AmnestyGetOut. In this live discussion involving eight
panelists, Goswami targeted guests who sympathized with Amnesty International.
Here’s an example (Amnesty Shuts Shop In India After Web Of Fraud Exposed,
2020) of one such attack:
Arnab Goswami (Anchor): So, tell me Saira Shah Halim, who told Amnesty to go?
You can keep operating in a clean manner. Why did
Amnesty get out on its own?
 MEDIA ASIA 9

Saira Halim (Panelist): When a human rights organization gets a notice, when
their accounts get frozen, when there are more than 160
people who are laid off, these are human right defend-
ers … it’s a very very sad day for human right defend-
ers … it’s a very sad day for India.
Arnab Goswami: (mockingly) Oh … You are sounding like someone who runs an
NGO who gets money from Amnesty.
Saira Halim: I know this must be a triumphant moment for the right-wing.
Arnab Goswami: I know you are feeling orphaned today. Are you not an Indian?
Why do you feel orphaned if a foreign organization leaves India?

Typically, Times Now and Republic TV combined such bellicose and combative
approach of the news anchors with music and loud technicolor graphics. Such audio-
visual techniques including sound effects are typically borrowed from fictional genres
like television series and soap operas to further dramatize the debates and sensation-
alize discussions. Scholars have long argued that increasing commercialization and
tabloidization of news has led to an upsurge in the usage of such televisual techni-
ques, which ostensibly evoke a "high level of emotions among viewers" and lead to
banalization of "even the most serious subjects" (Alencar & Kruikemeier, 2018,
p. 1535). Since the discussions are conducted in a pro/anti framework where the
moderator demands the panelists to take “either or” positions on contentious issues,
panelists are displayed on the screen in two different grids—each featuring speakers
taking “pro” and “anti” positions. Debates involving India’s border disputes with
Pakistan and China included India’s national flag in the background of speakers tak-
ing pro-India stance while Pakistani and Chinese flags were displayed for speakers
articulating views favoring those countries.
Arguably, instead of offering a fair and nuanced analysis of events particularly on
topics as important as national security, international border conflict, transnational
economic ties and human rights, these nightly talk shows embrace an aggressive
hyper-nationalistic approach where jingoistic views are promoted, and dissenting voi-
ces are disparaged, delegitimized and sidelined.

Defending the Modi government

Another recurrent trend in the political talk shows aired by Times Now and Republic
TV included favorable treatment of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In these shows, panelists critical of the Modi
government and the BJP leadership were frequently scorned and assailed. Often, such
speakers were interrupted and mocked, and were given far less time to express their
views than those articulating pro-government views. When panelists presented facts
that challenged the policy decisions of the BJP government, their microphones were
cut off.
Further, moderators of both News hour and Debate were quick to jump to the
defense of every major initiative of the Modi government—from controversial farm
laws to the construction of lavish government office complex in New Delhi—by
10 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

attacking Modi’s critics. For example, when the opposition members of the parlia-
ment protested the government’s contentious farm bills, news anchor on the Debate
characterized it as “violence and hooliganism unleashed by the opposition” and won-
dered if these protests were being carried out to stay “politically relevant” and to
show their “existence.” In the show, the anchor prodded pro-government panelists to
attack critics by repeatedly asking them to “take them on” ((#IndiaWithFarmers: Stop
Politics On Farm Bill, 2020). In another instance, when a panelist from the Congress
party3 criticized the BJP, Arnab Goswami called him a “terrible coward” and a “fool”
and encouraged pro-BJP speakers to “corner him.” (Congress Fund Scam: Dirty Cash
In Sonia Headed Trusts? 2020). Similarly, when the Supreme Court of India ruled in
favor of the government over the creation of a “PM Cares fund”—an initiative to
collect donations from private citizens to provide economic assistance during
COVID-19, Newshour anchor asked if the “misinformation campaign (against the
government) ever end?”
Demonizing the opposition parties for “thwarting government’s efforts” to help the
poor, the moderator posed a rhetorical question: “What was the entire campaign
against PM Cares? Was it nothing more than a fishing and roving inquiry?”
(Supreme jolt to PM-CARES critic; Will the misinformation campaign ever end?,
2020). In addition, both the television networks promoted social media hashtags that
valorized Modi, saying he “unites all,” “warns” Pakistan, “works for new India” and
“punishes” corrupt.
When discussing topics related to administrative failures of the Modi government,
the hosts either offered mild criticism or quickly diverted the discussion to the sup-
posed failures of previous (non-BJP) governments and past transgressions of the
Congress Party. For example, when it was reported that Indian economy contracted
by 23 percent in the second quarter of 2020, Arnab Goswami defended the govern-
ment on the Debate by arguing that the decline is “very much in line with the global
trend.” In his opening remarks, he said, “What is going on with these political spin
masters since yesterday? They’re saying our economy is in free fall. It’s not. Let’s
debate” (GDP Crash: Global Trend Post COVID Lockdown, 2020). Simply put, both
Newshour and Debate spun their panel discussions to shape public opinion in favor
of Narendra Modi and the BJP.
Instead of asking tough questions to those in power and holding them accountable,
both the networks discussed topics aimed at building and sustaining a negative per-
ception of opposition parties and leaders. With provocative headlines such as
“Congress hand emerges in Bengaluru violence?,” “Congress fund scam: Dirty cash in
Sonia headed trusts?” and promotion of hashtags like #SoniaScam and
#CongCollapse, both Times Now and Republic TV targeted opposition parties and
offered blatantly biased coverage. Hosts remained fixated on opposition leaders by
highlighting inadvertent errors in their speeches and constantly reinforced a narrative
that non-BJP parties are “corrupt,” “anti-India” and “anti-poor.”
The political slant and pro-government tilt of Newshour and Debate is noticeable
from the opinionated commentary offered by moderators in the beginning of the
nightly show. For example, when discussing funding received by Congress party on
an episode of the Debate, Arnab Goswami said:
 MEDIA ASIA 11

GVK Airport Foundation has been consistently making donations to the Rajiv Gandhi
foundation run by Sonia Gandhi from 2010–11 to 2016–17. The GVK group is being
investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the CBI for siphoning of funds of
Rs 700 crore of Mumbai airport … So the siphoning, cheating, looting happens around
the same time or just before or just after you give money to the Rajiv Gandhi
foundation … which means, if you want to do a scam in India, and Sonia Gandhi is
anywhere in power, first go and give some donation to her and then you can do what
the hell you want … just go and give some money and then you can do what you want.
(Congress Fund Scam: Dirty Cash In Sonia Headed Trusts? 2020).
Overall, departing from the professional norms of journalism like independence,
fairness, and balance, in their talk shows, both Times Now and Republic TV cheered
the government, advanced the state narrative, silenced dissenting voices, and demon-
ized the opposition.

Promoting majoritarianism4
Both Newshour and Debate emphasized the narrative that India’s Hindu religious
majority is under attack from so-called secular and liberal forces, including foreign
non-governmental organizations, “liberal” media, academia, and secular political par-
ties. Indeed, the notion of “Hindus under attack” ties in well with the Hindu victim-
hood narrative long promoted by the Bharatiya Janata Party and its affiliate right-wing
organizations (Chattarji, 2009). Underpinning this victimhood narrative is the idea
that non-BJP political parties and so-called left-liberals appease Muslims and
Christians while disregarding “genuine” interests and concerns of the majority Hindu
community. Advancing this notion, both Times Now and Republic TV dedicated sev-
eral episodes of their talk show to discuss the “minority appeasement politics” of the
opposition parties. For instance, in a Newshour discussion on alleged attacks on Hindu
temples in the state of Andhra Pradesh, host Padmaja Joshi accused the state govern-
ment (ruled by a non-BJP party) of pursuing an anti-Hindu agenda. Addressing a
panelist representing the government, she angrily said:
You’ve got an iron fist when a church is attacked … And when temples are being
attacked, you’ve got your minister saying nothing is going to happen to Lord Hanuman
if someone desecrates his idol … Can you blame people for feeling that there is a
definite agenda here? (Attacks on Andhra Pradesh temples; Is it a ‘Propaganda or
persecution?’ 2020).
Further in the show, making a clear attempt to fan Hindu victimhood, the moder-
ator asked why liberal activists who agitated against attacks on Christians and
churches remained silent when Hindu temples were being vandalized. Likewise, in his
opening remarks for an episode of the Debate, Arnab Goswami asked his viewers if it
was time for India to “strike down appeasement politics” and wondered why some
liberals are “shaken” when he asks if “appeasement has become normalized over the
last 70 years?” (#RealSecularism: Time To Strike Down Appeasement Politics?, 2020).
When the opposition parties criticized the government of espousing majoritarian pol-
itics, both the television networks portrayed such criticism as anti-Hindu. This
yielded pressure on the opposition to defend themselves and make conciliatory
remarks to avoid antagonizing the majority Hindu community. For example, in a
12 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

Newshour episode aired on August 4, 2020, Times Now alleged that Congress party is
ambivalent about the construction of a temple for Hindu god Ram. Projecting
Congress as a party opposed to Hindu sentiments, the channel displayed hashtag
#StopRamVirodhi [Hindi for “Stop opposing Lord Ram”] on its screen forcing the
opposition panelist to contend: “Lord Ram is in our hearts” (On eve of Ram Mandir
Bhumi Puja Congress falls between 2 stools? 2020).
In addition to fostering victimhood narrative and projecting the opposition as
anti-Hindu, Newshour and Debate allotted several episodes to the promotion of
Hindu festivals and rituals, celebration of the foundation laying stone ceremony of
the Ram Janmabhumi5 and topics related to Hindu customs and traditions. In an
apparent attempt to portray India as a Hindu-majority country and marginalize
Muslims and Christians from the larger public discourse, both the political talk shows
never discussed topics related to Islamic or Christian religious traditions and cultural
practices. In other words, disregarding all other religious and cultural identities and
subverting the syncretic culture of India, both Newshour and Debate provided pro-
gramming that emphasized Hindu faith and projected India as a Hindu nation. Take
for example the following titles for Newshour:
“What does Lord Ram mean to PM Modi?”
“Lord Ram and Mandir for all, Janmabhoomi rejoices Diwali”
“Naya Bharat6 rises with Ram when PM Modi speaks of 8 Ramayanas”
In one such Newshour show, the channel displayed news tickers on the screen,
which read as follows: “Most awaited Mandir moment” “History to be made on
August 5” and “When billion prayers are answered.” Times Now also invited a folk
singer to their show who performed Hindu devotional songs for its viewers, which
the television network called it the “most musical celebration ever” (Lord Ram and
Mandir for all, Janmabhoomi rejoices “Diwali”, 2020). Thus, both Newshour and
Debate expended considerable effort to advance Hindu majoritarianism and the idea
of India as a Hindu nation while completely ignoring the cultural and religious prac-
tices of Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities.

Discussion and conclusion

This analysis of Newshour and The Debate, which comprise the two most widely
watched English-language political talk shows on Indian television, brings to the fore
the dominant topics (RQ1) discussed on these shows. Both networks predominantly
covered topics that promoted nationalism, Hindu majoritarianism, and the policy ini-
tiatives of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party government. Indeed, both television chan-
nels embraced a characteristic nationalist tenor and a strongly pro-government line,
which has prompted some journalists to describe them as “public relations agencies”
for the Modi government (Banerji, 2017). Besides, both the shows focus on contro-
versial and emotive issues and are characterized by deeply opinionated and aggressive
hosts who do not try to accommodate a range of views. Moreover, these shows are
conducted in a combative style (RQ2), where hosts hector and bully their guests and
rarely give the anti-establishment panelists a chance to express their views. As a
 MEDIA ASIA 13

result, these televised debates have become giant right-wing echo chambers where
only pro-government, hyper-jingoistic, and Hindu-nationalist voices are heard while
those articulating contrarian viewpoints are strategically sidelined. Besides skewing
the public debates sharply to the Right, such attacks on dissenting panelists preclude
the creation of a level-playing field for an open exchange of ideas and opinions,
which is a defining feature of a democratic society. In other words, instead of enrich-
ing the public sphere with a plurality of ideas and free expression, efforts to censor
oppositional voices lead to the further shrinking of the civic space. Besides, such an
aggressive form of engagement with panelists moves away from professional journal-
istic conventions, which require hosts to “acknowledge minority opinions, offer back-
ground information, ask for clarifications and keep the discussion moving … while
encouraging an atmosphere of mutual respect” (Vraga et al., 2012, p.8). In other
words, television debates in India as represented by these two shows do not fulfill
journalism’s normative function of being the convener of public discussion and par-
ticipation that foregrounds issues of civic importance.
This—we suggest—has potential implications for the broader public discourse in
India, on which we now briefly speculate. First, by openly taking sides and conduct-
ing the debate from a right-wing point of view, these programs (and the channels on
which they appear) have positioned themselves as supporting the ruling Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP). That is to say, they have adopted a partisan stance whereby they
eschew standard journalistic norms of objectivity, fairness, neutrality, and balance in
favor of a more one-sided presentation of facts. The moderators of Newshour and
Debate also claim to be patriots and nationalists (Limaye, 2020), which is the a priori
position from which they approach their debates. Thus, instead of providing a space
for the rational presentation of different arguments and points of view, these talk
shows emphasize mainly majoritarian and right-wing political perspectives.
Consequently, there is little space on these talk shows for “alternative” voices to
express oppositional viewpoints. Whereas Habermasian idea of public sphere consti-
tutes an open and accessible arena in which “interlocutors would set aside character-
istics as differences in birth and fortune and speak to one another as if they were
social and economic peers” (Fraser, 1990, p. 63), our findings reveal that the conduct
of television debates on Indian news channels is far from that ideal. Instead of creat-
ing participatory parity and facilitating “unrestricted rational discussion of public
matters” (1990, p. 59), these shows are conducted to explicitly favor the dominant
groups, i.e., the BJP and the Hindu nationalists to the disadvantage of the subordinate
groups and dissenting voices. This trend, we argue, essentially alienates a large section
of society including opposition parties, religious minorities (mostly Muslims), NGOs,
activists, and public intellectuals from the Indian public sphere thereby creating a
skewed civic sphere with no scope for the expression of anti-government and anti-
majoritarian views.
It is noteworthy that in recent years, panelists who participated in these talk shows
wrote open letters to the hosts criticizing them for stifling their voices and turning
their shows into “kangaroo courts” where guests are not provided the space to freely
express their arguments (Kishwar, 2012; “Stop Fostering Hate Speech,” 2015). Even
the main opposition party, the Indian National Congress, has had to temporarily
14 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

boycott political talk shows to protest the muzzling of their voices on television
debates and instead relied on its YouTube account to share its views and ideas (Gill
& Iyer, 2021). Muslim groups too have asked Islamic scholars to avoid participating
in these shows because according to them, the intention of these programs is “not to
reach any conclusion through constructive discourse but to ridicule and defame Islam
and Muslims” (AIMPLB to Muslim scholars: Avoid TV debates meant only to insult
Islam 2022).
Arguably, this confrontational style of presentation does little to facilitate public
debate on issues of common concern in a rational manner. Further, by shutting
down or openly insulting panelists the hosts of Newshour and Debate practice a form
of “incivility,” which in the context of mediated discourse has come to be understood
as “being disrespectful towards their target in a purposeful and a confrontational
manner and which tends to be presented in a hyperbolic nature” (Gervais, 2014,
p. 568). Such uncivil discourse not only discourages the free exchange of ideas and
opinions but can induce several negative political emotions and behavior among audi-
ence members (Kingwell, 1995; Gervais, 2014). For example, studies into the effects
of uncivil media discourse on the audience have shown that for the period immedi-
ately following the reception of such content, individuals have been found to have
negative, and sometimes even visceral reactions towards political figures, institutions,
opposition, and government (Forgette & Morris, 2006; Fridkin & Kenney, 2008; Mutz
& Reeves, 2005). Consequently, they are likely to be less willing to accept a com-
promise with opposing arguments, which could prevent political elites from being
flexible during their negotiations on policy-related issues (Saunders & Abramowitz,
2004). Other studies have shown that when commentators target certain individuals,
groups, or ideas, this antipathy can be relayed to the audience (Barker, 2002). For
instance, in the context of the US, right-wing talk radio commentators such as Rush
Limbaugh have been implicated in attaching negative emotion to their opponents
through ridicule and the use of caustic language (Gervais, 2014).
In the Indian context, both the Debate’s Arnab Goswami and Newshour’s Padmaja
Joshi routinely employ negative, coarse, and primal language towards myriad
“targets,” including Pakistan, Kashmiri separatists, feminists, civil rights activists, and
non-profit organizations and human rights groups as found in this study. And
although these shows are aimed at urban English-speaking audiences, their commer-
cial success has led other channels (including those in regional languages) to emulate
their aggressive style. High television ratings for Times Now and Republic TV’s con-
tent have prompted other television networks, including Zee News, India TV, Aaj
Tak, and India Today TV, to adopt similar ideological positions, including promoting
nationalism and majoritarianism and advancing the government narrative (Ninan,
2016). Besides, growing competition for audiences and declining advertising revenue
have forced television news channels to make news entertaining in addition to
increasing their reliance on governmental advertising for their financial sustenance
(Thussu, 2019; Bhat & Chadha, 2020; Bhat, 2020).
To avoid antagonizing the Modi government and losing ad revenue, most com-
mercial television news networks owned by corporate companies, promote topics and
stories that serve the political interests of the BJP. Indeed, the resemblance between
 MEDIA ASIA 15

the pro-right-wing stance taken by television news channels in India has led media
observers to claim that television news outlets in the country have started to look like
“mirror images of each other with similar headlines, reports, and opinion articles”
(Bajpai, 2019). Although there exist a small number of national television networks
such as NDTV that provide space for oppositional voices (Basu, 2018), business oli-
garchs with close ties to Narendra Modi have recently made attempts to take control
of the channel (Sethuraman & Thomas, 2022). This takeover bid has prompted the
Delhi Union of Journalists to issue a statement in which the senior journalists con-
tended that India’s TV media have increasingly become the “voice of the corporates
and certain political parties” which reinforces the “narrow and unipolar view of the
ruling party” (Adani at stake in NDTV, 2022). As a result, India, which happens to
be one of the largest television media markets in the world, is witnessing a contrac-
tion of its media diversity. Identical content manifestly characterized by nationalism,
majoritarianism, and pro-government programming aired on most television news
channels has led to the homogenization of the television media landscape in the
country (Parthasarathi & Srinivas, 2012; Bhat, 2020). Moreover, since Modi’s ascent
to power in 2014, several explicitly right-wing news media have been launched, which
vociferously defend the Modi government, and promote Hindu-nationalist ideology
(Chadha & Bhat, 2022). Due to these developments, the Indian media landscape has
tilted distinctly to the Right with most of the media (both print and broadcast) expli-
citly promoting BJP’s ideology. Arguably, such rapid decline in news organizations
that act as impartial purveyors of news has been cited as a symptom of “democratic
erosion” and “democratic backsliding” in India (Ozturk, 2021).
Underpinning this development is the economics of the Indian news media mar-
ket, where over 390 news channels compete for the comparatively small share of
advertising available to news programs (Kohli-Khandekar, 2017; Jaggi & Patankar,
2022). In this economically challenging scenario, programs and their hosts are under
constant pressure to draw in viewers and keep ratings high, which they tend to do by
taking up “emotive issues” such as the conflict between India and Pakistan, and
adopting the high decibel, combative and bellicose presentation style that defines
Newshour and The Debate.
However, the combative style adopted by these political talk shows not only limits
their ability to make news “more comprehensible and interesting,” as Harrington
(2005) suggests but also diminishes their ability to facilitate meaningful public delib-
eration, which is key to democratic functioning. In a country with wide economic
disparities and social inequities, such shows could potentially play a vital role in
bringing major issues to the forefront and enabling substantive discussion. However,
in the Indian context, the two leading political shows focused as they are on the cre-
ation of televisual spectacles and engaged in what Adajania (2006) has termed the
“political performative” offer little more than the illusion of debate.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
16 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

Notes
1. Republic TV is owned by anchor Arnab Goswami who had previously worked in Times
Now. Republic TV was initially funded by Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a media baron and
currently a minister in the Narendra Modi government. In 2019, he sold most of his
shares in Republic TV to Arnab Goswami (Narasimhan, 2019).
2. Times now is owned by one of India’s largest media conglomerates—the Times of India
group. The channel was launched in 2006. Until the launch of Republic TV in 2017, it
was the most-watched English news channel in the country.
3. Congress refers to the Indian National Congress (INC), which is India’s main opposition
party. The party is currently led by Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi.
4. We use majoritarianism here to refer to Hindu religious supremacy, which implies
favoring Hindu identity, cultural practices, social mores, and traditions over secular
values that are inclusive of religious minorities including Muslims and Christians. Hindu
majoritarianism creates inequitable conditions in Indian society where Hindu interests
supersede national collective interests.
5. A controversial site in the city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Hindus believe
that this is the birthplace of Hindu god Rama. A mosque stood at this site until
December 1992. Hindu nationalists demolished the mosque followed by religious
violence and a long legal battle. In 2019, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the site
should be handed over to Hindu groups for the construction of Ram temple. In August
2020, Narendra Modi took part in the groundbreaking ceremony of the proposed temple.
6. Naya Bharat is a Hindi word for ‘New India’

References
Adajania, N. (2006). The sand of the coliseum, the glare of television, and the hope of emanci-
pation. Turbulence, 6, 364–375.
Adani at stake in NDTV. (2022, August 24). Two oligarchs taking over entire media, says
Delhi Union of Journalists. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/adani-
stake-in-ndtv-two-oligarchs-taking-over-entire-media-says-delhi-union-of-journalists/article
65806315.ece
AIMPLB to Muslim scholars: Avoid TV debates meant only to insult Islam. (2022, June 10).
The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/dont-give-legitimacy-to-polaris-
ing-tv-debates-islamic-scholars-urged-7963548/
Alencar, A., & Kruikemeier, S. (2018). Audiovisual infotainment in European news: A com-
parative content analysis of Dutch, Spanish, and Irish television news programs. Journalism
(London, England), 19(11), 1534–1551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916671332
Altheide, D. (1987). Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1),
65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988269
Amnesty Shuts Shop In India After Web Of Fraud Exposed. (2020, September 29). [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn4cf7yUYCw
Attacks on Andhra Pradesh temples; Is it a ‘Propaganda or persecution?’ (2020, September 23).
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNDHdf1-sc
Bajpai, S. (2019, December 12). Guess what Times Now and Republic TV, often carrying identical
content, finally disagreed on. The Print. https://theprint.in/opinion/telescope/guess-what-
times-now-and-republic-tv-often-carrying-identical-content-finally-disagreed-on/333915/
Banerji, R. (2017, December 15). Ranjona Banerji: Has Times Now beaten Republic TV when
it comes to non-journalism? MxMIndia. https://www.mxmindia.com/2017/12/ranjona-bane-
rji-has-times-now-beaten-republic-tv-when-it-comes-to-non-journalism/
Barker, D. (2002). Rushed to judgment: Talk radio, persuasion, and American political behavior
(p. 141). Columbia University Press.
 MEDIA ASIA 17

Basu, N. (2018). Indian media: Turbulent times. The Round Table, 107(2), 237–240. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2018.1448344
Belair-Gagnon, V., Mishra, S., & Agur, C. (2014). Reconstructing the Indian public sphere:
Newswork and social media in the Delhi gang rape case. Journalism, 15(8), 1059–1075.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913513430
Becerril, M. E. A. (2020). Screening Hindutva. In A. Ray & I. B. Dube (Eds.), Nation, national-
ism and the public sphere: Religious politics in India. SAGE Publishing India.
Bhargava, R. (Ed.). (2005). Introduction. Civil society, public sphere, and citizenship: Dialogues
and perceptions (pp. 13–55). SAGE Publications.
Bhat, P. (2020). Anti-media populism: Media criticism by right-wing alternative media in
India [Ph.D. Theses and Dissertation]. University of Maryland. https://doi.org/10.13016/
rcw8-v3bf
Bhat, P., & Chadha, K. (2020). Anti-media populism: Expressions of media distrust by right-
wing media in India. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 13(2),
166–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2020.1739320
Bhattacharya, N. (2005). Notes towards a conception of the colonial public. Civil society, public
sphere and citizenship: Dialogues and perceptions (pp. 130–156). SAGE Publications. https://
us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/civil-society-public-sphere-and-citizenship/book227257
Buckingham, D. (2000). The making of citizens young people. News and Politics (1st Ed.).
Routledge.
Chadha, K., & Bhat, P. (2022). Alternative news media and critique of mainstream journalism
in India: The case of OpIndia. Digital Journalism, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21670811.2022.2118143
Chadha, K., & Kavoori, A. (2012). Mapping India’s television landscape: Constitutive dimen-
sions and emerging issues. South Asian History and Culture, 3(4), 591–602. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19472498.2012.720076
Chattarji, S. (2009). ‘Thank You for Saving Hindus’: Reflections on Hindu hatred in the digital
age. The Digitized Imagination. Routledge India.
Congress Fund Scam: Dirty Cash In Sonia Headed Trusts? (2020, August 31). [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6qbT__iDOQ
Coleman, S. (2013). Debate on television: The spectacle of deliberation. Television & New
Media, 14(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411433520
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evalu-
ative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Devi, S. (2019). Making sense of “Views” culture in television news media in India. Journalism
Practice, 13(9), 1075–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1635041
Evans, V., & Sternberg, J. (1999). Young people, politics and television current affairs in
Australia. Journal of Australian Studies, 23(63), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14443059909387539
Fields, E. E. (1988). Qualitative content analysis of television news: Systematic techniques.
Qualitative Sociology, 11(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988954
Forgette, R., & Morris, J. S. (2006). High-conflict television news and public opinion. Political
Research Quarterly, 59(3), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900312
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy on JSTOR. Social Text, 26(25/26), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2008). The dimensions of negative messages. American Politics
Research, 36(5), 694–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08316448
GDP Crash: Global Trend Post COVID Lockdown. (2020, September 1). [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLXlFyNtubo
Gervais, B. T. (2014). Following the News? Reception of uncivil partisan media and the use of
incivility in political expression. Political Communication, 31(4), 564–583. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10584609.2013.852640
Gill, P., & Iyer, S. (2021, April 15). India’s largest opposition party blames national media for
its lack of influence—But its new YouTube channel may only be targeting the Hindi belt.
18 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/indias-largest-opposition-

party-blames-national-media-for-its-lack-of-influence-but-its-new-youtube-channel-may-on
ly-be-targeting-the-hindi-belt/articleshow/82069526.cms
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hammersley, Martyn and
Paul Atkinson.
Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., Shearer, E., Mitchell, A. (2016). Where Americans are getting news
about the 2016 Presidential election. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/
journalism/2016/02/04/the-2016-presidential-campaign-a-news-event-thats-hard-to-miss/
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a cat-
egory of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press.
Hall, S. (1975). Introduction. Paper voices: The popular press and societal change
(pp. 1935–1965). Chatto and Windus.
Harmer, E. (2016). Talk shows, political. The International encyclopedia of political communica-
tion (pp. 1–4). American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc204
Hasan, Z. (2014, April 2). Manufacturing dissent: The media and the 2014 Indian election.
The Hindu. https://www.thehinducentre.com/verdict/commentary/article5843621.ece
Harrington, S. (2005). ‘The Democracy of Conversation’: The panel and the public sphere.
Media International Australia, 116(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X0511600109
India’s third digital strike on China; What is actually happening at Ladakh? (2020, September
3). [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPccTi_Frh8
#IndiaWithFarmers: Stop Politics On Farm Bill. (2020, September 23). [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77iMdvL5Tmk
Jaggi, R. K., & Patankar, S. (2022). A perspective on BBC television news in India. Critical
Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies. https://doi.org/10.
1177/17496020221121451
Jernigan, D., & Dorfman, L. (1996). Visualizing America’s drug problems: An ethnographic
content analysis of illegal drug stories on the nightly news. Contemporary Drug Problems,
23(2), 169–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099602300203
Jones, J. P. (2005). Entertaining politics: New political television and civic culture. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Jurkowitz, M., Mitchell, A. (2020, April 1). Cable TV and COVID-19: How Americans per-
ceive the outbreak and view media coverage differ by main news source. Pew Research
Center’s Journalism Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/04/01/cable-tv-
and-covid-19-how-americans-perceive-the-outbreak-and-view-media-coverage-differ-by-
main-news-source/
Kellner, D. (2014). Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy. In D. Boros & J. M. Glass
(Eds.), Re-Imagining Public Space: The Frankfurt School in the 21st Century (pp. 19–43).
Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137373311_2
Khorana, S. (2013). Gender Mores on Indian TV: The ‘Respectable’ middle class and NDTV’S
The Big Fight. Media International Australia, 147(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1329878X1314700112
Kingwell, M. (1995). A civil tongue: Justice, dialogue, and the politics of pluralism by Mark
Kingwell. Penn State University Press. https://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01334-6.
html
Kishwar, M. (2012, August 13). When news programs become kangaroo courts. Manushi.
http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1616#.Wr49eIjwbIU
Kohli-Khandekar, V. (2017, May 8). Arnab’s Republic a reflection of what India has become-
noisy and chaotic. Business Standard India. https://www.business-standard.com/article/cur-
rent-affairs/arnab-s-republic-a-reflection-of-what-india-has-become-noisy-and-chaotic-1170
50800471_1.html
Krishnan, A. (2021). India. Reuters Institute of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.
ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021/india
Kuhn-Wilken, E., Zimmerman, T. S., Matheson, J. L., Banning, J. H., & Pepin, J. (2012).
Supernanny’s solutions for families: An ethnographic content analysis of parenting
 MEDIA ASIA 19

messages on reality television. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 24(4), 316–339. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2012.710816
Limaye, Y. (2020, November 22). Arnab Goswami: India’s most loved and loathed TV anchor.
BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54930379
Lord Ram and Mandir for all, Janmabhoomi rejoices “Diwali”. (2020, August 4). [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbqBK23cI4s
Mehta, N. (Ed.). (2008). Television in India: Satellites, politics and cultural change. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203895597
Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches.
Nelson Thornes.
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on polit-
ical trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0003055405051452
Nair, N. (2017, January 25). Arnab Goswami’s media venture ‘Republic’ to launch on January
26. India.Com. https://www.india.com/news/india/arnab-goswamis-media-venture-republic-
to-launch-on-january-26-1708943/
Narasimhan, T. E. (2019, May 6). Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s Asianet pares stake in Arnab
Goswami’s Republic TV. Business Standard. https://www.business-standard.com/article/
companies/rajeev-chandrasekhar-s-asianet-pares-stake-in-arnab-goswami-s-republic-tv-1190
50601036_1.html
Neyazi, T. A. (2014). News media and political participation: Re-evaluating democratic deepen-
ing in India. Democratic Transformation and the Vernacular Public Arena in India (1st Ed.,
p. 238). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777627-14
Ninan, S. (2016, February 17). The art of manufacturing nationalist outrage. The Hoot. http://
asu.thehoot.org/media-watch/opinion/the-art-of-manufacturing-nationalist-outrage-9180
On eve of Ram Mandir Bhumi Puja Congress falls between 2 stools? (2020, August 4). [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hJDMfk-bQs
Ozturk, K. (2021). Democratic Erosion in India: A Case Study. Koç University. https://www.
democratic-erosion.com/2021/02/05/democratic-erosion-in-india-a-case-study/
Pakistan Spooked As India Stares Back At China. (2020, September 17). [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kfZsRb27ZA
Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan Move Backfires At UN. (2020, September 18). [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEoikZfjNJA
Parthasarathi, V., & Srinivas, A. (2012). Mapping Digital Media: India.
Pundir, S. (2018, February 16). Debates continue to reap rewards for Eng news channels
on prime time. Indian Television Dot Com. https://www.indiantelevision.com/television/
tv-channels/news-broadcasting/debates-continue-to-reap-rewards-for-eng-news-channels-on-
prime-time-180216
Ranganathan, M. (2014). Indian elections, 2014: Commercial media pushes social media into
focus. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 24(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365
X14539073
#RealSecularism: Time To Strike Down Appeasement Politics?. (2020, October 15). [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLcMlXWSc3E
Republic Media Network solidly maintains number 1 spot. (2022, March 31). Adgully. https://
www.adgully.com/republic-media-network-solidly-maintains-number-1-spot-115910.html
Saunders, K. L., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2004). Ideological realignment and active partisans in
the American Electorate. American Politics Research, 32(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1532673X03259195
Sen, A. (2005). The argumentative Indian. Penguin Books Ltd.
Sethuraman, N. R., Thomas, C. (2022, August 23). Indian billionaire Adani seeks to control
NDTV; media group says move without consent. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/mar-
kets/deals/indias-adani-buy-292-stake-ndtv-launch-open-offer-2022-08-23/
Supreme jolt to PM-CARES critic; Will the misinformation campaign ever end?. (2020, August
18). Newshour Agenda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kd0SowiDwY
 20 P. BHAT AND K. CHADHA

Thussu, D. K. (2008). News as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment. SAGE.

Thussu, D. K. (2019). A missing voice: India in the Global News Space. Indian journalism in a
new era: Changes, challenges, and perspectives (pp. 55–72). Oxford University Press.
Timberg, B. M., & Erler, B. (2002). Television talk: A history of the TV talk show. University of
Texas Press.
Tolson, A. (2001). Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle. Lawrence Erlbaum.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/television-talk-shows-discourse-performance-spectacle/oclc/44
592593
T

un~ez-L


opez, M., Vaz-Alvarez, M., & Fieiras-Ceide, C. (2020). Covid-19 and public service
media: Impact of the pandemic on public television in Europe. Profesional de la
informaci
on, 29(5).
Vraga, E. K., Edgerly, S., Bode, L., Carr, D. J., Bard, M., Johnson, C. N., Kim, Y. M., & Shah,
D. V. (2012). The correspondent, the comic, and the combatant: The consequences of host
style in political talk shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699011428575
Wanvari, T. (2019, February 18). Most watched English news channels in 2018.
Indiantelevision.Com. https://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/viewership/
most-watched-english-news-channels-in-2018-190218
Wessler, H., & Schultz, T. (2007). Can the mass media deliberate?: Insights from print media
and political talk shows. In R. Butsch (Ed.), Media and public spheres (pp. 15–27). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230206359_2
Wood, H., & Kay, J. (2015). Talk shows. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordbibliogra-
phies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791286/obo-9780199791286-0181.xml

View publication stats