For over a decade, media coverage of protests against the Narendra Modi government’s policies remained questionable, with independent commentators and media analysts sharply criticising the role of the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. In this regard, the coverage on the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests, which evolved from a student-led campaign against examination irregularities into one of the most powerful youth movements, was not different. Yet again, the so-called mainstream Indian media was exposed, albeit the coverage varied markedly across English and Hindi news outlets, print and television, and mainstream and independent media platforms.
While English newspapers generally sought to examinethe underlying causes of the protests, television news remained more event-driven and polarised. Initially, English newspapers were not forthright, but they did course correction and provided balanced analysis of the youth discontent, covering the protest with several angles that included, apart from the paper leak, unemployment and democratic accountability. However, the language newspapers and television news outlets mostly focused on clashes, law-and-order concerns and competing political narratives. As a result, scores of journalists from television news channels faced boycotts by protestors. They accused them of favouring the government, chanted ‘Godi media go back’ and confronted news crews for ignoring or misrepresenting their movement. The contrasting media responses illustrate how editorial priorities, platform dynamics and audience orientation shaped public understanding of the CJP protests.
Underlying Causes of Protests
The editorial pages of the English-language press portrayed the protests as an expression of youth frustration over examination failures, unemployment and declining trust in public institutions. The dominant editorial argument was that the government’s reliance on police action instead of dialogue had aggravated the crisis. Newspapers such as the Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, and others began sending reporters to the protest site. Their coverage focused on examination paper leaks, youth unemployment, student anger, and the symbolic use of the ‘cockroach’ identity. The HT also reported that “distrust of mainstream media itself became one of the recurring themes voiced by protesters”. (Media distrust emerges as a key theme among Cockroach Janta Party protesters).
TheTimes of India was severely criticised by many for its front-page display a day after the lathi-charge. Political activist Yogendra Yadav accused the newspaper of sanitising state violence and presenting the events from the government’s perspective. The headline,“Cops block protesters’ march”,portrayed the police merely as preventing a march rather than using force against demonstrators. Yadav also questioned the newspaper’s emphasis on 118 injured police personnel versus only 60 injured protesters, claiming that hospital records suggested a much larger number of injured demonstrators. He criticised the choice of a front-page photograph showing a protester throwing a stone while ignoring the police use of force against protesters. He compared the paper’s reporting style to coverage of the Israel–Palestine conflict by Israeli press.
However, the paper did a course correction and published a commentary on July 22 (Metamorphosis Nobody Expected From Young Cockroaches) interpreting the CJP movement from broader social and philosophical perspective. It described CJP as an example of reclaiming a derogatory identity: “The extraordinary thing about Cockroach Janta Party is its decision to own the language that defiles it.” The commentary concluded: “It is not a political party. It is a sea of young, angry, intelligent people speaking.” A subsequent editorial on July 23 argued that the government had misunderstood the nature of the protests: “The real underlying problem is a growing sense of hopelessness among youth… That problem has to be addressed, CJP or no CJP.”
The Deccan Chronical adopted the strongest critical position. In its editorial on July 21 (Talk to Protesters, Give Them A Hearing; Avoid Use of Force), it rejected suggestions that the protests were politically manufactured, observing: “The CJP is not an accident; it is the manifestation of the underlying anger of the young people against the dispensation which boasts of the country’s economic progress but does nothing for them.” The editorial further criticised the police response, calling it: “The government’s use of brute force… an undemocratic and unwise action.”
Similarly, The Hindu adopted a constitutional and rights-based approach. Rather than taking an overt editorial position, it published explainers on the legality of internet shutdowns, allegations of pellet-gun use and police accountability, thereby foregrounding civil liberties and institutional responsibility.
Overall, the editorial pages of most of the English-language newspapers consistently framed CJP as a legitimate democratic movement rooted in systemic failures rather than as a law-and-order problem.
Television Media: ‘Godi Media Go Back’
Television coverage largely followed a familiar script. Most of the news channels chose to defame the protest, with many outlets introducing a ‘Pakistan angle’, a ‘CIA angle’, and a ‘George Soros angle’. They portrayed the agitation as part of ‘larger conspiracy’ to create chaos in the country, further agitating the protesters. There was visible disconnect between on-ground reporting and studio discussions. Protesters accused television news of ignoring their movement, forcing them to rely on Instagram and other digital platforms for visibility. Coverage intensified during the July 20 Parliament march, with live broadcasts focusing on clashes between protesters and the police. However, the dominant television narrative often shifted attention from protesters’ demands to public disorder. Several channels highlighted stone-pelting, attacks on police personnel and alleged conspiracies or ‘toolkits’, while devoting comparatively less attention to issues such as examination reforms, student suicides or youth unemployment.
This editorial framing generated a strong backlash from protesters, who labelled several television outlets as ‘Godi media’. Journalists covering the demonstrations faced heckling and, in some instances, physical intimidation. It is important to note that so-called mainstream news channels suffered major credibility challenges. The news channels unquestionably favoured the government.
English and Hindi Media: A Comparative Perspective
Both Hindi and English newspapers justifiably gave prominence to the protest following the police crackdown during the Parliament march, but they framed the events differently.
The English-language press adopted a more contextual and analytical approach. The Hindi press displayed a wider tonal variation. Dainik Jagran adopted the strongest law-and-order framing, describing the Parliament march as a rampage and leading with reports of stone-pelting and disruption before mentioning police use of force. In contrast, Dainik Bhaskar characterised the demonstration coverage was relatively balanced. Many papers tried to be neutral, presenting actions by both protesters and police. Unlike several English newspapers, Hindi dailies generally did not foreground the internet shutdown as a civil liberties issue, treating it instead as part of broader traffic disruptions.
In essence, English newspapers focused more on why the protests occurred, whereas Hindi newspapers devoted greater attention to how the protests unfolded. English reporting was more analytical and rights-oriented; Hindi reporting was more event-driven, with greater variation in tone – from Jagran’s emphasis on disorder to Bhaskar’s balanced treatment and Amar Ujala’s relatively neutral presentation.
Notably, independent digital journalists and citizen-generated videos consequently emerged as important alternative sources of information.
[The writer is a New Delhi-based media analyst. quamar.ashraf@gmail.com]