Zee News fined for linking traffic jam to namaz: 'Biased, highly communal journalism'

The line between misinformation and mainstream television blurred dangerously when a primetime broadcast linked a Muslim truck driver offering namaz to a traffic jam on the Jammu–Srinagar highway, a claim later found to be false. The case has since triggered regulatory action, raising deeper questions about accountability in Indian newsrooms.

On AI With Sanket, The Federal spoke to senior journalists Javed Ansari and Aditi Phadnis about the recent order by the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) against Zee News, the broader crisis in television journalism, and whether self-regulation is enough to arrest what they describe as a systemic decline.

The trigger case

The controversy stems from a March 3, 2025, broadcast by Zee News that aired a viral social media video under the headline suggesting that a Muslim truck driver offering namaz had caused a traffic disruption in Jammu. A complaint was filed the next day, alleging the story was not only unverified but communal in nature. Subsequent proceedings before the NBDSA concluded that the traffic jam had in fact been caused by a landslide and routine road blockage — not the individual shown in the video.

Also read: AI Summit: Have controversies dented India’s credibility? | Capital Beat

The channel defended itself by stating that the video was unverified at the time of broadcast and was taken down once inaccuracies were discovered. It had also run a disclaimer stating it could not independently verify the content.

The NBDSA imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine and issued a six-point directive reinforcing verification norms for member broadcasters.

Not an aberration

For Ansari, the episode is not an exception but symptomatic of a deeper rot. “This is not an aberration… it has unfortunately become the norm,” he said, arguing that the relationship between facts and televised news today is often “purely coincidental”.

He described the ruling as welcome but insufficient, stressing that the problem is widespread across outlets. According to him, stereotyping, vilification, and narrative-driven reporting have become routine features of broadcast journalism. The absence of meaningful accountability, he suggested, emboldens such practices.

Also read: Galgotias robodog row: ‘This is arrogance of an inexplicable kind’ | AI With Sanket

Phadnis echoed the concern, describing the environment as “upsetting” and marked by a troubling casualness towards factual accuracy. She emphasised that the issue is not limited to communal framing but extends to basic errors and lack of verification.

Verification failure

At the core of the debate lies a fundamental question: can a national news channel broadcast content it admits is unverified?

Phadnis was unequivocal. Journalism, she said, rests on factual certainty. “Unless you are absolutely sure that you are factually correct, you need to not say it,” she observed. The argument that something is viral, she added, does not make it true.

While acknowledging that journalists have historically made mistakes, she distinguished between errors arising from incorrect sources and the deliberate airing of unverified social media content. The latter, she suggested, reflects a structural problem driven by speed and popularity metrics rather than editorial diligence.

Ansari reinforced this point by recalling newsroom practices that required verification from two independent sources before publication. Stories were sometimes held back for weeks pending confirmation, he said — a discipline he believes has eroded in the 24/7 news cycle.

TRP pressures

Both journalists linked the deterioration in standards to the relentless pursuit of ratings and virality.

Ansari criticised the idea that “people want this” as justification for sensationalism. Ratings, he said, often reflect catering to the lowest common denominator. If popularity alone determined editorial choices, news could easily devolve into pure entertainment.

He warned that journalism is increasingly being treated as “content”, blurring the line between factual reporting and engagement-driven programming. “News is the biggest casualty. Good journalism is the biggest casualty,” he remarked.

Phadnis expanded the argument to include digital media, stating that the race for influence and follower counts has deepened the crisis. When journalism is equated with influencing, she argued, it fundamentally distorts the profession’s purpose.

Influencers vs journalists

A particularly sharp critique was directed at the rise of influencers doubling up as journalists. Phadnis argued that the two roles are incompatible.

An influencer, she said, typically amplifies trends and often presents one side of a story. Journalism, by contrast, requires presenting multiple perspectives and maintaining neutrality. “You cannot be an influencer and you cannot be a journalist. You have to be one or the other,” she said.

The blending of these roles, she suggested, weakens editorial discipline and encourages polarised storytelling tailored to audience segments rather than public interest.

NBDSA’s six rules

In its ruling, the NBDSA reiterated six core principles:

Social media content must be verified before broadcast.

Wherever possible, information must be corroborated through on-ground reporting or reliable sources.

Images and videos must be checked for manipulation or AI generation.

Content should not be presented out of context.

Reporting on military operations, internal disturbances, or communal violence must meet standards of public interest and accuracy.

A disclaimer stating that content is unverified does not absolve responsibility.

Both panellists noted that these guidelines merely restate long-standing journalistic norms.

“This is old school journalism,” Ansari said, questioning who would enforce compliance and what consequences would follow repeated violations. Without stringent penalties, he warned, guidelines risk becoming symbolic gestures.

Weak penalties

The Rs 1 lakh fine, Ansari argued, is “nothing” for a large broadcaster. He suggested that corrective measures should include running apologies with the same prominence and duration as the original broadcast.

“Don’t run it as a scroll,” he said, stressing that apologies must be headline-level acknowledgements in prime time. Naming and shaming habitual offenders, he added, may be necessary to deter repeat violations.

Phadnis also pointed to delays in regulatory decisions — in this case, nearly a year between complaint and judgment — as undermining impact. By the time rulings arrive, the misinformation may have already shaped public perception irreversibly.

A systemic crisis

The broader concern expressed by both journalists is not about one channel but about systemic drift. Rumours repeated as fact, communal framing layered onto unverified footage, and narrative-first reporting have cumulative consequences.

Such practices, they warned, risk inflaming social tensions and eroding trust in media institutions. When audiences are exposed to a constant stream of information that may later be discredited, the burden shifts to viewers to develop skepticism — a troubling shift in responsibility.

Ultimately, the discussion returned to fundamentals. Journalism, they argued, is not entertainment and not content marketing. It is a profession governed by rules — verification, corroboration, context, and accountability.

Whether the industry will course-correct remains uncertain. But as this case demonstrates, the debate over ethics in Indian television news is no longer about perception — it is about documented violations and regulatory response.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)