News Channels Now-a-days
Democracies rarely collapse because elections stop taking place.
They weaken when citizens gradually stop demanding answers.
A government becomes difficult to question not merely because it has a parliamentary majority, but because a large section of society begins to defend it irrespective of facts. At the same time, opposition parties also deserve scrutiny whenever they are in power. Accountability should never depend on who occupies office.
One institution that significantly influences this public mindset is television news.
Prime-time debates are presented as platforms for accountability. Yet, many viewers have observed that they often become contests of rhetoric rather than evidence. The discussion shifts from finding the truth to ensuring that one side appears victorious.
This pattern has profound consequences for democracy.
The Most Common Debate Tactic: "What About Them?"
Imagine a debate begins with a simple question:
"There are allegations of corruption in this government project. How do you respond?"
Instead of answering, the spokesperson replies:
"What about the corruption committed by the previous government?"
The audience applauds.
The anchor moves on.
The original allegation disappears.
This technique is known as whataboutery—a rhetorical strategy in which criticism is answered not with evidence, but by pointing to someone else's alleged wrongdoing. Researchers have documented how this tactic shifts attention away from the issue being discussed rather than addressing it directly. (arXiv)
Yet one unanswered question remains:
Did anyone actually answer the original allegation?
No.
If yesterday's corruption excuses today's corruption, then no government can ever be held accountable.
One Crime Does Not Cancel Another
Suppose a police officer catches a thief.
The thief responds:
"Many other thieves are still roaming free."
Would any court dismiss the case?
Certainly not.
Justice requires that every accused person be judged independently.
The same principle applies in politics.
If Government A committed wrongdoing, it should be investigated.
If Government B commits wrongdoing, it should also be investigated.
The guilt of one cannot become the defence of another.
Other Common Debate Tactics
1. Changing the Topic
The discussion begins with inflation.
Within minutes, it shifts to historical governments, religious disputes, or unrelated international issues.
The original subject quietly disappears.
2. Personal Attacks Instead of Evidence
Instead of answering facts, participants attack the person asking the question.
Typical responses include:
"You are anti-national."
"You hate the country."
"Your party is worse."
"You are biased."
These statements may provoke emotions, but they do not answer factual questions.
3. False Patriotism
Citizens are sometimes presented with a false choice:
"Either support the government, or you oppose the nation."
This is fundamentally misleading.
Governments change.
The nation remains.
Questioning government decisions is a democratic right—not evidence of disloyalty.
4. Endless Interruptions
Rather than allowing arguments to develop, debates often become shouting matches.
The loudest participant appears victorious simply because others cannot finish speaking.
Noise creates the illusion of strength.
5. Cherry-Picking Facts
Only those statistics that support one narrative are highlighted.
Contradictory evidence receives little or no discussion.
An informed citizen must always ask:
"What information has been left out?"
6. Emotional Overload
Images, dramatic music, slogans, nationalism, fear, anger, and outrage often replace calm discussion.
When emotions dominate, critical thinking declines.
7. Panel Imbalance
Sometimes the composition of debate panels itself influences perception.
Several guests may represent one viewpoint while only one represents the other, creating an uneven discussion before the debate even begins.
8. Trial by Television
Complex legal matters are sometimes presented as if guilt has already been established before courts have examined the evidence.
Media should investigate.
Courts should decide.
Confusing these roles weakens public trust in justice.
Why Do So Many Viewers Feel That These Debates Are Convincing?
The answer lies more in psychology than politics.
Confirmation Bias
People naturally seek information that confirms what they already believe.
If they support a political party, any defence of that party feels satisfying—even when it avoids the actual question.
Identity Politics
Political preference gradually becomes personal identity.
Criticism of a leader begins to feel like criticism of oneself.
The debate becomes emotional instead of rational.
Team Loyalty
Many people unconsciously start treating politics like cricket.
"My side must win."
Whether arguments are logical becomes secondary.
Victory matters more than truth.
Repetition Creates Familiarity
Psychologists have long observed that repeatedly hearing the same claim can make it seem more believable, even when independent evidence is weak.
Television debates often reinforce the same narratives night after night.
Information Fatigue
Most citizens do not have time to verify every statistic, speech, or policy.
As a result, they judge confidence rather than evidence.
Those who speak forcefully often appear more convincing than those who speak carefully.
The Media's Democratic Responsibility
The role of journalism is not to protect governments.
Nor is it to protect opposition parties.
Its responsibility is to protect the public's right to know.
Media scholars have argued that some Indian prime-time debate formats increasingly emphasize confrontation, partisan framing, and spectacle over balanced examination of issues. Recent academic analyses of televised debates have also found measurable patterns in topic selection, framing, and panel composition on some prominent shows. (arXiv)
At the same time, criticism of media bias is not confined to one channel. Different broadcasters have, at different times, faced criticism or regulatory action over misinformation, misleading presentations, or editorial bias. (Wikipedia)
This demonstrates that media accountability should be demanded consistently, regardless of ideological leaning.
Citizens Must Raise the Standard
Whenever watching a political debate, ask five simple questions:
Was the original question answered?
Was evidence presented?
Were independent sources cited?
Did anyone change the topic?
Did emotion replace reasoning?
These questions are often more important than deciding who "won" the debate.
Democracy Needs Independent Minds
The greatest danger to democracy is not disagreement.
The greatest danger is unquestioning agreement.
A healthy democracy depends on citizens who are willing to question every government, every political party, every television channel, and even their own assumptions.
If someone automatically defends or condemns a political party regardless of evidence, the answer is not to silence or exclude them from democratic participation. Instead, we should encourage them—and ourselves—to examine multiple sources, verify claims, and engage with opposing viewpoints respectfully.
The right to vote belongs equally to every eligible citizen. But that right carries a responsibility: to vote with an informed and independent mind, not out of habit, fear, or partisan loyalty.
Governments become accountable only when citizens refuse to outsource their thinking.
The day we stop asking, "Which party won the debate?" and begin asking, "Who answered the question?" is the day our democracy becomes stronger.
But the million-dollar question is this:
If a voter believes that one allegation is answered simply by pointing to another allegation from the past, are they evaluating political accountability objectively? Or have they become so emotionally invested in one side that they no longer distinguish between an answer and a distraction? Such voter is fit to vote? Introspect.