Talk:Godi media

Godi Media

First of all how this type of articles exist in Wiki' this itself is questionable thing, again why they have exactly mentioned a number of media through unreliable sources and youtube url. My edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17925-18 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

In these two edits^a,b you deleted the following statements:

• Media houses and news entities alleged as Godi media include Zee News, Times Now, India Today, Republic Bharat, Republic TV, Aaj Tak, ABP News, Sudarshan News, CNN-News18, India TV, the TV Today Network, NDTV, Firstpost and others.
• Several YouTubers like Akash Banerjee, Dhruv Rathee, and Ravish Kumar have also emerged as competitors of Godi media in their individual capacities.

References

Please could you take us through your objections to the sources, explaining your reasons for believing them to be unreliable or unsuitable to be used to support the statements they were cited for.

@Koshuri Sultan: Please could you comment on the IP editor's objections.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that the IP editor's first edit removed all the citations from the paragraph in the Impact section. I think is reasonable to assume that when the paragraph was written, its author(s) probably intended the citations to support the entire paragraph. So if we were to accept the IP editor's deletion of the text he/she objected to, we ought to restore all or some of the citations and put them against whichever statements they support. If we cannot do that we would need either to delete the entire section, or to provide it with suitable citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thing is very clear, except for one of the sources, none of them are ever heard, like The Clarion India, Ground report, etc there can be 1000s of outlets like this but the point is: should we take each one of "opinions piece" serious enough to mention those statment literally defaming already "mainstream-news sources".

Same for, https://www.exchange4media.com/advertising-news.html- Wh is exchange4media, didn't once heard off..What's this, it's more of marketing stuff and sponsors than actual dedicated reporting. Even then It still doesn't mention term GODI at all.

Second thing, how opponents claim be given enough credence to be posted without proper sources, I saw many of them, most of them actually are given far undue weightage even to create Article like this.

It seems that people from Far-left can easily get the space to post their views even going as far to mailgn some of the proper widespread Media that are actually doing their reporting and journalism just because that doesn't suit their pov ina clear sided. ~2026-17925-18 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The Caravan is an Indian magazine that is generally regarded as a reliable source.

Exchange4media.com has been discussed twice at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In August 2022, it was said that exchange4media.com has produced critical and investigative journalism from time to time (e.g 29) but they are still prone to the issues mentioned so judge their articles on a case by case basis. In July 2024 it was said that the article being asked about was reliable for details, but appeared to be based on a press release, so was not independent of the subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I have amended the statement sourced to Exchange4media.com, so it now says "traditional media", which is what the source says. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to take the issue of citing groundreport.in and clarionindia.net further, the best place to do it would be to explain your thoughts on them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The Caravan, Yes, but that is only supportive to limited statments, doesn't included such media outlets all in the naming, for the other mentioned news, these news sources are nowhere known or even heard. How can it be used for defaming any prominent Medias when it itself is not mainstream sources..that's also the thing to Notice.

Further, This whole Paragraph, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godi_media#Impact, is itself promotional for opponents , The news sources and people(youtbers) mentioned here are exactly opposite affliations, with th Exchange4Media doesn't even mentioning the wrd GODI but still being used in the article as it can serve as propaganda tool for them. ~2026-17925-18 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, Ground report, itself not being prominent sources, https://www.groundreport.in/special-report-press-freedom/what-is-godi-media-and-top-godi-media-anchors/

It says, Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of Ground Report and Ground Report does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.

You can see how the opinion pieced and forced opinions are being used as the tool here the same I talked above. ~2026-17925-18 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That is why the Wikipedia text says: "Media houses and news entities alleged as Godi media...". -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not universally alleged but only by far-minority view that's what I'm saying is that ,Media prominent or mainstream-enough to be concluded here. The Caravan didn't discusses the mentioned you can see..furhter the Indian today youtube channel too not mention those news at all.

Also for the impact section, the whole of the paragraphs are exactly the viewpoint of opposition but still is included here. ~2026-17925-18 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Infact whole article is like this, this article doesn't in itself deserve to have been written! ~2026-17925-18 (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Which of course is your real point. There were two previous deletion discussions: 2020 and 2021. The 2021 deletion discussion included a "thorough analysis" by Bonadea. There really is no point in a third deletion discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Narrow definition

missing the wider compromised media narative and historic record completely Tarburt (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute. — Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried but someone keeps reverting the changes.

E.g. There is no record of name godi derived from MODI, just bcz it sounds similar doesn't mean it's derived from that.

But guy keeps reverting as soon as I make the changes. Tarburt (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course he/she did. These were your edits.

If you want the lead to say that critics note that similar closeness to power existed under earlier governments as well, then the body needs to contain something like a section that talks about this. This section needs to be directly supported by citations. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says: "The sequence in which you edit should usually be: body first, lead second. Several editors might work on the body of the article, with another updating the lead once the new content has stabilized. Don't try to update the lead first, hoping to provide direction for future changes to the body."-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding There is no record of name godi derived from MODI, just bcz it sounds similar doesn't mean it's derived from that. I have checked the two citations that appear in the lead for the sentence that claims that "the term is a pun on the name of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi", and I do not see how they support it, so I have added a citation needed tag. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I found two sources that claim it is a pun on Modi.

• Thomas, Rosamma (4 April 2022). "Cultural Resistance in Times of Rising Authoritarianism in India: A Dossier. PM Modi: The Joke Indians are Not Allowed to Crack". ritimo.org. Godi a pun on Modi, meaning lapdog media
• Sharma, Saurabh (23 October 2023). "Why have opposition parties in India issued a boycott of 14 TV presenters?". Al Jazeera Media Institute. The term is a pun on the name of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

I checked whether the version of the Wikipedia article of 5 May 2022 mentioned that it was a pun on Modi, and it did not. So ritimo.org does not appear to have been copying from Wikipedia. Does anyone object to me adding these two as citations for it being a pun?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure. But I would weaken it to "it is viewed by some as a pun on ...". It is not a widespread view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the advice; it is an improvement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

the article also missing historically bad press freedom rankings as well and that it further deteorated in current regime. Tarburt (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably not. The race to the bottom is tough one. You have to beat out dictatorial regimes like Pakistan and Myanmar. Analysing the downward spiral in the ratings will take us too far away from the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the race to bottom, just that it's deteorated... Tarburt (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Tarburt (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no easy way to explain the "deterioration" without getting into all that. You can't just say something like "dropped from 149 to 158". That kind of numerical description is inadequate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, we don't have to compare ourselves with Pakistan every time something negative happens in India. The numbers speak for themselves.

For the record: I'm still not convinced about the pun on Modi, as it is actually a pun on "sold media" sitting in the lap of the ruling establishment, which currently happens to be the BJP. If someone else comes to power, this definition would become irrelevant, but even then, a "godi" will still exist—just on someone else's lap. Tarburt (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't discuss the future at Wikipedia, as per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

https://static.klipy.com/ii/4e7bea9f7a3371424e6c16ebc93252fe/9a/c3/suJ2JnYB3Hf3wSZCkBa.gif Tarburt (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I still reserve my position on it's historical rankings being bad already. Tarburt (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Section listing "other Godi Media personalities known for their biased reporting"

There has been some disagreement on the section that had a list of people who it alleged were both Godi media personalities and known for their biased reporting.

• A logged-out editor deleted the section saying Removed list irrelevant to topic, wiki is an encylopedia not a name and shame blog. See WP:NOTBLOG and for use of sources WP:NEWSBLOG.
• Kautilya3 reverted the deletion saying Maybe not name and shame, but this is important content
• Iiii I I I reverted back saying This section is almost entirely original research and synthesis

Surely to be in such a list, there ought to be sources cited that explicitly supported that each person listed was (a) part of the "Godi Media", and (b) they they were "known for their biased reporting". I looked at the sources cited for Smita Prakash (who is editor-in-chief of ANI) and Rahul Kanwal (who is CEO and editor-in-chief of NDTV) and did not really see it.

• I saw that the sources said that they were supportive of the Modi government - a lot of people think that Modi's government is doing a good job - thinking that does not make you a lapdog. But the sources did not explicitly use the phrase "Godi media" (I only had access to the first part of the newslaundry.com source, so maybe it was at the end).
• I saw that the sources said that they were biased - but that is not the same as saying that they were "known for" being biased. (If you do not understand the difference - I sometimes make typing errors, but it would be unreasonable to say "Toddy is known for his/her typing errors".)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I did reinstate this list, mistakenly thinking that this was the coverage of CJP protests, but after looking through the citations, I realized that I was wrong. I support its deletion.

I am in fact working on a section covering the CJP protests, which I will publish eventually. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning that that section is about protests, not any list. Including journalist names willy nilly without documented evidence of "Godi" would constitute serious WP:BLP violation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the "Godi media personalities known for their biased reporting" section is still almost complete synthesis. None of the sources listed fully describe all these journalists as both 1) "Godi media", and 2) people that are widely known for this, rather than having some bias in their reporting some of the time (as Toddy1 wrote above).

@Chronos.Zx: If you cannot find better citations, you need to revert your recent edits adding this section back. WP:BLP is very strict on sources for contentious material about living people. Iiii I I I (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2026 (UTC)