The recent arrests of two Hyderabad-based YouTubers by the Andhra Pradesh police have sparked a fresh debate on whether present-day journalism has lost its credibility and value, and whether it has been reduced to a money-making avenue driven by negative content and filthy abuse in the name of freedom of expression.
The other day, political analyst and former MLC Prof. K Nageshwar publicly claimed that the more controversy his comments create, the more money he makes.
When Jana Sena Party leaders filed a case against him over his comments on Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan’s meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Nageshwar said that even if he were arrested, it would only bring him more publicity on social media and help him earn more money.
On Thursday, YouTuber Bachalakuri Joseph, alias Prashna Raavan, also reportedly made a similar statement.
When the police, who arrested him in Kakinada, questioned him about why he had made abusive comments against Pawan Kalyan and why he had produced a video in 2025 portraying a clash between school students in Gollaprolu mandal as a caste conflict, he refused to give an explanation.
“I won’t give any explanation. Instead, I will upload videos about my arrest on YouTube. The controversy will generate higher viewership for my channel, and I will earn more money,” he reportedly said.
This raises a larger question: can every YouTuber or digital commentator claim to be a “journalist” merely because they operate a YouTube channel? Such claims dilute the professional definition of journalism.
It also raises another important question: should individuals who allegedly disseminate politically motivated abuse, misinformation or defamatory content under the patronage of political parties automatically receive the protections associated with journalists?
Unfortunately, some political leaders and activists have also started giving caste and regional colour to such controversies.
“Freedom of expression is not absolute and remains subject to criminal laws, including defamation and other legal provisions. Digital media often lacks the editorial oversight and institutional accountability that generally exist in mainstream media organisations, making self-regulation increasingly important,” an analyst said.
It is an open secret that several political parties across the country financially support online propaganda networks and even operate teams from overseas to avoid legal scrutiny.
Politically aligned media houses exist across the ideological spectrum, resulting in many journalists functioning more as political activists than as independent professionals.
