RJ Sayema and Radio Mirchi: Freedom of Expression or Deliberate Provocation?
There was a time when FM radio meant music, wit and harmless banter that accompanied daily life. Today, in a shrinking radio market struggling for relevance against streaming apps and podcasts, some platforms appear tempted to manufacture controversy to stay visible. The ongoing pattern around RJ Sayema raises an uncomfortable question: is this free expression, or calculated provocation dressed up as courage?
Outrage Disguised as Activism
Let us not romanticise what is happening. Repeatedly making statements that predictably inflame one section of society is not intellectual bravery. It is emotional baiting. When someone consistently steps into sensitive religious or geopolitical flashpoints with rhetoric designed to trigger outrage, that is not public service broadcasting. That is agitation for attention.
The pattern is difficult to ignore. Make a statement that touches raw nerves. Wait for backlash. Frame criticism as persecution. Gain sympathy and traction. Repeat the cycle. This is not discourse. It is digital theatre.
Calling it “activism” does not make it noble. It resembles the oldest trick in the attention economy: provoke the community you offend, wait for a reaction, then claim victimhood to harvest moral high ground. That is not free speech under threat. That is self-manufactured drama.
When Clickbait Becomes Corporate Policy
Radio Mirchi is not a fringe blog or anonymous account. It is a mainstream broadcaster backed by a powerful media group. Keeping someone on payroll who repeatedly generates polarising reactions sends a message. Silence becomes endorsement.
Perhaps in a fading FM era, controversy feels like oxygen. A few viral moments can simulate cultural relevance. But outrage spikes are not brand equity. They are sugar highs. When the noise fades, what remains is reputational residue.
If the strategy is to keep a professional provocateur on air because she trends well, management should at least admit it is a ratings play. Dressing it up as principled commitment to free expression insults the intelligence of listeners.
Troll Tactics on a Legacy Platform
There is a difference between a dissenting voice and a rage entrepreneur. One contributes to debate. The other feeds on division. When commentary repeatedly crosses into baiting communities for predictable reaction, it stops being journalism and starts resembling trolling.
A troll thrives on backlash. The louder the criticism, the stronger the narrative of being “targeted.” But when that troll operates under a corporate masthead, the fallout does not remain personal. The brand carries the smoke.
Radio Mirchi may believe it is being bold. In reality, it risks being reckless. Platforms that amplify incendiary voices for short-term attention often discover that when those voices eventually implode under their own excess, the platform burns with them.
Freedom of Speech or Deliberate Provocation?
Freedom of expression protects individuals from state suppression. It does not obligate a private broadcaster to subsidise endless controversy. Editorial discretion is not censorship. It is responsibility.
If RJ Sayema wants to operate as an independent provocateur chasing viral fame, that is her choice. But a legacy broadcaster must decide whether it wants to be a cultural institution or a megaphone for outrage cycles.
Because when the flames of attention die down, and they always do, what remains is a simple question: was it worth trading credibility for clicks?
