Time to Penalise TRP-Driven Election Misinformation
The controversy over indelible ink during the recent BMC election did not begin with a laboratory report or an official finding. It began on live television. A dramatic on-air demonstration claimed that voting ink could be wiped off completely, instantly casting doubt on the integrity of the electoral process. The claim spread rapidly, triggering political reactions, public confusion, and emergency clarifications by election authorities.
This article is not about targeting any individual journalist or anchor. Naming a person misses the point and turns accountability into a hit job. The real issue is structural. It is about how television newsrooms operate during elections, how editorial checks collapse under the pressure of ratings, and how misinformation is allowed to circulate without consequences as long as it delivers viewership.
What makes this episode especially serious is what came later. In a subsequent interaction, the same claim was softened. It was acknowledged that the ink had not been completely removed and that a faint mark was still visible. That single clarification fundamentally altered the original narrative. Partial fading under chemical exposure is not proof of a broken election safeguard. Yet this clarification arrived after the damage was done and did not travel anywhere near as far as the original broadcast.
This pattern is becoming routine. Make a sensational claim first. Let it go viral. Walk it back later, quietly, in a lower-impact format. By then, the correction is irrelevant because the narrative has already taken root. In election time, this is not harmless television theatrics. It erodes public trust, fuels political manipulation, and forces institutions into reactive defence against claims they should never have had to answer in the first place.
The root cause lies in the economics of television news. TRP-driven journalism rewards immediacy over accuracy and drama over verification. A measured explanation does not trend. A shocking visual does. Corrections do not bring ratings. Controversy does. As long as this incentive structure remains untouched, misinformation will not be an exception. It will be a business strategy.
This is why apologies and clarifications are insufficient. A correction that does not match the reach, prominence, and timing of the original claim is not accountability. It is an escape hatch. If misinformation aired during an election has no cost, there is no deterrent against repeating it.
What is needed now is a serious regulatory response. Election-time misinformation on television must attract penalties. Mandatory on-air corrections in the same time slot. Financial fines for demonstrably false or misleading claims. Editorial audits of election coverage. Clear responsibility fixed not just on reporters, but on editors and newsroom leadership who approve what goes live.
Media freedom is essential in a democracy, but freedom without responsibility turns into impunity. Elections are not experimental spaces for TRP-driven storytelling. If television news is allowed to undermine trust in the voting process without consequences, democracy will continue to pay the price. Accountability is not censorship. It is the minimum cost of credibility.
