Taliban’s male-only presser: How media failed to fact-check Afghan minister’s pro-woman claims

Broken News

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/10/16/talibans-male-only-presser-how-media-failed-to-fact-check-afghan-ministers-pro-woman-claims

Published in Newslaundry on October 16, 2025

He came. He got his way. Then he relented, somewhat. And then he left.

I am referring to the events surrounding the recent visit of Amir Khan Muttaqi, the foreign minister of the current Taliban-led government in Afghanistan, to India. It will be remembered above all for a press briefing he held at the Afghan Embassy, which is still not officially under the control of his government, where women journalists were excluded.  

For general consumers of the media, perhaps this was not of much interest.  Although there was some mention in mainstream media, it was not considered a big deal. But social media, and statements of protests by journalists’ organisations (read here and here) made it clear that this was unacceptable. And that the government should have objected.

Our government claimed it had nothing to do with the decision. And Muttaqi insisted it was a “technical” issue.  Neither, of course, is true.

We are expected to put this controversy behind us because, finally, after the objections raised by several opposition leaders and others, the Taliban minister relented and held a press briefing where women journalists were prominently placed in the front row. And several of them asked relevant questions, such as why his government had banned women from accessing education. Predictably, Muttaqi obfuscated, claiming that women were getting educated in Afghanistan and everything was fine.

When such a press conference is reported, do you leave it at quoting what the minister said, even if it is untrue? Hardly any media outlet considered it necessary to provide a fact check in the report of the press briefing. That, in fact, since the Taliban took over Afghanistan on August 15, 2021, through a series of edicts – more than 100 – women have been barred from all educational institutions except primary schools, banned from working in several professions, and severely restricted in their ability to move around without a male escort.  

Given that there is little in our media about Afghanistan, except for a conflict such as the one with Pakistan in recent days, people would not know whether to take the word of the minister or not. That’s why it is incumbent that the media, in a country that swears by press freedom, takes the trouble to fact-check and inform readers and viewers of the harsh reality facing women in Afghanistan.  

Of course, perhaps it is asking too much of our mainstream media today to do this kind of fact-checking. After all, politicians, including the prime minister and home minister, routinely get away with stating their version of “facts” that are simply not true, such as the danger of “demographic change” facing India.  (The Quint published a much-needed factual piece on this recently.)

The second aspect of this controversy concerns women journalists. Today, they are prominent in Indian media as presenters, reporters, and analysts covering beats that an older generation of women journalists could not access. Foreign affairs, defence and even business and finance were beats where you rarely saw a woman journalist. Now that has changed, not necessarily because of the generosity of the men (and they are still mostly men) who run media houses, but because these women journalists have proven their worth.

As Aishwarya Khosla wrote in The Indian Express about the exclusion of women journalists from Muttaqi’s press briefing: “For women in journalism, the moment struck deeper than diplomacy. It touched a familiar bruise. We have covered wars, elections, and insurgencies. We have been silenced, sidelined, and still stayed in the room. But to be kept out by decree, in the national capital of all places, felt like a definitive punctuation – a full stop in a narrative that has been forward-looking.”

While the shock that the women journalists who routinely cover such briefings felt on October 8 is understandable, what is worse, in my view, is that not even one of the men who were invited to the briefing thought they should object. These women are their colleagues. Surely, excluding anyone based on gender, or anything else, ought to be unacceptable. Neither did the media houses, where these women work, officially raise an objection that their representative was left out. This tells you a lot about the state of our media.

By way of contrast, almost the entire mainstream media in the US has surrendered press badges to access the Pentagon because they were asked to sign an undertaking that went against their right to report freely and fairly. This kind of restriction by a government in a country where, under the First Amendment, the press is guaranteed its freedom is unprecedented.

The third aspect that this controversy throws up is the lack of coverage of events in Afghanistan that affect ordinary people. Of course, it is not just Afghanistan. We know little about the lives of ordinary people in our immediate neighbourhood because coverage centres around foreign relations and tensions. Only when there is a crisis, such as the one in Nepal recently or before that in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, do we get a glimpse of the perennial challenges facing people caused by government policies. This is the result of the fixation of the media with events, rather than the process. 

The takeover by the Taliban in 2021 was covered extensively, even by our media. It was dramatic, traumatic for those trying to escape and violent. But since that August four years ago, we know next to nothing about the condition of women under a government that makes excluding them part of its policy. 

As for women journalists in Afghanistan, according to this report by Reporters Without Borders, at the time the Taliban took over, around 700 women journalists were working in various capacities in the media. Today, there are fewer than 100.  And of these, only around 7 per cent can function, according to a more recent survey. Most of them have been compelled to seek asylum outside the country or stay at home and under the radar to escape punishment if they try to report for platforms located outside the country.

Given this reality in Afghanistan, all journalists, not just women, should be outraged that our government permitted, in a country that guarantees women equal rights, a press briefing that specifically excluded women. This was not a “technical” issue; it was a deliberate choice.  

Zahra Nader, the editor-in-chief of Zan Times, a media platform based in Canada that focuses on human rights in Afghanistan, argues this very point in this important article in The Indian Express. Under the headline: “Taliban leader in India: It’s complicity, not diplomacy”, she asserts, “As an Afghan woman journalist, I want to warn you what this message means. When the Indian government receives the Taliban without publicly challenging their record on women’s rights, it crosses the line from diplomacy into complicity. It lends legitimacy to a regime built on the exclusion of women and becomes a partner in the normalisation of their misogyny.”

Jimmy Kimmel to Kunal Kamra: Trump’s US follows a familiar playbook from Modi’s India

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on September 25, 2025

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/09/25/jimmy-kimmel-to-kunal-kamra-trumps-us-follows-a-familiar-playbook-from-modis-india

What do the current government of the United States, headed by Donald Trump, and the government in India, led by Narendra Modi, have in common?

I would suggest at least three aspects, although there are many more. One, an inability to tolerate criticism from the media, even as they declare that they head democracies, and second, a very thin skin that cannot tolerate humour.

The third, and in many ways far more insidious, is the attempt to control, regulate and even capture the media without making any changes in the Constitutional provisions that underwrite media freedom.

How do we define what has happened to India’s mainstream media, especially in the last decade? There have been various discussions whether we are living through an “undeclared emergency”, referring to the emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975. Such a comparison serves no purpose in trying to understand the process that has resulted in a flattened mediascape, where even the normal questioning that is integral to journalism in a democracy, is virtually absent in mainstream media. 

I think the term “media capture” explains best the situation of the media in India. This is a term that is being used by media scholars to explain recent events in the US under the Trump regime where we have witnessed a combination of defamation suits and pressure on media owners to fall in line.  

The most recent incident was the decision of the ABC television channel to suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s popular late-night show. Although within a week, Kimmel has been reinstated, the very fact that the channel felt compelled to take this step led to much discussion about what this represents in terms of the future of the freedom of the press in the US. 

In an article in the Columbia Journalism Review, under the headline “Is the US media captured?” Joel Simon quotes several media scholars who have used the term to explain the state of the media in authoritarian regimes such as in Hungary, Turkey, or Mexico. It entails “government strategies ranging from manipulation of advertising to economic and regulatory pressure to the exploitation of informal relationships with media owners”, he writes. 

The article discusses whether such an eventuality of “media capture” is a possibility under the Trump regime, if it hasn’t already happened to some extent. Simon paraphrases a media scholar thus: “What’s unprecedented in the US … is the willingness of media companies to so transparently put their business interests ahead of their public interest obligations. When one corporation does it, another might pull back on critical coverage to avoid regulatory pressure—a kind of anticipatory obedience or capture in advance.”

Senator Bernie Sanders provides us with a useful illustration of what is meant by the term “media capture” in the context of the US.

In a post on X, he writes: “This is what American media looks like today: The wealthiest person in the world, Elon Musk, owns X. The second-wealthiest person in the world, Larry Ellison, owns Paramount, including CBS, and will possibly now be taking over TikTok and CNN. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and Twitch. Mark Zuckerberg owns both Facebook and Instagram. In fact, the five richest men in the world are ALL media owners or executives. When we talk about oligarchy in America, it’s not only income and wealth inequality. It’s control over the media and what the American people are able to see, hear and read.”

In India, the richest man owns NDTV, the second richest owns Network 18 Group, and the dominant media houses are all owned by businesses that must remain on the right side of the government, a “kind of anticipatory obedience” as mentioned by Simon in the article quoted above. The dividing line between editorial and management was erased well before this last decade but the results of that erasure are more evident today in India’s mediascape than earlier.

Just look at the print media on September 17, when the prime minister turned 75. Newspapers were replete with page after page of advertisements and signed articles praising Modi. As if this was not enough, a few days later, the government’s decision to lower GST rates, after the country had lived through eight years of much higher rates brought in by the same government, was also greeted with page after page of ads by businesses and corporate houses thanking Modi for taking this step. Such a display of obsequiousness to “the leader” would be considered an embarrassment in any country that claims it is a democracy and has a free press.  

In India, we’ve also had our Jimmy Kimmel equivalents. They do not appear on mainstream television but have a notable following. For instance, the stand-up comic Kunal Kamra has had multiple cases filed against him because someone, somewhere, was offended by his jokes. Or Munawar Faruqui, who was hauled off to jail during a performance in Madhya Pradesh in 2021 and finally acquitted after spending 37 days in jail.

In addition to all this, in my view, the central government’s September 16 order asking 12 independent journalists and news platforms to take down allegedly defamatory content, which included 138 YouTube links and 83 Instagram posts, on Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) removes even the chimera of pretence that it has any respect for the concept of freedom of the press. This order followed the September 6 ruling by a Delhi court, in response to a defamation suit by AEL against several journalists, asking them to take down content on AEL. The line between the government, and India’s richest man and a close ally of the prime minister, was erased by that one action.  

Although the matter continues to be heard in another court, the very fact that the government intervened on behalf of a private business, without allowing the matter to be assessed by a court of law, illustrates vividly the extent to which even the pretence of media freedom has been abandoned by this government. 

This has happened gradually over the last decade in a way that people have become used to a media that generally echoes the government’s line, questions only mildly, and stays away from any issue that could result in censure or loss of revenue.

The trajectory is now familiar. Get friendly industrial houses to buy media conglomerates. Then apply formal and informal pressure on those media houses that are still being critical. In time, mainstream media will be tamed.  

As for the pinpricks that constitute independent media, those not dependent on government advertising, or big business, you first ignore them because you think they don’t matter. Then you wake up to the fact that they do. You realise that technology has enhanced their reach. And the dwindling credibility of mainstream has further given the combined strength of many small platforms a reach that should not be ignored.

That is when you move against them. First, by protecting your main supporters, big business openly aligned with you. Then, by encouraging your loyal supporters spread across India to file cases against individual journalists or independent platforms under existing laws. These cases are filed in states where the party in power is the BJP. Hence, the police do not wait to even consider whether the complaint has any validity before they move. 

And all the while you keep assuring the rest of the world, and your followers in India, that this country is indeed the “mother of democracy” and that you are deeply committed to the Constitution and all the freedoms guaranteed in it.

The Modi government has provided a blueprint to other countries claiming to be democracies on how they can manage and capture the media.