By Anurag Punetha
It takes exactly seven seconds for a pre-planned piece of political theatre in Oslo to morph into a multi-day prime-time national crisis in New Delhi. A journalist shouts a question at a departing Prime Minister; the Prime Minister continues walking according to a predetermined protocol; a video is uploaded. Within minutes, the machinery of the modern outrage industry roars to life.
What we witnessed in the wake of the Norwegian press room incident was not a debate about democratic values or journalistic standards. It was a textbook demonstration of The Outrage Symbiosis—the deeply codependent, highly lucrative ecosystem where the Anti-Modi Left and the Pro-Modi Right aggressively feed, sustain, and validate each other’s existence.
To understand this friction, one must look past the immediate social media storm and revisit a scathing indictment delivered nearly a century ago. In 1931, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin stood before a crowd and delivered a legendary rebuke to the press barons of his era who sought to topple governments without ever facing a ballot box:
“What the proprietorship of these papers aims at is power, but power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”
Baldwin’s words remain the definitive diagnosis of the modern media professional who weaponises a platform. In the contemporary context, “proprietorship” is no longer just about the media barons owning printing presses; it belongs to the algorithmic actors, the global freelancers, and the digital influencers who crave the ultimate intoxicating currency: power over public narrative without a shred of responsibility for the real-world fallout.
For the Anti-Modi Left, the Oslo incident was a moment of pure, unadulterated ecstasy. For four years, they have lamented the absence of a traditional, open-mic solo press conference. So, when a foreign reporter yells a question about the World Press Freedom Index, it is instantly treated as a holy text. The narrative is immediately set: Look at the embarrassment! Look at the evasion!
But let us pause for a moment of realistic introspection. The entire premise that a singular unscripted question from a foreign journalist is the ultimate litmus test of a nation’s democratic health is not just naive; it is a form of deep-seated intellectual dependency. It reveals a mindset that still looks to Western validation as the supreme court of public morality.
Our intellectual elites instantly leapt on this opportunity to declare that the foundations of the Republic were shaking, completely ignoring the fact that the host Prime Minister didn’t stop to chat either. The media laps up these moments not because they uncover a hidden policy truth, but because they provide the aesthetic of friction. It is journalism reduced to a spectator sport, where the goal isn’t to inform, but to trigger an emotional response.
Yet, this performance would fall completely flat without its indispensable partner in this dance: the Pro-Modi Right.
Instead of treating an unscripted shout from a mid-tier foreign reporter with the quiet, detached indifference it deserved, the institutional machinery and its online supporters chose to overreact with predictable fury. By turning a fleeting hallway interaction into a high-stakes battle of national sovereignty, calling in diplomatic briefings, and launching massive counter-trolling campaigns, they gave the Left exactly what it wanted: relevance. They validated the trap. They transformed a minor breach of protocol into a grand narrative of global conspiracy, providing the fuel that keeps the opposition’s outrage engine running for days.
The Left needs the Right to overreact so they can cry censorship; the Right needs the Left to amplify foreign critiques so they can rally the base against outside interference. They do not wish to destroy each other; they require each other to maintain their respective audiences.
And while this symbiotic theatre plays out on prime-time television and digital feeds, the actual reality of India—a staggering, chaotic, fiercely argumentative democracy of nearly a billion voters who just concluded a multi-phase election—is entirely bypassed. The complex landscape of domestic press freedom, with all its local nuances, challenges, and structural realities, is reduced to a seven-second clip.
Ultimately, Baldwin’s warning about power without responsibility lands heavily on both sides of this divide. It applies to the global commentator who drops a reductive, agenda-driven question to score points back home without understanding the ground reality of the subcontinent. And it applies equally to the digital gatekeepers who exploit public emotion for clicks and clout, leaving an increasingly polarised citizenry to navigate the wreckage of a completely manufactured discourse.
Author: Anurag Punetha is the New Delhi-based India Editor of The Australia Today.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
