Media's Role in Human Rights: Protector and Perpetrator • Journalism University

Few institutions in modern society carry the weight that media does. At its best, it holds the powerful to account, shines a light on hidden abuses, and empowers ordinary citizens. At its worst, it manufactures hatred, silences dissent, and drives entire populations toward atrocities. This is the defining paradox of the media in relation to human rights – it is simultaneously the most powerful protector of the vulnerable and, under the wrong conditions, a terrifying instrument of oppression.

The Fourth Estate: media as a democratic pillar
Global scrutiny and the cost of human rights violations
Media as a tool for advocacy and awareness
The dark side: when media becomes an instrument of abuse
Rwanda: the radio and the machete
Yugoslavia: ethnic hatred on state television
The Indian media landscape: protector and problem
The 1975 Emergency: censorship as state control
The 1984 anti-Sikh riots: a mixed record
The current crisis of content in Indian television
What this means for human rights

The Fourth Estate: media as a democratic pillar

In most democratic frameworks, power is divided among three institutions: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The media, however, has earned the informal title of the Fourth Estate – an independent force that watches the other three. As documented by the Asia Pacific Forum’s Media Handbook for National Human Rights Institutions, the media has long been viewed as a key mechanism through which the public holds governments accountable, including in relation to the promotion and protection of human rights.

This function rests on a foundational premise: that an informed public is a prerequisite for a functioning democracy. The Society of Professional Journalists grounds its entire code of ethics in the belief that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. When media operates according to these principles – seeking truth, minimizing harm, acting independently, and remaining accountable – it becomes a crucial check on the abuse of public authority. Political scientist Rajni Kothari argued that mass media facilitates modernization by upholding the rule of law, justice, and freedom, functions that are especially vital in developing democracies with fragile institutions.

The Council of Europe’s Human Rights Education Manual puts it plainly: the right most intimately related to the media is the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This freedom is not only important in itself – it is a prerequisite for enjoying a whole host of other rights, from political participation to cultural identity. A media that faithfully upholds this right becomes a structural guarantee of democratic life.

Global scrutiny and the cost of human rights violations

In a globalized world, a state’s human rights record is no longer a purely domestic matter. International communication technologies have effectively lifted the veil of secrecy that once shielded governments from accountability. When a government commits abuses – arbitrary detention, forced disappearances, targeted killings – the global media ecosystem can expose those actions to international scrutiny within hours.

This scrutiny carries real consequences. Violations of internationally accepted norms can trigger condemnation from other nations, sanctions from international organizations, and significant damage to a country’s diplomatic standing. As research published in the World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews confirms, journalists establish factual records of violations, create visibility for affected communities, mobilize public concern, and pressure responsible actors – functions that remain essential even as the media landscape evolves.

Beyond the international dimension, global communication technologies also inform local populations about hidden abuses within their own countries. This flow of information empowers the formation of social movements against repressive regimes and raises the political and reputational cost for governments that violate human rights. The higher that cost, the more difficult it becomes to sustain systematic oppression without consequence.

Media as a tool for advocacy and awareness

Human rights activists and organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have long understood the media’s power as an advocacy tool. Their core strategy often hinges on publicizing violations, documenting abuses with precision, and – to put it directly – shaming perpetrators into changing their behavior. News coverage shapes public opinion in third countries, which in turn pressures governments to adjust their foreign policy in ways that hold violators accountable.

This kind of media-driven advocacy is not a modern invention. As noted by the New Tactics in Human Rights project, the crusade against oppression has always relied on communication. Activists in the 18th century used pamphlets to spread revolutionary ideas. The 20th century brought stage theatre, radio broadcasts, and underground newsletters. Today, the tools include investigative documentaries, social media campaigns, and live-streamed protests. The medium changes; the underlying logic does not. Media remains the essential infrastructure of human rights advocacy.

A significant development in recent decades has been the rise of participatory media. Thanks to smartphones and internet access, citizens can now document and distribute evidence of abuses in real time, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers entirely. The Arab Spring uprisings, the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and numerous conflict zones around the world have demonstrated that ordinary individuals on the ground can generate human rights documentation that shapes global narratives. When professional journalists publish their work alongside citizen documentation, the cumulative effect on accountability is substantial.

The Journal of Human Rights notes, however, that professional journalism retains a distinct and irreplaceable role. When Edward Snowden chose to release classified NSA surveillance material, he turned to established outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times precisely because their editorial rigor and mass reach could not be replicated by blogs or social media. The professional press provides watchdog functions and credibility that citizen journalism, for all its virtues, cannot fully substitute.

The dark side: when media becomes an instrument of abuse

The same qualities that make media a powerful force for human rights protection – its reach, its emotional resonance, its ability to frame reality – also make it a devastatingly effective weapon when turned in the wrong direction. History provides cases that are difficult to overstate in their horror.

Rwanda: the radio and the machete

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda is the most cited and most studied example of media as a direct instrument of mass atrocity. Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), set up and financed by Hutu extremists, combined popular music, talk shows, and news broadcasts to systematically dehumanize the Tutsi minority. According to legal scholarship published in the Michigan Journal of International Law, observers widely described radio and the machete as the twin primary tools of the genocide, with RTLM broadcasts constituting direct and public incitement against ethnic Tutsis.

The station’s tactics were sophisticated. It wrapped hate speech in humor, popular culture, and the language of self-defense – portraying the Tutsi as an existential threat to the Hutu majority. In areas with full RTLM radio coverage, research indicates the number of persons prosecuted for violence was substantially higher, demonstrating the station’s measurable impact on triggering participation in killings.

The legal consequences were historic. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in the landmark case Prosecutor v. Nahimana, found the founders of RTLM guilty of genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, and crimes against humanity. For the first time since Nuremberg, a court held media executives criminally responsible for mass violence they incited rather than directly committed. The judgment established a legal precedent: words alone, when broadcast with intent and knowledge in a volatile context, can constitute participation in genocide.

Yugoslavia: ethnic hatred on state television

A parallel dynamic played out in the former Yugoslavia, where state-controlled television – particularly in Serbia – was used throughout the 1990s to stoke ethnic hatred and portray Bosnian Muslims and Croats as existential threats. This media environment manufactured the public “consent” that made campaigns of ethnic cleansing politically possible. The pattern confirms what the Rwanda case also demonstrated: media doesn’t merely reflect social tensions – it can actively construct and amplify them to genocidal effect.

The Indian media landscape: protector and problem

India’s experience with media and human rights is a case study in the same duality, shaped by the world’s largest and most complex democracy.

The 1975 Emergency: censorship as state control

The most dramatic assault on press freedom in India’s post-independence history came on the night of June 25, 1975, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of Emergency. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Emergency, which lasted 21 months, entailed the suspension of civil liberties, the arrest of political opponents, and wholesale censorship of the press. Electricity was cut to newspaper offices in Delhi on the first night alone to prevent editions from going to print.

The scale of the media crackdown was staggering. As documented by the Association for Democratic Reforms, hundreds of journalists were jailed, approximately 18 newspapers were banned outright, and every piece of content required government approval before publication. The Press Council of India was abolished by ordinance. Legal scholar Soli Sorabjee observed that the first and most crucial round of battle for press freedom was largely lost without a struggle in the first week, as most newspapers submitted to censorship rather than challenging it in court. A valiant few – notably The Indian Express and The Statesman – chose to protest by publishing blank editorial columns as silent acts of defiance.

The Emergency remains what many Indian historians describe as the darkest period in independent India’s democratic life. It demonstrated, with brutal clarity, how swiftly a government can silence a free press once it decides to do so – and how essential institutional resistance is when that moment arrives.

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots: a mixed record

When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in October 1984, the violence that followed – organized pogroms against the Sikh community in Delhi and other cities – tested the Indian media’s capacity for honest reporting under communal pressure. The English-language press, particularly national broadsheets, largely reported on the riots with greater objectivity and consistency. The vernacular press, however, showed considerable room for improvement, at times reflecting or amplifying communal sentiment rather than challenging it. This divergence between English-language and regional-language media coverage remains a structural issue in Indian journalism that academics and press freedom organizations continue to monitor.

The current crisis of content in Indian television

The contemporary challenge facing Indian media is less about state censorship and more about what critics call a “crisis of content” – a slow erosion of journalistic standards driven by commercial pressures. India has over 900 satellite channels and more than 100 dedicated news channels competing for a finite audience and advertising pool. The result, as documented in research published in the International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, is an editorial environment dominated by TRP-driven incentives, where sensational, dramatic, and emotionally charged content systematically outperforms calm, nuanced, factual reporting in ratings.

This creates a dangerous loop. A 2024 News Broadcasters Federation survey found that 68% of Indian news channels prioritized entertainment value over factual accuracy. A 2025 Lokniti-CSDS survey found that 63% of Indians distrust television news. Newsroom debates become high-decibel spectacles, with anchors adopting theatrical, performative styles that prioritize volume over substance. Rural reporting, environmental issues, and social welfare topics receive minimal airtime because they do not generate high TRP scores – creating what scholars call “information inequality,” where the lived realities of the majority remain largely invisible on national television.

The blurring of news and entertainment – sometimes called tabloidization – also enables what critics describe as “media trials”: the treatment of accused individuals as guilty before any judicial process has reached a verdict. Research from ResearchGate confirms that tabloid-style content damages institutional credibility, with audiences rating it as less trustworthy than traditionally reported news – even when they continue to consume it. The commercial logic that drives tabloidization, in other words, is ultimately self-defeating.

Corporate consolidation adds another layer of concern. When media ownership is concentrated among conglomerates with significant business and political interests, editorial independence becomes structurally compromised. A channel owned by a major infrastructure company is unlikely to aggressively investigate that company’s environmental record. A network with close political ties is unlikely to provide dispassionate coverage of the government’s human rights failures. The watchdog cannot effectively guard the house if it is fed by those who own it.

What this means for human rights

The relationship between media and human rights is not a static one. It shifts with technology, ownership structures, political context, and professional culture. What remains constant is the principle that Human Rights Careers identifies plainly: to protect human rights, the world must protect the media and journalists who practice it responsibly. In 2021 alone, 55 journalists were killed globally, while Reporters Without Borders found that journalism was seriously impeded in 73 countries. The reporters who challenge power – who document genocide, expose corruption, give voice to the voiceless – do so at enormous personal risk.

Understanding this dual nature of media – as both protector and potential perpetrator – is not a reason for cynicism. It is a reason for vigilance: from regulators who must strengthen ethical frameworks, from media owners who must preserve editorial independence, from journalists who must resist commercial capture, and from audiences who must demand accuracy over spectacle. The Fourth Estate only fulfills its democratic function when it is allowed to be genuinely free – and when it chooses to use that freedom responsibly.

What do you think? If TRP-driven sensationalism is degrading the quality of Indian television journalism, who bears the greater responsibility for fixing it – media owners, regulators, or the audience? And given the lessons of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, where should the legal line be drawn between protecting free expression and preventing media from becoming an instrument of mass violence?

References

PDF 📄

Media’s Role in Human Rights: Protector and Perpetrator

Share on Mastodon

Media’s Role in Human Rights: Protector and Perpetrator

Table of Contents

The Fourth Estate: media as a democratic pillar 🔗

Global scrutiny and the cost of human rights violations 🔗

Media as a tool for advocacy and awareness 🔗

The dark side: when media becomes an instrument of abuse 🔗

Rwanda: the radio and the machete 🔗

Yugoslavia: ethnic hatred on state television 🔗

The Indian media landscape: protector and problem 🔗

The 1975 Emergency: censorship as state control 🔗

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots: a mixed record 🔗

The current crisis of content in Indian television 🔗

What this means for human rights 🔗