INTRODUCTION

In a country where justice often arrives late, the media has been hailed as the people's courtroom, a space where crimes are uncovered, authorities are questioned, and voices otherwise unheard find an audience. Yet, as cameras roll and stories unfold, one must ask: is the media seeking justice, or simply scripting its next hit drama?

In the chilling aftermath of the Burari deaths, where eleven family members were found hanging with ritualistic circumstances, the nation deserved empathy and clarity but what it got instead was voyeurism disguised as news, with drone shots of corpses and primetime debates on black magic.

In today’s India, the media stands not just as a reporter of crime, but often, as its most powerful storyteller. Every breaking headline, viral clip, or primetime debate contributes to how a crime is remembered, how victims are viewed, and sometimes, even how justice is pursued.

But increasingly, this storytelling has taken a disturbing turn. The purpose of journalism was once to uncover truths and hold power accountable. Today, much of Indian crime reporting has transformed into a race for visibility, a spectacle where tragedy is packaged, edited, and distributed for mass consumption. Whether it's a celebrity’s mysterious death or a gruesome murder in a remote corner of the country, crime has become content. Victims are reduced to names; suspects are turned into villains or clickbait.

What was once about truth is now about traction.

What was once public service is now performance.

What began as a mission to inform is increasingly a business of influence. And in this fragile space, the stakes are not just reputations they are lives.

ACT I: WHEN MEDIA WAS THE VOICE OF JUSTICE

There was a time when the camera didn’t chase chaos; it chased change.

The Indian media, once called the fourth pillar of democracy, earned that title not through noise but through courage. It stood as the people’s watchdog, asking the questions that no one else would and demanding answers when justice was denied.

In moments where power protected the powerful and systems collapsed under silence, it was journalism that stood its ground. It did not wait for official statements it uncovered truths buried beneath them.

In 2012, the brutal Delhi gang rape shocked the conscience of the nation. But it was media coverage unflinching, persistent, and emotionally charged, that transformed one crime into a national reckoning. Laws were rewritten. Silence was shattered. And a grieving nation found language for its pain, thanks to journalism that dared to look unblinking into darkness.

These were not isolated stories. They were proof that the media, at its best, can reshape history, not just report it.

Back then, the news wasn’t just about being loud, it was about being right.

It wasn’t about views, it was about values.

In landmark cases like Jessica Lal and Nirbhaya, relentless media pressure became the force behind delayed justice. In these moments, journalism rose above its role—it became a weapon of accountability.

But power without restraint is dangerous.

The line between watchdog and warhound is often crossed. What begins as justice-seeking turns into narrative-setting before the courts speak, the channels shout. And when the media passes verdicts, the public rarely questions them.

The media didn’t follow justice. It led it.

The media, when committed to facts and compassion, becomes more than a mirror of society—it becomes its conscience.

There was a time when journalism didn't chase clicks—it chased truth. It forced the system to act when it failed the people.

ACT II: WHEN JUSTICE BECAME PRIME TIME

Justice was never meant to have a theme song.

Yet in today’s India, the courtroom has a competitor and it broadcasts at 9 PM sharp.

As news turned into spectacle, the media didn’t just report crime it began to direct it. Crime scenes became stage sets. Victims became hashtags. Accused became overnight villains—sometimes, even before the court could speak. The pursuit of truth was replaced by the pursuit of TRPs.

No case reveals this transformation more vividly than the media circus following the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. What should have been a sensitive investigation became a national obsession, televised in high definition and high volume. News channels ran endless loops of conspiracy theories. Innocent people were tried on live TV. Facts became optional—emotion became currency.

When journalism trades nuance for narrative, justice suffers.

In this new format, the media isn't asking “What happened?” but “What will go viral?” The truth is edited, stylised, trimmed for impact. Victims’ names are flashed like headlines in a thriller; grief is given background music; suspects are hunted by microphones, not the law.

And the most dangerous part?

The nation is watching. And it believes what it sees.

Because once something trends, it becomes reality.

And in that version of reality, justice becomes just another segment between ads.

What was once a sacred responsibility has turned into daily programming.

What was once about holding the system accountable is now about holding the audience's attention.

The question is no longer whether media influences justice—it's whether media replaces it.

ACT III: THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DEATH IN THE AGE OF REELS

There was a murder. But Instagram saw a trend.

In today’s digital theatre, even the darkest horrors are edited for engagement. A woman’s final scream becomes a slowed-down audio track. A man’s bloodied body becomes a blurred thumbnail. A tragedy becomes a template. A reel. A meme. A moment.

We don't pause to process.

We scroll.

We swipe.

We react.

We barely reflect.

The Meghalaya honeymoon murder (2025) stands as a disturbing mirror to this reality. A newlywed man, killed in cold blood. A case that should have sparked grief, anger, and introspection instead sparked a different wave content creation.

People posted carousels of the couple’s wedding photos, dark captions overlaid with trending sounds. Edits romanticised the location. Speculations flooded timelines. Memes appeared within hours. Influencers weighed in, not with facts, but with filters.

What should have haunted us became aesthetic.

And this is the real disappearance: not of the victim, but of the meaning of her death.

Social media is no longer just a platform, it is a factory of perception. It doesn’t just show you what happened; it tells you how to feel. And increasingly, it tells you to feel nothing at all.

Algorithms reward what grabs attention, not what deserves it. Truth becomes buried under opinions. Outrage is automated. Everyone becomes a participant in a performance of grief, without ever confronting its weight.

And the scariest part?

The more we aestheticise violence, the less real it feels.

The more we scroll past pain, the more we forget how to feel.

In a generation trained to double-tap trauma, justice has no space to breathe.

Because when crime becomes content, the victim becomes invisible.

ACT IV: PUBLIC OPINION IS NOT A VERDICT

A million views don’t make something true.

And a trending hashtag is not a court of law.

But in today’s climate, public opinion often arrives before the investigation does. Mob justice has gone digital reactions now outrun evidence, and narratives are declared complete even before the facts are.

Justice cannot go viral. But outrage can.

Take any recent high-profile crime. What the audience receives is a heavily curated reel of updates, visuals, and quotes—a spotlight so selective, it can blind us. The media picks its hero, its villain, its victim—and the rest becomes background noise. The courtroom may never even get the chance to speak louder than the timeline.

This is not justice. It’s theatre.

Once a clip trends, the police feel pressure to act fast not always thoroughly. Investigations shift to fit headlines. Bureaucracies respond more to trending anger than legal logic. A single misinterpreted post can distort motives. An old photo can imply guilt. Public imagination becomes more powerful than actual testimony.

And behind all this noise, something quietly collapses: the process.

Due process—scrutiny, cross-examination, the slow unfolding of truth is drowned under the roar of immediate judgment. And when cases are shaped by emotion rather than evidence, real justice suffers quietly, offscreen.

Half-truths are dangerous not because they lie, but because they convince us we already know everything.

A story that goes viral may reach millions, but still remain incomplete. And incomplete justice is injustice.

Selective outrage leaves countless victims unseen.

Selective spotlight lets too many escape.

In a world where everyone’s an expert and no one waits for trial, we must remember:

Public opinion may drive momentum.

But only truth delivers justice.

ACT V: RECLAIMING THE PULSE OF JUSTICE

Media is not broken. It is simply at a crossroads.

And every crossroads offers two choices: continue the spiral, or change the story.

The future of justice in India doesn’t lie in louder anchors or trendier reels. It lies in reclaiming the media’s original promise: to inform, not influence; to provoke thought, not provoke bias.

We need to return to a journalism that values accuracy over acceleration, depth over drama. One that pauses long enough to ask: What are we really showing people? And at what cost?

It’s time to separate information from manipulation.

The way forward begins with three words: responsibility, reform, and reach.

Responsibility must lie not only with journalists, but with every consumer of media. Viewers must question, not just consume. Influencers must choose clarity over clout. Platforms must weigh reach against impact. Because every share, every swipe, helps shape reality.

Reform must come from within newsrooms. Editors must draw clear lines between journalism and judgment. Crime reporting must respect both the dignity of the victim and the neutrality of the law. Ethics must be treated as essential not optional.

Reach must be used not to sell fear or spectacle, but to amplify unheard voices. Imagine a media that focuses not just on high-profile tragedies, but on the countless injustices that go unnoticed every day. Imagine reels that explain court verdicts, not just crime theories. That is not just possible it’s necessary.

The media still has the power to ignite conversations, drive reform, and restore trust. It can make us feel again, think again, care again.

CONCLUSION: A MIRROR OR A MASK?

The question was simple: Justice or Sensationalism?

But the answer, like most things in the media age, isn’t.

What began as a powerful force for truth has slowly blurred into performance, into pressure, into curated chaos. The Indian media no longer just reports crime—it often rewrites it, repackages it, replays it. And in that endless loop, something sacred is lost: the clarity of justice.

We’ve seen how the media once gave voice to the voiceless.

And we’ve seen what happens when that voice becomes noise.

Today, a murder isn’t just investigated—it’s performed.

A tragedy isn’t mourned—it’s monetized.

Truth isn’t discovered—it’s designed.

But this isn't just about news anchors and journalists.

This is about us the watchers, the sharers, the silent scrollers.

So ask yourself—

When you double-tap a post about someone’s death, when you forward a theory, when you binge reels about a grieving family—

Are you seeking justice? Or are you feeding the spectacle?

Because in the end, justice doesn’t live in breaking news.

It lives in what we choose to believe, what we demand, and what we protect.

The media will keep evolving. The algorithms will keep adapting. But the real question remains:

Will we?

.    .    .