On 8 October the IT ministry sent platforms an advisory asking for 'enhanced diligence' on false, altered or out-of-context posts about ongoing public events, and priority for complaints from authorised government agencies. It came as protests over the electoral roll revision and the Chief Election Commissioner grew in Delhi, and digital rights groups called for it to be withdrawn.
Why it matters: Affects what social media users see about the protests, and whose complaints are reviewed first.
Why it matters: How India's voter rolls are revised decides who can vote in 2027; the dispute has moved from the Election Commission to the courts, the streets and diplomacy.
Based on 6 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 0 of 15. Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.
Grouped by stance: most articles score near the centre, but they split between straight reporting of the advisory, critiques of its scope, and official framing.
Why: Broke the advisory text. Analysis stresses vague terms, platforms judging 'misleading' content and no checks. Sceptical of state power over speech, but measured in tone.
Why: Built almost entirely on IFF's critique. Frames the advisory as a threat to protest speech. No ministry response. Strong civil-liberties framing.
Why: Straight report that also flags undefined terms, no stated penalties and scope beyond the February IT Rules. Places it within the protest context. Mild civil-liberties scepticism.
Why: Plain account of the advisory's contents from the text and unnamed sources. No outside voices either way. Official-event rule applies.
Why: Wire copy based on unnamed officials. Centres the government's public-order concerns and uses hedged wording. No critics quoted, but no praise either.
Why: Public broadcaster. Presents the advisory as protecting social harmony and repeats the ministry's free-speech assurance. Gives only the official side of a contested measure, with no protest context.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: [name to be added before launch]. Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: [name and contact to be added before launch]. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days.
[Who owns and funds Nazariya, to be published before launch]. Nazariya will list every funder and will not accept money from any political party.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: [appeals email to be added before launch].
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.