The CAA and the Eroded Public Sphere: A Media Content Analysis through Chomsky and Habermas | Sunit Singh and Anjali Sidhwani

This article argues that the selected Indian media outlets have failed to develop a public sphere in the Habermasian sense [1], where rational-critical debate among private individuals about matters of public concern can flourish. Instead, the media landscape is marked by the reproduction of pre-established narratives, emotional framing, and ideological reinforcement. Drawing on Chomsky’s propaganda model, the paper demonstrates how the media has employed tactics such as selective language, visual manipulation, and repeated messaging to manufacture consent. Through content analysis of media coverage surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the study reveals how public discourse has been shaped not through deliberation but through strategic framing. The CAA is used as a case example to explore how media narratives marginalise alternative viewpoints and contribute to the erosion of democratic dialogue. [2]

The content analysis that we have done, of more than 100 news articles, editorials, TV debates, and social media posts, shows that the language used is not neutral. Rather, it is carefully crafted to generate emotional responses and to manufacture consent. News channels use specific words and phrases to influence public opinion either in favour of or against the ruling party. Words such as “historic reform”, “protection of persecuted minorities”, and “providing a new lease of life” are frequently used to frame the CAA as a positive policy initiative. The repeated use of phrases like “strengthening India’s secular fabric” attempts to legitimise the act, even when the exclusions it contains are not addressed.

These popular phrases are reiterated again and again through social media and news platforms. This creates a sense among the public that they understand the act, but in reality, they are only repeating what they have heard. As we have shown in our research, this has created a false consciousness of knowing everything about CAA that the media has created by posting the same popular narrative again and again, but in reality, they are not aware of the provisions, reasons for protest, and shortcomings.

The language used in many articles does not question why certain religious minorities, such as the Rohingyas or Tamil Muslims from Sri Lanka, have been excluded. It does not engage with the complexities of the act. Instead, these exclusions are ignored. One of the articles even labelled opposing viewpoints as a “historical mistake” while portraying the CAA as a necessary and positive reform. This kind of language does not allow for a two-sided debate or the expression of dissent. Rather than asking the question to the political leaders, newspapers print their words as it is said by the politicians in the newspaper. This portrayal of the headline already has established that the CAA is a positive reform rather than inquiring about it.

The selective use of terms like “non-Muslims” or “Gair Muslim” further reflects the communal framing of the act. The deliberate choice of such words shows how a particular narrative is pushed through media to portray that the act does not concern Muslims or that they are outsiders. The content of these articles tries to present the opinion that no Muslim is impacted by the CAA or will be impacted, but our respondents who identified themselves as Muslims saw CAA as a threat to their identity. These lines show one side’s opinion regarding the CAA.

Hence, the media in India, instead of offering a platform for rational and inclusive debate, has become a tool for framing and ideological reinforcement, confirming Chomsky’s (1988) idea of the propaganda model. According to Chomsky, the media works through several filters — ownership, advertising, sourcing of information, flak, and ideological control — which shape what is published and how it is published. This is evident in our analysis. Media houses do not question political statements. They repeat them. Opposition voices are limited. Articles present the government’s line without critical engagement.

Visual representation is another powerful tool used by media houses. As we have shown through our analysis, the use of images of Hindu refugees in camps, combined with emotional headlines, attempts to generate sympathy and present the act as humanitarian. On the other hand, images of protestors, particularly Muslims, are used to associate the protest with communal unrest. The use of constant memes has contributed to shaping a certain narrative against the protestors. Even though not all protestors are Muslims, media coverage tends to portray the protests as primarily Muslim-related.

Additionally, issues like the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Ram Mandir, and religious reservation are clubbed with the CAA to depict it as a reform meant only for Hindus. This way of framing builds a singular narrative, thereby dismissing the plural and secular foundation of Indian citizenship. We can see in the popular Instagram memes how the Prime Minister is shown as a saviour or Lord Rama and Hindus, reflecting the broader trend of politicised and polarised social media strategies employed by Indian political actors (Mahapatra & Plagemann, 2019)

Campaigns like missed calls and videos from influential spiritual figures have been used to build support. These tactics, which appear on various platforms, are not for deliberation but for emotional mobilisation. It shows how the media not only informs public opinion but also actively shapes and constructs it.

Hence, based on the content analysis of language and visuals, and the way narratives are shaped through repetition, selective reporting, and emotional framing, it is evident that India has not developed a public sphere. Instead of rational debate, we have ideological polarisation. Instead of multiple viewpoints, we have one-sided narratives. Instead of informed opinion, we have manufactured consent. The media, as our analysis has shown, has played a major role in constructing these narratives and suppressing alternatives. This is not the sign of a functioning public sphere, but of a controlled and filtered media space.

(Authors: Sunit Singh and Anjali Sidhwani, MA Students, Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi)

References

• Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.
• Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books