News is no longer produced only in newsrooms. Narratives are no longer shaped only by journalists. Public opinion is no longer formed through established institutions. Today, a social media account can influence debate, trigger outrage, spread misinformation or challenge authority with a reach that once belonged exclusively to major media organisations. As the government prepares a new media policy for Jammu and Kashmir, it faces a question far larger than regulation itself: can accountability be enforced without placing public discourse under watch?
That question matters because social media has fundamentally altered the relationship between power and information. Governments no longer control the pace of communication. Official statements compete with rumours, videos, anonymous posts and citizen-generated content. Information travels instantly, often reaching thousands before authorities have an opportunity to verify or respond. The result is an environment where facts and falsehoods frequently share the same space.
The concerns driving the proposed policy are not without basis and the spread of misinformation has become a serious challenge across democracies. False claims can generate panic, distort public understanding and damage reputations. Organised trolling and coordinated online campaigns can drown out meaningful debate. The absence of accountability on many platforms often allows abuse to flourish without consequence. No responsible administration can ignore these realities.
Yet the challenge lies in ensuring that the cure does not become more problematic than the disease.
Attempts to regulate information often begin with legitimate concerns but gradually expand into broader controls over expression. What starts as a campaign against misinformation can end up creating uncertainty about criticism, dissent or uncomfortable questions. The line separating regulation from control is thin, and once crossed, difficult to redraw.
That is why the government’s approach must be guided by precision rather than broad authority. The policy should clearly define what constitutes misinformation, impersonation, coordinated abuse or harmful content. Vague provisions leave room for differing interpretations and selective enforcement. Citizens cannot be expected to comply with rules that are unclear, inconsistently applied or open-ended in scope.
The debate also demands a recognition of a basic democratic principle: criticism of government is not a threat to governance. Social media has undoubtedly amplified misinformation, but it has also expanded public participation. It has enabled citizens to highlight administrative failures, raise local concerns and hold institutions accountable in real time. Many issues that once struggled to receive attention now find visibility through digital platforms.
Equally important is transparency and any mechanism that seeks to regulate content must itself be subject to scrutiny. Decisions affecting online expression should not be hidden behind bureaucratic processes. Clear procedures, publicly known standards and avenues for review are essential. Accountability cannot be demanded from citizens while remaining absent in the institutions enforcing it.
The government must also acknowledge a reality that regulation alone cannot solve the problem. Misinformation survives because it finds willing audiences. People share content without verification. Rumours spread because digital literacy has not kept pace with technological change. A durable solution requires investment in media literacy, public awareness campaigns and independent fact-checking mechanisms. Educating citizens to identify misleading information is far more effective than relying solely on punitive measures.
The proposed media policy therefore represents more than an administrative exercise. It is a test of how the government understands the digital age. The objective should not be to manage public opinion or supervise online conversations. It should be to create a framework where accountability exists without fear, where misinformation is challenged without restricting legitimate expression, and where public trust becomes the foundation of regulation.
The success of the policy will not be measured by the number of rules it contains. It will be measured by whether citizens believe those rules protect the public interest rather than governmental convenience.
