Accreditation, income source, following: Government mulls parameters to distinguish bona fide journalists from influencers

Journalistic accreditation is a formal way of recognising people who genuinely practise journalism. The article links it to deciding who should receive access or privileges associated with journalistic work. It matters because simply carrying a camera or phone does not automatically make someone a bona fide journalist.

The government is considering whether accreditation requests in the digital space should be assessed using clear criteria. If approved, recognised journalists could retain additional access that ordinary citizens may not receive, especially while covering protests or police action. The article does not list a fixed set of privileges.

Any such access would still operate within the law. The article says all citizens retain basic rights, while restrictions may apply to what they film or where they go. The proposed system could therefore separate citizen filming from the extra access granted to journalists who meet rationally defined standards.

The proposed criteria aim to distinguish bona fide digital journalists from influencers who describe themselves as journalists. The discussions are still at an early stage, so no final test has been announced. The purpose is to decide who should receive journalistic accreditation and related access.

Ideas under consideration include making journalism the person’s primary source of income. Officials may also examine whether a YouTube channel or portal claims to be engaged in journalism. A basic level of following is another possible requirement. These factors would be used for digital accreditation requests.

The government’s concern grew after many influencers filmed protests, police action, detentions, and slogans. Some detainees also said they were journalists and were being stopped from working. The proposed parameters are intended to prevent large numbers of people with informal identification cards from claiming privileges automatically, although the article stresses that the framework remains under discussion.

The concern covers the last three months described in the article. It began with the July protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party against the NEET-UG paper leak. During this period, influencers and student protesters produced many videos from protest sites.

The reels showed slogans, police action, detentions, and events at locations including Jantar Mantar. Some videos went viral and shaped perceptions of public anger and police conduct. The rapid spread of this material made short-form social media video different from the government’s earlier focus on television and print media.

The government is now considering digital accreditation parameters, but discussions remain at an early stage. The article presents the protests and the following three-month surge of reels as the immediate background. It does not give a precise number of videos or a separate timeline for how long the reels remained online.

The government is examining how to identify bona fide digital journalists and decide who receives additional access. Journalists want to report events, while influencers also film and publish protest content, sometimes claiming journalistic status. This overlap has created concern about who can legitimately use journalistic privileges.

Student protesters and influencers recorded slogans, police action, detentions, and protest-site events. Some detainees insisted they were journalists and said they were being stopped from doing their work. Police appear in the debate because videos showed their action against protesters, while authorities are considering limits on filming or access under the law.

Bona fide journalists could feel restricted if large numbers of influencers pose as journalists, the article says. The government therefore may route digital accreditation requests through new criteria. The proposal is not final, and the article presents it as an effort to respond to the political and media impact of viral protest videos.

If only accredited journalists receive additional access, protest coverage could become more controlled. People without accreditation might still retain ordinary citizen rights, but they could lose access that recognised journalists receive because of their work. This distinction matters most at protests, detentions, and locations where authorities restrict movement or filming.

For example, an influencer with a camera could remain able to record where the law permits, but might not enter a restricted area or receive the same access as an accredited journalist. The article says access could be limited to people accepted as bona fide journalists under rationally defined criteria. It does not specify the exact places or privileges affected.

The change could reduce confusion between professional journalists and influencers. However, its practical effect would depend on the criteria and how authorities apply them. The government is only considering the proposal, and discussions are still in their early stages.

The article draws a line between rights held by every citizen and extra access associated with journalism. Basic rights are not supposed to depend on accreditation. They apply to citizens generally, including people who record or share material when the law allows it.

Additional journalistic access is different. Authorities may decide where people can go or what they can film under the law, while recognised journalists may receive access connected to their professional role. The article does not name specific privileges, but it says these should not automatically extend to everyone carrying a camera or mobile phone.

This distinction is central to the proposed digital accreditation system. Officials want rational criteria for deciding who is a bona fide journalist. The government’s concern is that influencers using identification cards may claim access, while genuine journalists may feel restricted. No final rules have been announced.

Journalism and influencer content can both use cameras and social media, but they are not automatically the same activity. Journalism generally means reporting events as professional work, while personal commentary or influencer content may focus more on opinion, reaction, promotion, or audience engagement. The article says this boundary has become difficult to identify online.

During the protests, influencers made videos, coined slogans, and recorded police action. Some videos included cuss words, while others showed detentions or protesters’ claims. These reels circulated widely and led to perceptions of widespread anger and heavy-handed policing. Their reach gave them an influence different from traditional television and print coverage.

The distinction matters because access and privileges may depend on professional status. It also matters because viral videos can affect perceptions of government conduct inside and outside India. The government is considering criteria, but the article does not establish a final definition of journalism or a completed accreditation system.