There is something deeply amusing about watching the Left-liberal ecosystem discover workplace ethics.
For years, the same ecosystem has positioned itself as the ultimate moral authority on journalism, feminism, institutional accountability, sexual harassment and victims’ rights. It has lectured politicians, actors, journalists and editors about believing women, respecting survivors and dismantling “toxic” workplace cultures.
And then came Newslaundry.
Suddenly, the sermon has become an uncomfortable mirror.
The controversy surrounding Newslaundry and its co-founder Abhinandan Sekhri is not merely another episode in India’s media wars. It raises a much more uncomfortable question: what happens when people who have spent years presenting themselves as custodians of journalistic ethics are forced to confront allegations and testimonies about the culture inside their own newsroom?
The answer, at least for now, is that some of their ideological comrades have discovered accountability.
But here is the problem: do not mistake their outrage at Newslaundry for solidarity with you.
They are not suddenly going to become champions of victims they ordinarily dismiss. They are calling out Newslaundry because defending it has become increasingly difficult.
And there is a difference.
It took a court conviction to make Newslaundry confront its past
The immediate trigger was the Bombay High Court’s recent conviction of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case. The court overturned his earlier acquittal and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment.
That inevitably brought renewed attention to Newslaundry’s relationship with Tejpal and, more importantly, to a 2014 article published by Nirupama Sekhri, sister of Abhinandan Sekhri.
The article, “Letter To Ms Tehelka-Assault-Victim”, directly questioned the woman who accused Tejpal and used deeply condescending language to describe her. It said Nirupama Sekhri did not consider her a victim, except of what she called “bubblegum feminism”, while portraying Tejpal as a victim of public fury.
This was not some anonymous social-media post. It was published by Newslaundry.
The publication later removed the article, saying its values had evolved and the piece no longer reflected its standards.
That is an admission of sorts.
But the question remains: why did it take more than a decade, the #MeToo movement, changing attitudes towards sexual assault and eventually a court conviction to arrive at that conclusion?
More importantly, what else was happening inside the organisation while Newslaundry presented itself as a fearless crusader against institutional wrongdoing?
That is where the story becomes considerably more uncomfortable.
Former employees have raised serious allegations
Former Newslaundry employees have come forward with their own accounts.
Sumedha Mittal publicly raised questions about how complaints of sexual harassment within the newsroom were handled. Priyanka Ishwari alleged that a senior journalist screamed at women editors and threatened one of them during work calls.
Then came Sayantan Ghosh, who said he joined Newslaundry as a trainee journalist in 2016 and described his experience as an “extremely toxic” workplace. He alleged that Abhinandan Sekhri used deeply hurtful and abusive language towards employees.
Ghosh specifically rejected the argument that such behaviour was simply “normal” in journalism. He said he had worked at other newsrooms, including The New Indian Express and The Telegraph, where he recalled being treated respectfully.
He also described an incident after writing a story concerning Section 66A in which, according to his account, the abuse became so severe that he fled Delhi and returned to Kolkata.
Whether every allegation is ultimately established is a matter for evidence and due process.
But one principle should be obvious:
A newsroom that routinely investigates allegations against others cannot demand a different evidentiary standard when allegations concern itself.
These allegations should be investigated, not dismissed because they are politically inconvenient.
And then came the Left’s great awakening
As criticism of Newslaundry intensified, several prominent voices from the same ideological ecosystem began criticising it.
Barkha Dutt warned against journalistic “god complexes”.
Anusha Ravi Sood described abusive language as a longstanding newsroom problem and expressed sympathy for Ghosh.
Rohini Singh described his experience as terrible and scarring.
There is nothing wrong with any of this.
If someone is abused or harassed at work, they deserve sympathy. If a newsroom has a toxic culture, it deserves scrutiny. If a senior journalist allegedly abuses subordinates, that behaviour should be condemned.
The problem is not that these people are criticising Newslaundry.
The problem is that their moral consistency has historically been selective.
The Left-liberal ecosystem does not have a monopoly on feminism, compassion or victimhood. It does not get to decide which victims deserve solidarity.
The skeletons are now tumbling out of the ivory towers
Just as the Newslaundry controversy exposed the gap between the Left-liberal media establishment’s public sermons and its internal realities, another account emerged from another prominent media organisation.
On Monday, August 10, former ThePrint employee Angana Chakrabarti took to X to describe what she alleged was a deeply toxic workplace culture at the organisation under Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta.
Her account must be treated as an allegation and judged on its merits. But the timing is difficult to ignore.
Chakrabarti described ThePrint as “so very, very toxic” and alleged that the newsroom was constantly anxious about what Gupta thought. She claimed employees were discouraged from interacting beyond work, that editors bent themselves to accommodate his preferences and that mentorship and collegiality were lacking.
She further alleged that she was pushed out after being sent to the Northeast under what she described as impossible conditions, and that someone was later hired to monitor “productivity”.
She described a culture in which work was extracted from employees while they were made to feel like “parasites” for asking for anything in return. She also alleged that former colleagues faced threats of salary cuts and that ex-employees were denied letters of recommendation.
Again, these are allegations. They require verification, investigation and a response from the organisation.
But there is a larger story.
When allegations from former employees emerge from multiple institutions that have spent years positioning themselves as moral arbiters of journalism, perhaps the industry should stop treating workplace toxicity as something that only happens in somebody else’s newsroom.
Where was this moral clarity when the victim was ideologically inconvenient?
Think about the broader pattern.
When the victim is politically useful to the Left, she becomes a symbol of resistance.
When the accused is ideologically hostile, every allegation becomes an opportunity for moral grandstanding.
But when the victim belongs to the political camp they dislike, the language changes.
Suddenly, credibility becomes negotiable. Context becomes important. Motives are questioned. We are told that things are “complicated”.
Sandeshkhali was instructive. Women publicly alleged sexual harassment and intimidation by local Trinamool Congress strongmen. There were subsequently competing allegations about political manipulation, including claims that women were pressured to file or withdraw complaints.
The principled position should have been simple: investigate every allegation, protect every complainant, punish every guilty person and do not weaponise victims for political purposes.
Instead, much of the discourse became about which political side the victims belonged to.
That is not feminism.
That is tribalism.
The same contradiction was visible in the treatment of Smriti Irani, who was subjected to vicious political and personal attacks, including misogynistic commentary. During the 2024 election campaign, Kangana Ranaut was also targeted by an objectionable, sexualised social-media post.
The principle should have been straightforward:
Don’t sexualise women because you disagree with them.
Not: Don’t sexualise women unless they are BJP supporters.
The former is feminism. The latter is political convenience.
Arnab Goswami and the selective outrage problem
The 2020 Kunal Kamra–Arnab Goswami episode offers another illustration of selective outrage.
To be clear, this was not a workplace-harassment case. Kamra and Goswami were not colleagues.
But it demonstrated how public humiliation of a journalist could be celebrated when the target was politically disliked.
Kamra confronted and heckled Goswami on an IndiGo flight from Mumbai to Lucknow, filmed the encounter and uploaded it online. IndiGo suspended him from flying for six months, while other airlines also imposed restrictions.
One can debate whether those bans were proportionate. One can debate the aviation regulations. But the basic principle should remain intact:
You do not get to decide that harassment, intimidation or public humiliation is unacceptable only when the target is someone you like.
Arnab’s journalism can be criticised. His editorial choices can be attacked. His political positions can be dismantled.
But cornering someone on an aircraft, where they cannot simply walk away, and turning the encounter into entertainment should not become heroic simply because the target is politically disliked.
That is the hypocrisy.
The outrage against Newslaundry is not necessarily a moral awakening
This is the most important distinction.
There is a temptation among people on the Right and Centre-Right to celebrate when Left-wing journalists turn against one of their own.
Yes, there is something satisfying about watching people who have spent years lecturing everyone else about workplace morality being forced to confront allegations concerning their ideological fellow travellers.
But do not confuse satisfaction with solidarity.
Their outrage against Newslaundry today does not guarantee that the next woman alleging harassment by someone ideologically aligned with the Left will receive the same sympathy.
It does not mean the next BJP worker describing intimidation will become a feminist icon.
And it certainly does not mean ideological double standards have disappeared.
The answer, therefore, is not to oppose criticism of Newslaundry.
It is to demand consistency.
If Newslaundry deserves scrutiny, scrutinise Newslaundry. If former employees have raised concerns, examine them. If complaints were mishandled, hold those responsible accountable. If allegations are false, the accused deserve due process.
The same standard must apply to ThePrint.
If Angana Chakrabarti’s allegations are true, they deserve to be taken seriously. If they are disputed, ThePrint and Shekhar Gupta deserve the opportunity to respond.
The principle cannot be: believe former employees when they accuse people we dislike and dismiss them when they accuse people we like.
That is not justice.
That is factionalism.
The real problem is moral exceptionalism
The deeper disease in Indian journalism is not merely ideological bias. It is moral exceptionalism.
Newsrooms love investigating everyone except themselves.
Journalists demand accountability from politicians while resisting scrutiny of their own institutions. Editors lecture corporations about workplace culture while dismissing complaints from junior employees. Commentators write about sexism while laughing at misogynistic jokes against women they dislike.
Newslaundry’s predicament is therefore bigger than Newslaundry. ThePrint allegations make it bigger still.
The question is whether journalists believe in universal standards or merely standards that can be deployed against their enemies.
If sexual harassment is wrong, it is wrong when the accused is a BJP leader, Congress leader, TMC leader, celebrity, professor, journalist or newsroom founder.
If workplace abuse is unacceptable, it is unacceptable whether the boss is a Modi supporter or Modi critic.
If victim-blaming is reprehensible, it remains reprehensible when the victim votes for the BJP.
And if due process matters, it must matter even when the accused is politically convenient.
Your editorial line is not your character certificate
There is a particularly delicious irony here.
The media ecosystem that lectures Indian society about patriarchy, power structures, toxic masculinity and institutional accountability has spent years portraying itself as the enlightened alternative.
Fine.
Then hold it to that standard.
If a conventional newspaper has a toxic boss, expose it. If a television newsroom abuses junior employees, expose it. If a digital publication does the same, expose it.
But do not give the “progressive” newsroom a presumption of moral superiority simply because its journalists write about feminism or criticise the government.
An organisation does not become feminist because it publishes feminist articles.
A newsroom does not become progressive because its journalists criticise the government.
And a media house does not become ethical because it investigates the ethics of other media houses.
Your editorial line is not your character certificate. Your conduct towards your employees is.
Do not outsource your morality to the Left
So yes, call out Newslaundry.
Call out the 2014 article. Call out victim-blaming. Call out allegations of workplace harassment. Ask difficult questions of Abhinandan Sekhri and Newslaundry.
And now ask ThePrint the same questions. Take Angana Chakrabarti’s allegations seriously enough to demand answers, while recognising that allegations must still be established through evidence and due process.
But do not outsource your moral compass to people whose outrage may follow ideological convenience.
You do not need Barkha Dutt to tell you workplace abuse is wrong.
You do not need Rohini Singh to tell you employees deserve dignity.
You do not need Newslaundry to teach you feminism.
And you certainly do not need the Left to validate the suffering of someone who happens to be politically inconvenient to them.
Stand with victims because they are victims.
Demand accountability because accountability is necessary.
Defend due process because due process is universal.
Condemn misogyny because misogyny is wrong.
Not because the victim belongs to your camp. Not because the accused belongs to the other camp. And not because the controversy gives you another weapon against your political opponents.
That is the difference between principle and propaganda.
Newslaundry is now being forced to confront what happens when an institution that spent years examining everybody else’s moral failures is itself placed under the microscope. ThePrint is facing questions of its own.
The answer should not be another round of ideological warfare.
It should be accountability.
Because the real test of morality is not whether you can condemn your enemy.
The real test is whether you can condemn your own.
The real test is whether you can stand with a victim when she is politically inconvenient. Whether you can condemn misogyny when the target is Smriti Irani or Kangana Ranaut. Whether you can listen to a former Newslaundry employee even when you agree with Newslaundry’s politics. Whether you can listen to a former ThePrint employee even when you admire Shekhar Gupta.
And whether your principles survive the moment your political tribe becomes the accused.
If they don’t, they were never principles.
They were merely weapons.
Yes, Newslaundry should answer. Yes, former employees should be heard. Yes, allegations should be investigated.
But no, you do not need to applaud the Left for finally discovering workplace harassment.
The lesson is not to trust the Left more. It is to trust principles more than tribes.
Do not believe someone because they are Left-wing. Do not disbelieve someone because they are Right-wing. Do not defend an accused person because they are ideologically aligned with you. Do not condemn someone merely because they oppose you.
Never let a political label determine whether harassment is harassment, whether misogyny is misogyny or whether a victim deserves to be heard.
The Left has spent years demanding that the rest of society confront its hypocrisy.
Fair enough. Now the mirror is facing them.
Let them answer.
And if their outrage at Newslaundry is genuine, it should survive beyond this news cycle, beyond ideological convenience and beyond the next politically useful target.
Otherwise, it is not accountability.
It is merely sabki dhulai se pehle apni bhi dhulai, followed by the same old hypocrisy once the headlines move on.
