We may lack the reach of big media houses, but we have something stronger — the trust of readers who know that asking questions is not blackmail and accountability is not hostility.

 

Journalism was never meant to be comfortable. It was never designed to please the powerful, protect corporate interests, shield bureaucratic inefficiency, or remain silent when citizens are wronged. Its sole purpose is to serve the public interest. That is exactly what we have tried to do.

Over the past week, we published a series of reports highlighting serious concerns in the implementation of the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana in Odisha and the disturbing indifference shown by a discom in addressing consumer grievances, including cases of erroneous electricity billing. Before and after publication, we repeatedly sought clarification from the concerned authorities. Our emails, messages and questions were met with silence.

We accepted that.

What we did not expect was a sudden flood of emails accusing us of writing these stories to "blackmail" the discom or pursue some hidden agenda. More than ten such emails, carrying strikingly similar allegations, landed in our inbox within a short period. The pattern was impossible to miss.

We are not interested in guessing who sent them. But we owe our readers a clear response.

This is not the first time uncomfortable journalism has attracted hostility.

Four years ago, we exposed irregularities in electricity meter reading and billing practices. The findings were questioned then too. Yet the issue eventually resulted in corrective measures, and consumers received rebates for billing errors. The truth prevailed. Thousands benefited.

But when that happened, there were no congratulatory messages. No appreciation. No acknowledgement.

That is often how journalism works.

When journalists expose a problem, they become the problem.

We have also faced attempts by corporate entities to influence editorial decisions. The logic was simple: because they advertised with us, we should seek their approval before publishing reports that reflected negatively on them — even when every fact was accurate.

We refused then. We refuse now.

Advertising can support journalism. It cannot control it. The day a newsroom starts seeking permission from advertisers before publishing facts is the day journalism dies and public relations takes its place.

We did not create this platform to be a cheerleader for corporate houses, government agencies or vested interests. We did not build it to exchange favourable coverage for financial support. We built it to tell the truth — especially when the truth is inconvenient.

Independent journalism is not easy. The pressure to conform is constant. The incentives to stay silent are many. Support disappears when facts become uncomfortable.

But let us make one thing absolutely clear:

We would rather lose advertisements than lose credibility. We would rather face financial hardship than sell our editorial independence. We would rather shut down this newsroom than embrace yellow journalism for a few extra rupees.

Because once a newsroom compromises its principles, it ceases to be a newsroom. It becomes a marketplace where truth is traded for convenience.

We may not have the reach of large media networks or the influence that comes with powerful connections. But we possess something far more valuable — the trust of readers who understand that asking questions is not blackmail, accountability is not hostility, and truth does not become false merely because it makes someone uncomfortable. To those readers, we remain deeply grateful.

As long as we have the courage and resources to continue, we will keep asking difficult questions. We will continue to report stories that matter. We will continue to stand with consumers, taxpayers and ordinary citizens whose voices are too often ignored.

We cannot promise perfection. But we can promise honesty.

And in an age where truth is increasingly challenged, that promise matters more than ever.

If defending the public interest comes at a price, we are prepared to pay it.

Because journalism that fears consequences is not journalism at all.