Chitra Subramaniam, co-founder of The News Minute—often dubbed “TN Murasoli” for functioning as the DMK’s unofficial mouthpiece—stepping in to buttress DMK spokesperson ‘Melting Point’ Saravanan is a textbook case of how a self‑styled guardian of ethics can weaponise “media critique” selectively to shield her favourite political camp while ignoring far more serious abuses closer home.
What happened On TV
A live national television debate on Times Now descended into farce after DMK spokesperson ‘Melting Point’ Saravanan responded to a pointed political question not with facts or argument, but with an extended burst of loud, weird ghostly laughter that stunned fellow panelists and left the studio momentarily frozen.
The exchange occurred during a discussion on language politics and alleged “Hindi imposition.” As BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla pressed Saravanan on the ideological roots of the DMK’s cultural rhetoric, specifically the political context of Parasakthi, who was in power during the alleged imposition period, and why the DMK is today allied with the Congress, Saravanan offered no answer.
Instead, he abruptly broke into a prolonged, high decibel laugh, repeating it for several seconds, visibly rattled. Other panellists looked on in disbelief as the moderator failed to regain control of the discussion, amplifying the surreal nature of the moment.
Nothing more satisfying than seeing @arivalayam spokesperson getting roasted and exposed on national media by @Shehzad_Ind ! Do watch pic.twitter.com/NBelyWtpds
— Vinoj P Selvam (@VinojBJP) February 1, 2026
Earlier in the debate, Saravanan had complained that he was “upset” about being invited to an English-language discussion where Hindi was spoken, calling it an “everyday nuisance.” Notably, the theatrical laughter erupted precisely when he was confronted with a direct contradiction involving the DMK’s alliance politics.
The clip quickly went viral, with viewers describing the episode as an on-air meltdown rather than debate – an attempt to drown out an inconvenient line of questioning through sheer noise.
What Did Saravanan Share?
He shared a 3-minute clipping of the same debate minus the noisy laughter episode and wrote, “Goel or Goebbels! If there’s a competition between them, we will not be able to predict the winner. Nepo Kid @PiyushGoyal who has ground our manufacturing is speaking about the competence of our DMK govt. Skill India program is tangled in 10,000 crore scam but gives us gyaan about corruption. BJP thy name hypocrisy.”
Goel or Goebbels!
If there’s a competition between them, we will not be able to predict the winner.
Nepo Kid @PiyushGoyal who has ground our manufacturing is speaking about the competence of our DMK govt.
Skill India program is tangled in 10,000 crore scam but gives us… pic.twitter.com/6V9pu6qrNI
— Saravanan Annadurai (@saravofcl) February 1, 2026
Chitra Subramaniam Rushes to Defend, Selectively
Enter Chitra Subramaniam, co-founder of the Leftist-Dravidianist rag The News Minute, who rushed to defend Saravanan by attacking the television channel instead.
Sharing Saravanan’s post, she wrote, “Here’s an example of how arrogant our English networks are… Your mediocrity stands exposed. Try and get your basics right. Journalism is a public good.”
On cue, she jumps in, not to ask why a major regional party’s spokesperson can’t handle a basic question, but to lecture Times Now on “arrogant English networks” and praise Saravanan.
For someone who claims to be a free speech advocate, what was conspicuously absent was any criticism of Saravanan’s conduct -no concern about evading questions, no comment on replacing debate with theatrics, and no discomfort with a spokesperson turning a national platform into a spectacle.
Chitra Subramaniam’s sudden discovery of journalistic ethics appears to activate only when the DMK or its spokespersons are embarrassed.
Her record remains silent when BJP Youth Wing Tamil Nadu State President SG Suryah was assaulted by DMK cadres masquerading as journalists. There was no public condemnation when journalists were allegedly kidnapped and thrashed by a DMK MLA and his associates for reporting on illegal quarrying. Those incidents, it seems, did not merit lectures on “journalism as a public good.”
Yet when a DMK spokesperson makes a spectacle of himself on national television, she is quick to frame it as media arrogance rather than political evasion.
The News Minute And The Question Of Credibility
The irony deepens when one considers The News Minute’s own journalistic record. The portal has repeatedly been accused of running unverified or recycled stories as fresh “exposés,” including controversial reporting on Dharmasthala that lacked substantiation and was never withdrawn or corrected.
More recently, TNM drew widespread condemnation for repackaging an old court case involving entrepreneur Sridhar Vembu as a new revelation – an exercise seen as clickbait rather than evidence-based.
For a publication frequently behaving as a DMK-friendly echo chamber, sometimes as its mouthpiece and becoming TN Murasoli often, lectures on “mediocrity” and “basics of journalism” land hollow.
Adding to the contradiction is Chitra Subramaniam’s own social-media practice: championing free speech while keeping replies disabled on her posts. The irony of condemning journalists for language barriers while refusing to engage with dissenting voices altogether was not lost.
From Bofors To Blind Spots
Chitra Subramaniam’s legacy reporting on Bofors once earned her respect. But that legacy cannot indefinitely shield present conduct. Her trajectory from exposing one of India’s biggest scandals to defending a ruling party spokesperson who collapsed into laughter when questioned represents a full circle very few would have imagined.
The episode raises a larger question: when partisan loyalty begins to dictate who deserves outrage and who deserves silence, can the claim of journalistic neutrality survive?
For many watching this debate and its aftermath, Saravanan’s laughter was embarrassing. But what followed, the instinctive, selective defence from sections of the media, may have been even more revealing.
In the end, the spectacle was not just about a spokesperson who laughed instead of answering. It was about how quickly certain commentators abandoned principles the moment those principles threatened their preferred politics.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
