A recent statement by The Wire ‘journalist’ Arfa Khanum Sherwani has seemingly exposed her hypocrisy after she asserted during a panel discussion that journalists are “never supposed to be neutral” and must function as the “permanent opposition.”
“We are supposed to be anti-establishment. No matter what political party comes to power, we are sitting in opposition always… I never ever pretend to be a neutral journalist,” Sherwani said, adding that journalists must consistently side with “the people, the Constitution, and citizens’ freedoms.”
Irony Commited Suicide!
Arfa says Journalists are never supposed to be Neutral, they are anti-establishment.
Has @khanumarfa forgot her History?
When Hamid Ansari was Vice-President, Arfa was enjoying big salary in Rajya Sabha TV running agenda of Congress Govt.
She stayed in… pic.twitter.com/DzL3rH7RBd
— Ankur Singh (@iAnkurSingh) December 11, 2025
Following her remarks, critics questioned whether this self-description aligns with her professional history. Sherwani’s LinkedIn profile identify her as a founding member of Rajya Sabha TV (RSTV), the television channel run by the upper house of Parliament.
The channel was launched in 2011, and Sherwani remained there until around 2017–18. This period coincides almost entirely with the tenure of Vice President Hamid Ansari, who served as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha from August 2007 to August 2017.
Opponents argue that if Sherwani defines journalism as permanent opposition to the establishment, her long stint at a government-controlled channel during the UPA era raises questions.
The Central Questions: Who is the “Establishment”?
The debate crystallizes around two interlinked questions:
Does her “anti‑establishment” stance imply support for the current opposition Congress party? If a journalist’s duty is permanent opposition to the party in power, then logically, during the UPA era (when Sherwani was at RSTV), the “establishment” was the Congress‑led government. By her own current definition, an anti‑establishment journalist at that time would have been expected to be in opposition to the UPA.
Did her professional role at a state‑run broadcaster align with being “anti‑establishment”? Critics allege her high‑profile, salaried position at RSTV, a channel whose editorial line was seen by many as sympathetic to the ruling coalition, contradicts her current self‑portrayal as a permanent outsider.
Political commentators claim the contradiction undercuts the moral certainty she asserts in her remarks. Supporters counter that institutional roles do not invalidate principled positions.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.