A recent report by The News Minute (TNM) on the shooting of a cow protector near Hyderabad has drawn sharp criticism for its choice of language and apparent bias in framing the incident. The article, shared on X by TNM’s editor Dhanya Rajendran with the caption, “Cattle transporter shoots cow vigilante near Hyderabad, arrested,” has been called out for portraying the accused and the victim in questionable terms that seem to invert the moral framing of the case.
The incident took place in Pocharam, near Hyderabad, on 22 October 2025, when Prashant, also known as Sonu Singh, a member of the Gau Raksha Dal, was shot and injured by Ibrahim, a man allegedly involved in illegal cattle transport.
Their article reads, “According to the Rachakonda Commissioner, Prashant had been in contact with Ibrahim since July 26. He said that Ibrahim had been booked for alleged illegal cattle transports six different times based on complaints from Prashant. “Prashant had notified Ibrahim on many occasions that he was tracking his vehicles transporting cattle from various locations in Andhra Pradesh and other places. But he didn’t file complaints on all of these occasions,” the Commissioner said. “
Yes you read that right – Ibrahim has been booked 6 different times for illegal transport of cattle and yet, TNM’s report and its headline described Prashant as a “cow vigilante” while referring to Ibrahim as a “cattle transporter.”
The article also completely avoided pressing any questions about how a “cattle transporter” had access to a firearm or why an individual with multiple cattle transport cases against him was still operating freely.
Critics argue that this language subtly sanitises the accused while criminalising the victim. The word “vigilante” carries strong pejorative overtones, often associated with mob violence or lawlessness, whereas “cow protector” or “Gau Rakshak” better reflect Prashant’s affiliation with a registered cow protection group. Conversely, the neutral term “cattle transporter” masks the alleged criminality of Ibrahim’s activities, including the six times he was booked for illegal cattle movement – as per their own report.
The police narrative, quoted by TNM, even hinted at a potential extortion angle, saying there was an “unholy understanding” between Ibrahim and Prashant. But nowhere does the article examine the larger issue of how and why Ibrahim was in possession of a gun or whether illegal cattle trade networks are operating with political protection.
Instead, TNM’s visual framing showed BJP leaders visiting the injured Prashant in hospital, followed by emphasis on the Commissioner’s statement that “we also respect cows, but we have to handle the case professionally.”
The report wants to paint “saffron” all over the issue and give a clean chit to the perpetrator.
This pattern where alleged smugglers or attackers are portrayed as neutral “transporters” while cow protectors are dismissed as “vigilantes” has become increasingly common in certain sections of media reporting. It reflects a mega ideological bias that downplays the growing problem of illegal cattle transport and violence against those who attempt to stop it.
It is noteworthy that the same Dhanya Rajendran has been nominated for Reporters Sans Frontières’ (RSF) “Impact Award” this year – one wonders whether this is the kind of impact her reporting is meant to reflect.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.