TV Today-Newslaundry case: The bias in LiveLaw and Bar & Bench framing

New Delhi: Two of India’s most-read legal news platforms reported the same Delhi High Court hearing involving TV Today and Newslaundry on January 22, 2026, but their headlines and story construction pushed readers towards sharply different conclusions about who the Bench was primarily “pulling up”.

Two headlines, two takeaways

LiveLaw led with the court’s pushback to TV Today, framing the hearing as a caution against overreach in defamation and disparagement claims.

Its headline and opening lines foregrounded the Bench telling TV Today it was being “over sensitive”, and that Newslaundry’s criticism was “not necessarily disparagement”.

Bar & Bench, reporting the same Bench and the same dispute, led with the court’s anger at Newslaundry journalist Manisha Pande’s language, framing the moment as a warning on journalistic decency and personal conduct. 

Its headline and lede highlighted the Bench calling the use of the word “shit” “gross” and disparaging, and warning that adverse observations could damage Pande’s career.

Both frames are rooted in what happened in court. The issue is what each platform chose to make the “main story”.

LiveLaw’s peg

In LiveLaw’s telling, TV Today’s litigation strategy is the first peg. The report says the Bench flagged that while one impugned video was “questionable”, the rest were “mere comments” – critical, but not disparaging.

It also spotlights the court’s broader point that not every harsh remark crosses the legal line, and that “fair comment” can be strongly worded.

Bar & Bench’s peg

In Bar & Bench’s telling, the courtroom’s moral censure is the first peg. The report puts the “decency in reporting” admonition front and centre, including the Bench’s remark that Pande “should be thrown out” and that the court could “comment on her personally” if it chose, even warning it could place her career “in disarray”.

The story then situates the remark in the larger TV Today suit alleging copyright infringement, defamation and disparagement.

Where is the bias?

The divergence becomes clearer when you track what each report treats as secondary.

Bar & Bench, despite its headline, also records the Bench saying TV Today cannot label everything it dislikes as disparagement, and that terms like “soap opera” or “killing sports journalism Aaj Tak style” amount to criticism, not disparagement.

Those lines align closely with LiveLaw’s headline frame, but they appear after the story has already positioned Pande’s language as the principal wrongdoing.

LiveLaw, despite its headline, also carries the Bench’s sharp personal remarks on decency, including the judge telling Newslaundry’s counsel that “she doesn’t know the basic fundamentals of decency in reporting” and that there must be “some limit”.

Those lines align closely with Bar & Bench’s headline frame, but they appear within LiveLaw’s broader narrative of the court discouraging TV Today from treating every comment as actionable disparagement.

How bias enters without ‘wrong’ facts

This is exactly how perceived bias enters legal reportage even when the underlying facts are the same. Inventing quotes is not always required, bias can come by way of choosing which quote becomes the headline, which quote becomes the lede, and which quote is parked deeper in the copy.

In high-stakes media-versus-media litigation, that choice has consequences.

A “TV Today over sensitive” frame reassures publishers and commentators that critical speech and sharp words still have breathing space, and it puts the onus on plaintiffs to show real disparagement rather than mere offence.

A “no decency in reporting” frame, on the other hand, sends a message about newsroom standards and personal accountability, and it can land as a reputational blow even before the court decides the legal issues on copyright, defamation or fair comment.

The Bench supplied both storylines

What makes this case a useful example is that the Bench itself supplied both storylines on the same day. It simultaneously signalled that one video troubled it and that a court cannot treat every harsh comment as disparagement.

It also simultaneously rebuked the language used and yet acknowledged that even extreme criticism can fall within the bounds of comment rather than unlawful disparagement.

So the “bias” is less about accuracy and more about editorial prioritisation: which party is made to look like the aggressor, which side is made to look like the one being corrected, and what the reader is primed to remember.

There is also a structural reason this keeps happening in legal journalism: courts increasingly run on fast-moving oral exchanges, and the most viral lines are often the sharpest ones. A single remark, “over sensitive” or “no decency”, can be made to carry the entire story, even when the hearing is actually about multiple legal questions, including fair comment, disparagement thresholds, and copyright fair use.

Beyond this TV Today-Newslaundry matter, there have been public complaints from senior lawyers about “selective” clipping of courtroom exchanges by legal news platforms, typically framed as criticism of how a single viral moment is isolated from the rest of a hearing.

One such episode involved Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak criticising Bar & Bench’s reporting style around a Supreme Court exchange, alleging it was selective and engagement-driven.