Newslaundry controversy: Can the media watchdog meet its own standards?

As allegations by former employees continue to circulate on social media, Newslaundry has responded by reiterating that it has been POSH-compliant since 2017, has acted on four sexual harassment complaints through its Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), and remains committed to scrutiny, including of itself.

Yet the episode has sparked a broader question: can Newslaundry live up to the same standards of transparency and accountability that it has long demanded of others?

For Newslaundry, however, those questions are now much closer to home.

For over a decade, Newslaundry has built its identity around scrutinising the media, questioning newsroom ethics and arguing that no institution should be beyond criticism. Now, allegations by former employees have turned that scrutiny on its own newsroom, prompting questions about transparency, due process and institutional accountability.

Following days of criticism, Newslaundry issued a statement saying it has had an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) since 2017, has acted on four sexual harassment complaints resulting in disciplinary action including termination and suspension, and remains POSH compliant.

“Newslaundry is and has been POSH compliant. That does not mean we can't do better. We encourage anyone associated with Newslaundry - including former employees — to write to us,” they said in their statement.

“While we engage with feedback, since the past five days, we have observed the vile and slanderous nature of conversations around Newslaundry and many of our staff. Unsubstantiated and fictitious allegations are being made against our colleagues. We have nothing to hide. Our colleagues and our decision to not respond to abuse and lies should not be seen as a sign of defensiveness or weakness,” the statement added.

Newslaundry in its statement has insisted that it has ‘never claimed to be perfect’, that it continues to learn, and that its founding philosophy remains "no one should be above scrutiny or criticism... not us."

That assertion, however, also raises the central question at the heart of the controversy.

If "sabki dhulai" is more than a slogan, does it require the organisation to subject itself to the same level of transparency, scepticism and public accountability that it has consistently demanded of politicians, corporations and rival media houses?

The debate is no longer about whether Newslaundry has the right to defend itself. It is whether the standards it has championed for over a decade are now being applied with equal rigour when the scrutiny turns inward.