Media — as the fourth pillar of democracy — serves as a communication tool between the three wings of government and the general population. As a business, running a media house requires a huge sum of money. In terms of hierarchy, the media holds immense power by the virtue of its control over information. Obviously, power can't be left unbridled and has to be tamed at a certain level. The question is who should be given the responsibility of regulating the 'powerful' media and what should be the specifics of the 'level' of control? The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, on April 23, issued an advisory for adhering to the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 — the sub section (2) of which allows the Central Government to regulate or prohibit the transmission or retransmission of any channel or programme on certain specific grounds. The advisory particularly raised apprehension regarding the unsatisfactory reporting of certain TV channels on the north-west Delhi riots and the Ukrainian crisis. While reporting on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as the advisory pointed out, some TV channels have been making false claims and frequently misquoting international agencies, using 'scandalous' headlines and making 'fabricated and hyperbolic statements' to incite the audiences. At the same time, in the case of north-west Delhi riots, journalists have been using 'provocative headlines' that may incite communal hatred and disrupt peace and order. The advisory also noted that TV channels are showing footage of a 'specific community', thus aggravating the communal tensions, and sensationalising and giving communal colours to the 'actions of authority'. The apprehensions raised in the advisory notice are indeed genuine and need to be addressed but the deterioration of TV media is much deeper and, as some opine, is beyond repair. In no other medium is the two-fold demarcation between pro-establishment and anti-establishment clearer. Television, as a medium, had emerged as the most powerful medium in the latter half of the 20th century, and continues to be so in large parts of India on account of its visual appeal and literacy-neutrality. It is in fact this power of the TV that makes it more stringently controlled than other forms of media. It can be remembered that quite recently, the government had come up with the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021. The amendment provided for three-tier regulation of the TV media — self-regulation, self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the broadcasters, and oversight by an Inter-Departmental Committee at the level of the Union government. The amendment had further strengthened the government's already tight grip on the media — giving it direct oversight powers. Over the past couple of years, certain media houses have had to face temporary suspension, denial of broadcasting continuance rights among other things. And certainly, with the degree of control it has, the government's dictum prevails in most of the cases. It must be noted that the government can also exercise indirect control through deployment of laws related to defamation, official secrets, obscenity etc. Furthermore, there is an invisible role of advertisement in defining the content and form of media channels. It is no mystery that government advertisements far outweigh other sources of advertisement. The longstanding debate is how can a balance be maintained between regulating the TV medium and allowing freedom of speech and expression. In the first place, the regulation of media is headed in the wrong direction — that of emboldening the government's control. Can a cat be trusted to guard the milk! Secondly, there appears to be a lack of checks and controls that would prevent the state from being biased towards or against a media house — as the medium appears to be clearly divided on the ideological front. Third, excessive control of the state over media also inches closer to the restriction of individual's right to know. Government's intervention may be seen as an imperative step to put a check on the degrading state of TV media but, for stable positive changes, bigger issues will have to be addressed.