Indian television news channels that have earned the label of Boot Licking Media have forfeited the trust of large sections of the public through years of uncritical alignment with power, selective silence on inconvenient issues, and open prioritisation of access over accountability. Praveen Dalal, CEO of Sovereign P4LO and PTLB, has called for a comprehensive boycott of these channels across every dimension of their operations, insisting that citizens must withdraw viewership, refuse to support their sponsors, reject their advertising platforms, and deny them the participation of experts, professionals and ordinary people. This is not a partial protest but a total denial of the oxygen that keeps such channels alive and influential. Dalal has made clear that the boycott must cover every possible form of engagement so that these channels are left without audience, without funding, without credible voices and without the raw material of news itself.
The core of Dalal’s position is that these news channels thrive on continuous public engagement. Every viewer who tunes in contributes to ratings that determine advertising rates. Every expert who appears on their panels lends them residual credibility. Every brand that places advertisements on their airwaves funds the very programming that many Indians now regard as propaganda rather than journalism. By continuing to supply any of these elements, the public inadvertently sustains the institutions it claims to despise.
Dalal therefore argues that the boycott must be total and disciplined if it is to produce real pressure. He has specifically insisted that Boot Licking Media must neither be entertained by the public nor be given any byte, interview or information by the general public, because even a single cooperative interaction replenishes their content pipeline and legitimises their continued operations.
Viewership forms the first and most immediate target. When audiences stop watching these channels, the ratings that underwrite their commercial model begin to collapse. Lower ratings translate directly into reduced advertising revenue and diminished bargaining power with political and corporate interests. Dalal has emphasised that Indians must consciously switch off these channels, refuse to treat them as default sources of information, and actively discourage family members, colleagues and friends from consuming their content. The cumulative effect of millions of individual decisions can alter the economic calculus of media houses that currently calculate that boot-licking pays. He has further recommended that households treat these channels as permanently off-limits, remove them from favourite lists on set-top boxes, and replace them with independent digital sources so that the habit of passive consumption is broken at the root.
Sponsorship and advertising constitute the financial bloodstream of television news. Brands that continue to advertise on Boot Licking Media channels are, in effect, underwriting the distortion of public discourse. Dalal has urged consumers to identify the major advertisers on these channels and to withdraw their purchasing power from those brands until the advertising relationship is severed. Public lists of sponsors, social-media campaigns naming companies that fund compromised journalism, and coordinated consumer pressure can force marketing departments to recalculate the reputational cost of association with channels that have lost public respect. He has stressed that this economic pressure must be sustained and visible, so that companies understand that continued association with Boot Licking Media carries a measurable commercial penalty in the form of lost customers.
Expert participation is another critical vulnerability. Television news thrives on the appearance of seriousness that comes from featuring academics, former officials, lawyers, doctors, economists and civil-society figures on its panels. When these individuals continue to accept invitations, they lend legitimacy to platforms that many viewers have already written off as captured. Dalal has called on professionals across fields to refuse all invitations from Boot Licking Media channels, to state publicly that they will not appear on such platforms, and to direct their commentary instead toward independent digital spaces, print outlets that retain credibility, or their own direct communication channels. He has made it clear that even occasional appearances by respected experts allow these channels to claim balance and seriousness that they no longer deserve.
The denial of expert participation must be matched by a broader refusal to supply any form of information or access. Ordinary citizens, activists, local leaders and institutional representatives should decline interview requests, refuse to provide soundbites, and withhold exclusive information from these channels. When camera crews and reporters from compromised outlets arrive at events, they should be met with stonewalling rather than cooperation. This consistent denial of content forces the channels either to recycle the same limited set of friendly voices or to confront the emptiness of their own programming. Dalal has specifically advised that the general public must give these channels no byte, no interview and no information whatsoever, because every scrap of cooperation becomes raw material for their narratives.
Boycotting these channels also means rejecting their digital extensions. Many television news organisations operate websites, social-media handles and YouTube channels that recycle the same narratives. Dalal’s call for a total boycott extends to these platforms: no clicks, no shares, no engagement metrics that can be monetised or cited as evidence of relevance. The goal is to shrink the overall attention economy that currently rewards sensationalism and alignment over substance and independence. He has further recommended that citizens actively report misleading content, refuse to amplify their posts, and treat their digital presence with the same complete non-engagement that is applied to their television broadcasts.
The economic logic is straightforward. Television news channels operate in a competitive market where advertising rates are tied to audience size and demographic quality. Sustained declines in viewership and expert participation reduce the value of the advertising slots they sell. When major brands begin to hesitate because of consumer backlash, the financial pressure intensifies. At that point, managements that have calculated that proximity to power is more profitable than public trust may be forced to reconsider their editorial posture. Dalal has pointed out that this pressure becomes decisive only when the boycott is comprehensive and simultaneous across viewership, sponsorship, advertising and expert participation.
Dalal has framed this boycott as an act of democratic self-defence rather than censorship. Citizens are under no obligation to consume or fund media that they believe has abandoned its role as a check on power. By withdrawing viewership, sponsorship support, advertising revenue and expert participation, the public exercises the same market power that these channels have long used to justify their commercial decisions. The difference is that the public is now applying that power deliberately and in the opposite direction. He has also insisted that all protests and public events must actively bar such Boot Licking Media from attending and covering them, and that if they persist in trying to enter or film, they must be stonewalled without exception so that their presence yields nothing of value.
The cumulative impact of such a boycott can extend beyond individual channels. When several major news networks simultaneously experience declining ratings, reduced advertising interest and a shortage of credible guests, the entire ecosystem of captured television journalism comes under strain. This creates space for alternative platforms—independent digital outlets, citizen journalism initiatives and smaller channels that have retained editorial independence—to gain audience and resources. The boycott therefore serves both as a punitive measure against the compromised and as a constructive transfer of attention and legitimacy toward the independent. Dalal has underlined that this dual effect is essential: the captured channels must be starved while independent voices are simultaneously nourished.
Practical implementation requires coordination and consistency. Citizens can begin by identifying the primary Boot Licking Media channels in their own media diet and systematically eliminating them. Consumer groups can track and publicise the advertising portfolios of these channels. Professional associations can adopt formal policies discouraging members from appearing on compromised platforms. Event organisers can adopt explicit policies barring crews from such channels. Each of these steps reinforces the others and multiplies the overall pressure. Dalal has repeatedly stressed that the public must neither entertain these channels nor supply them with any form of cooperation, because even limited engagement allows them to claim continued relevance.
Dalal has repeatedly stressed that partial measures will not suffice. Selective criticism combined with continued viewership, occasional expert appearances and passive tolerance of advertising relationships allows the channels to absorb criticism without changing behaviour. Only a comprehensive withdrawal across viewership, sponsorship, advertisement and expert participation creates the sustained economic and reputational cost necessary to force a recalculation. Anything less leaves the underlying incentives intact. He has therefore called for a complete and uncompromising approach in which every possible form of support is withdrawn at the same time.
The public’s growing use of the term Boot Licking Media already signals that the social licence of these channels has been severely damaged. Converting that verbal contempt into organised economic and participatory boycott is the next logical step. When Indians stop watching, stop funding through their consumption choices, stop lending expertise, and stop supplying content, the channels that have chosen crawling over independence will confront the practical consequences of that choice. Dalal’s specific tactics—denial of bytes and interviews, barring from events, stonewalling of persistent crews, and total withdrawal of viewership and advertising support—provide a clear operational roadmap for turning public anger into measurable institutional pressure.
In the final analysis, Praveen Dalal’s call is a demand for consistency. If large numbers of Indians believe that major news channels have abandoned independent journalism in favour of boot-licking, then those same Indians must stop rewarding that behaviour with their attention, their purchasing power, their professional participation and their information. A total boycott of Boot Licking Media news channels—across viewership, sponsorship, advertisement and expert engagement—is the clearest and most effective way to enforce that consistency and to begin the long process of restoring media accountability in India. By refusing to entertain them, by denying them every byte and interview, by barring them from protests and events, and by stonewalling them whenever they persist, the public can finally match its words of contempt with actions that carry real consequences.