Radio is not a common form of media used to cover political protests in India, as it is less accessible and has a smaller reach compared to other forms of media.

While media coverage can influence public opinion and mobilize support for a protest, it is less likely to directly change the government's response to the protest. The government's response is typically determined by a variety of factors, including the scale of the protest, the demands of the protesters, and the political context.

While social media has been used for sharing information, organizing protests, and live-streaming events, it is not commonly used for raising funds for political protests in India. Crowdfunding platforms and traditional fundraising methods are more commonly used for this purpose.

While biased or inaccurate media coverage can lead to misinformation, public distrust, and increased polarization, it is less likely to directly cause violence and unrest. Violence and unrest are typically caused by a combination of factors, including the underlying grievances of the protesters, the government's response to the protest, and the actions of extremist groups.

The Emergency was a period of political repression in India from 1975 to 1977, during which the media was heavily censored. As a result, media coverage did not play a significant role in the political protests that occurred during this period.

Globalization has had a significant impact on many aspects of society, but it is not a direct factor that has contributed to the evolution of the media's role in political protests. Technological advancements, changes in media ownership, and the rise of social media have all played a more direct role in shaping the media's coverage of political protests.

While journalists covering political protests in India may face physical violence, legal harassment, and censorship, lack of access to information is not a common challenge. In fact, the Indian constitution guarantees the right to freedom of information, which gives journalists the right to access information from government sources.

While social media can provide increased visibility, mobilization, and real-time information sharing, it is not a direct tool for ensuring accountability and transparency. Accountability and transparency in political protests are typically achieved through other mechanisms, such as independent investigations, public inquiries, and legal action.

While social media can contribute to misinformation, polarization, and cyberbullying, addiction and mental health issues are not directly related to social media's role in political protests. These issues are more broadly associated with social media use in general.

While negative media coverage can lead to public apathy, loss of support, and increased polarization, it is less likely to directly cause violence and unrest. Violence and unrest are typically caused by a combination of factors, including the underlying grievances of the protesters, the government's response to the protest, and the actions of extremist groups.

Reporting on violence and unrest is not an ethical dilemma specific to journalists covering political protests. It is a challenge faced by journalists in various contexts, such as war zones and natural disasters. The ethical dilemmas faced by journalists covering political protests are more related to balancing objectivity and advocacy, protecting the privacy of protesters, and avoiding sensationalism and bias.

While social media can provide increased transparency, direct engagement, and reduced reliance on traditional media, it is not a direct tool for improving public trust in government. Public trust in government is influenced by a variety of factors, including the government's performance, the media's portrayal of the government, and the public's own experiences and perceptions.

Increased public trust in government is not a challenge associated with the use of social media by political parties and governments. It is a potential benefit, as discussed in the previous question. The challenges associated with the use of social media by political parties and governments include misinformation, polarization, and cyberbullying.

Entertaining the public is not a key aspect of the media's role in political protests. The media's role in political protests is primarily focused on informing the public, holding the government accountable, and promoting dialogue and understanding.

The role of social media in promoting dialogue and understanding is not a key issue in the debate about the role of social media in political protests. The key issues in this debate are primarily focused on the potential for misinformation and disinformation, the impact of social media on public opinion, and the use of social media for organizing and mobilizing protests.