Nilabh krishna
In a democracy of more than 1.4 billion people, the media is expected to perform a deceptively simple task: tell citizens what is happening, question those in power, expose wrongdoing, provide competing viewpoints and, above all, distinguish fact from propaganda. The principle sounds straightforward. The reality is considerably more complicated. India today has one of the world’s largest, most diverse and most competitive media ecosystems, spread across dozens of languages, newspapers, television networks, websites, YouTube channels and social-media platforms. Yet the question that increasingly refuses to go away is whether this enormous media establishment is actually discharging its democratic responsibility freely and fairly.
The question cannot be answered simply by asking whether journalists are free to criticise the government. Nor can it be answered by counting the number of stories hostile to the ruling party. A genuinely free press is not defined by how often it attacks the government. It is defined by whether it applies the same standards to everyone. If the government deserves scrutiny, it must be scrutinised. If the Opposition makes an unsubstantiated claim, that claim must also be scrutinised. If a constitutional institution makes a questionable decision, the media must investigate it. If a political party attempts to manipulate public opinion, the media must expose that too. The true test of independence is not whom the media criticises, but whether it is willing to question everyone.
wThe Indian media ecosystem has never been politically neutral in any simplistic sense. Newspapers and television channels have editorial philosophies. Owners have ideological preferences. Journalists have political convictions. Audiences themselves increasingly select news according to their ideological comfort zones. None of this automatically makes journalism illegitimate. The problem begins when ideology replaces verification and when journalism becomes indistinguishable from political advocacy.
There is another powerful force at work: money. Journalism is not merely an intellectual enterprise; it is also an industry. News organisations require advertising, subscriptions, distribution networks, investors and commercial partnerships. Government advertising is particularly significant in a media environment where many publications operate on narrow margins. Independent assessments have repeatedly raised concerns about the use of advertising as a source of leverage over media organisations. Reporters Without Borders, for example, identifies both concentrated ownership and political alignment as significant concerns in India's media environment and notes the importance of government advertising in the country's media economy.
But if government advertising can create a potential conflict of interest, so can every other form of financial dependence. This is precisely why the debate cannot be reduced to “government versus media”. Corporate advertising, political advertising, ownership structures, private investment, business relationships and political patronage can all influence the environment in which journalism operates. The democratic question is not who pays for journalism; it is whether the payment influences what is presented as independent journalism.
The Press Council of India has recognised this danger for years. Its definition of paid news covers “any news or analysis appearing in any media” for consideration in cash or kind. It has specifically warned that paid news during elections can distort a voter's understanding of a candidate and therefore damage the democratic process. Its 2025 advisory again warned newspapers against practices in which political material is presented in a manner that effectively promotes a particular candidate or party.
That brings us to a contemporary episode that deserves attention—not because it proves that any newspaper is politically compromised, but because it demonstrates why political-media relationships should be open to scrutiny. Congress's reported election expenditure during the West Bengal Assembly election period includes a payment of around ₹81.45 lakh to The Indian Express. The expenditure entry itself does not establish that editorial coverage was purchased, nor does it prove that any subsequent reporting was influenced by Congress. Such a conclusion would require evidence that goes far beyond a payment entry. But the transaction raises an entirely legitimate transparency question: what exactly was the payment for?
But the party's own political history contains enough episodes to demonstrate that the relationship between political power and media has never been entirely uncomplicated. The Emergency is the most obvious example. The attempt by the Indira Gandhi government to impose censorship remains a permanent warning about the dangers of political power being allowed to control information.
Yet the contemporary media debate often treats history selectively. The Emergency is invoked when discussing authoritarian tendencies in the present, but the deeper lesson—that political parties should never expect the press to serve their interests—is frequently forgotten. A free press cannot belong to Congress any more than it can belong to the BJP. It cannot become the communications wing of an Opposition alliance simply because the ruling party is powerful.
There is also a subtler problem. Political parties increasingly understand that they do not need to control an entire media ecosystem. They only need favourable narratives to travel through influential channels. A political statement becomes a headline; the headline becomes a television debate; the debate becomes a social-media clip; the clip becomes evidence cited by political activists; and the original allegation eventually acquires the appearance of established fact. In this ecosystem, journalism can become part of a political feedback loop without anyone explicitly ordering a journalist to publish anything.
The transformation of India's media environment through YouTube and social media has intensified this phenomenon. The Reuters Institute's Digital News Report 2025 describes India's news environment as highly diverse while noting the growing importance of alternative digital platforms and political commentary on YouTube. It also highlights the broader global trend in which political actors increasingly bypass traditional journalism and communicate directly through partisan media, personalities and influencers.
The media's first loyalty should therefore not be to the government, the Opposition, an ideology, an advertiser, an owner or an audience. It should be to evidence.
India's democracy is too large to be served by journalism that asks, “Whose side are you on?” It needs journalism that asks, “Where is the evidence?”
The difference may sound small, but it is the difference between journalism and political campaigning.
So, is the Indian media discharging its duty freely and fairly? The honest answer is that the record is mixed, and the question must remain open. There is considerable journalism in India that performs an invaluable democratic function. There are also genuine concerns about political polarisation, commercial pressures, ownership concentration, government pressure, partisan ecosystems and the increasing blending of news with advocacy. Independent assessments have documented several of these concerns, while India's own regulatory institutions have repeatedly warned about paid news and journalistic standards.
The answer, therefore, cannot be found in the slogan “Godi Media”. Nor can it be found in its opposite. Those labels are political shortcuts. Democracy requires something harder: evidence, transparency, accountability and consistency.
And perhaps that is the question India's media establishment should be asking itself every morning before asking it of everyone else: If we demand answers from those who exercise political power, are we equally prepared to answer questions about the power we ourselves exercise?
That is the real test of a free press. Not whether it is loved by the government. Not whether it is applauded by the Opposition. Not whether it trends on social media. Not whether its headlines satisfy one ideological camp.
The real test is whether, when the facts demand it, the media has the courage to make everyone uncomfortable—including itself.
(The content of this article reflects the views of writer and contributor, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)
Leave Your Comment