By KN Kumar
Democracy prospers when citizens are well-informed about their environment. Public and private media outlets, therefore, play a crucial role in highlighting important issues, questioning those in power, and fostering discussion and debate. However, in India, many media outlets have shifted from serving as watchdogs to supporting the government and corporate interests, sometimes diverting attention from real issues and spreading narratives that benefit the powerful. This article examines how India’s media has lost its independence and why this endangers democracy.
This isn’t about individual journalists failing but about a deeper structural issue. How media is owned, funded, and regulated creates incentives that encourage loyalty to powerful interests and discourage honest reporting. Major news outlets are owned by large conglomerates, and their business interests often rely on government contracts, which can result in conflicts of interest.
Additionally, government advertising budgets worth thousands of crores give the state leverage to reward friendly outlets and starve critical ones. This financial dependence leads to self-censorship, with media avoiding difficult stories either to survive in a competitive environment or to stay in favour. Data shows that government spending on advertisements across all media tends to peak during or before election years, especially for general elections (Lok Sabha) and, to a lesser extent, state assembly elections. This pattern is clear from increased expenditure in years like 2013–14 (before the 2014 general election) and 2018–19 (before the 2019 general election), driven by campaigns promoting government schemes and achievements. These can appear as veiled political propaganda—the line between public awareness and political promotion is very thin. The result is a public with less reliable information, shallow debates, and a democracy more vulnerable to misinformation and manipulation. Of course, there are exceptions, and conscientious citizens value them, but they are few and increasingly rare.
Several connected factors have turned India’s media into a propaganda tool:
(1) Major Indian media outlets are owned by large conglomerates like Reliance Industries (60–65 outlets), Times Group (10–15), Zee Entertainment (49), Sun TV Network (35–40), DB Corp (10–15), India Today (5–10), HT Media (5–10), Jagran (10–15), and Adani Group (NDTV and the Quint). Together, they control an estimated 500–1,000 influential media outlets across print, TV, digital, and radio, dominating India’s media landscape. Smaller players such as ABP, Eenadu, Mathrubhumi, and Malayala Manorama contribute to this concentration, often with family or political ties. Independent outlets like The Wire, The Print, Scroll, Caravan, and EPW exist but face significant obstacles—financial constraints, legal pressures, and limited reach—making true media independence rare. India’s low global press freedom ranking (161st in 2023) and the close links between corporate and political interests highlight the difficulty of maintaining unbiased journalism. However, this reflects a broader global pattern where a handful of corporations dominate media, such as the Big Six in the U.S. and News UK in the UK. The issues of corporate influence, political bias, and digital disruption are universal, though India’s low press freedom ranking and regional political connections add unique complexities. India’s situation is therefore not an anomaly but a clear example of global trends. Even so-called independent outlets are often accused of bias, such as ‘The Wire’s’ perceived left-leaning stance. A Media Ownership Monitor study (2019) notes that while national media ownership appears diverse, regional markets are highly concentrated, and political affiliations further undermine independence.
Indian media was not always like this. During the Emergency of 1975–77, publications such as The Indian Express resisted censorship, famously publishing blank editorials as a protest. In the 1980s and 1990s, investigative journalism uncovered major scandals like the Bofors arms deal and the Harshad Mehta stock market scam, demonstrating the media’s power to hold the powerful accountable. But these were exceptions. Over time, structural changes—such as media consolidation, increasing costs of printing, heavy reliance on advertising, and close ties with politicians—undermined this independence.
(2) The rise of 24/7 news channels in the 2000s marked a turning point. These channels started prioritizing spectacle over substance, with prime-time debates turning into shouting matches. Anchors sometimes act as propagandists and focus more on emotional battles rather than presenting facts objectively. Television news exemplifies this decline most sharply. This kind of journalism treats viewers as consumers, not citizens, prioritizing ratings over truth.
The impact is clear. A 2023 study by the Centre for Media Studies found that 70% of prime-time TV coverage focused on divisive topics like religion or nationalism, while only 15% addressed policy issues such as jobs or healthcare. This imbalance skews what citizens (or voters) care about. Unfortunately, the rise of TV journalism has also affected more serious journalism in print media. Newspapers, once bastions of serious reporting, are struggling as well. While outlets like The Indian Express maintain some independence, many have fallen under the same pressures as TV. Investigative journalism has declined, replaced by opinion pieces or recycled government press releases. In 2023, just five media groups controlled 60% of India’s print circulation, reducing diverse perspectives. Coverage of critical issues—like Parliament, policy, or rural India, where 65% of the population lives—is minimal unless it involves Delhi or sensational events such as protests or natural disasters. Additionally, there is a significant urban bias.
(3) Digital platforms offer a glimmer of hope. Some independent outlets like ‘The Wire’ have revived investigative journalism, exposing issues like electoral bond opacity and government surveillance. However, digital media face significant challenges. They generate less than 5% of media revenue in India, struggle with funding, and face government hostility, including lawsuits and tax raids. Algorithms also favour sensational content, making it difficult for serious reporting to reach wider audiences.
Other democracies provide lessons for India. In the UK, the BBC is funded by public fees and run by an independent board, helping it stay neutral (there are questions about the BBC’s impartiality too). Germany’s ARD and ZDF operate similarly, maintaining editorial independence. In contrast, India’s public broadcaster, Prasar Bharati, often acts as a government mouthpiece despite laws meant to guarantee its autonomy. Countries like Turkey and Hungary serve as warnings, where governments control most media through advertising and legal pressure, weakening democracy. These examples highlight the need for reforms to prevent India from following the same path.
The Threat to Democracy
You want to understand what’s happening around you, but you’re unsure if what you’re receiving is true. All you can do is rely on the stories constantly fed to you, which may lead you to make a wrong voting decision. This creates a cycle that grows denser and more sinister. The decline of the media has serious implications for India’s democracy. When news outlets prioritize profit or succumb to fear of punishment, they stop holding those in power accountable. A 2024 survey revealed that 62% of Indian voters depend on TV for political news, yet only 20% feel confident in distinguishing facts from propaganda. This loss of trust discourages good people from engaging in politics, leaving leaders unchecked. Elections turn into spectacles, and important issues are overlooked. Without a strong press, democracy weakens, as citizens are inundated with noise instead of reliable information. And our world runs like this only.