India Minus Politics: An Eye On Indian Media

The past decade and a half have seen India’s news landscape explode in size and influence – and in political entanglement. From a handful of TV channels and newspapers in 2008 to hundreds of outlets across languages today, media growth has been dramatic. Mobile and internet access have been game-changers. Smartphones are now ubiquitous news portals: India reached roughly 800 million internet users by 2025. In fact, a Reuters Institute report found that over half of Indians now cite YouTube (54%) or WhatsApp (48%) as news sources. This digital shift is shown below, where a reader scrolls news on a phone – a daily reality for most Indians.

Smartphones have made news literally “handheld” – more than half of Indians now get news via YouTube or WhatsApp.

• Rapid Expansion (2000s–2010s): Cable and satellite liberalization led news channels to proliferate (Hindi news channels jumped from 3 to 18 between 2000–2010). Newsprint remained vast (over 100,000 titles) but consolidation began as a few conglomerates grew powerful.
• Digital Boom (2010–2014): With telecom reforms and cheap smartphones, internet usage soared. By mid-2020s, 55% of Indians were online. Social media and apps started eclipsing TV for news, reshaping distribution and propaganda.
• Political Alignments (2014–2020): The 2014 rise of the BJP coincided with big corporate takeovers of media (e.g. Reliance bought stake in Network18). Reporters Without Borders warns India’s media entered an “unofficial state of emergency” under these ties. Meanwhile, new regulations began tightening oversight (the 2017 “electoral bonds” scheme and later the 2019 digital media code).
• Regulatory Crackdown (2021–2024): The government enacted sweeping IT Rules (2021) regulating digital news and social media. Amended in 2023, the rules empower a state “fact-check unit” to label any government-related content as “false” and force takedowns. Major investigations (e.g. the 2020 Mumbai TRP rigging case) exposed how channels manipulated ratings with political backing. Paid-news scandals mounted: the Press Council reported 468 paid-news complaints since 2021 (290 in 2024–25 alone).

Without political interference, this evolution might instead have prioritized quality and pluralism. Independent vision: Media growth would be driven by citizen demand for credible information, not party agendas. Channels would launch based on audience needs (rural/urban, linguistic, thematic) rather than political backing. Actionable reforms: Enact strong media-ownership caps and transparency laws to prevent monopolies. Establish an independent public broadcasting model (analogous to the BBC charter) to foster diverse content. Modernize laws (like the 1885 Telegraph Act) so regulation keeps pace with technology, not political control.

Government Regulation, Funding, Censorship, and Propaganda

Indian media is nominally free, but in practice heavily shaped by state power. Laws and policies have given authorities broad censorship tools, and state funding channels influence content.

• Media Bodies and Ownership: Public broadcaster Prasar Bharati (Doordarshan/AIR) is meant to be independent, but its board members are government-appointed and aligned with ruling-party priorities. The Press Council of India (PCI) is self-regulatory and weak; it can issue guidelines but has no enforcement teeth. Meanwhile, a few business houses allied with the government control major networks – e.g. Reliance and Adani own dozens of outlets. RSF notes this cozy state-corporate-media nexus “signalled the end of pluralism”.
• Regulatory Laws and Censorship: The government has systematically expanded legal powers over media. The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 first placed digital publishers under governmental oversight. In 2023 these rules were amended to let the government’s new “fact-check” unit (Press Information Bureau) demand removal of any online content it deems “fake, false or misleading” about the government. Critics warned this grants the state arbitrary censorship, effectively making it the “sole arbiter of truth” on political matters. In October 2023, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the setting up of this PIB fact-check unit, citing constitutional concerns.
• Selective Law Enforcement: Authorities have used security and speech laws to target critical media. Freedom House reports that under the current government “attacks on press freedom have escalated dramatically” and opposition media face charges (sedition, terrorism). For instance, tax authorities raided the BBC’s offices after it aired a documentary critical of then-Chief Minister Modi. In Oct 2023, police arrested NewsClick’s editor and raided the offices of several independent media under foreign-funding allegations – moves CPJ decried as “sheer harassment” of journalism. The government also allocates vast advertising budgets and information flow to friendly media, subtly shaping coverage. PM Narendra Modi rarely holds unscripted press conferences and grants interviews only to loyal outlets, reinforcing a media environment cautious of state power.

In a depoliticized system, regulatory bodies would be unbiased guardians rather than political levers. Independent vision: Laws would protect journalists instead of silencing them. An autonomous Press Council and Broadcast Authority (free of political appointments) would ensure ethical standards, and state ads would be distributed transparently by objective criteria. Government-funded media (DD/AIR) would operate with editorial independence, focusing on public service. Reforms: Rewrite media laws to limit state interference (remove sedition/hate-speech provisions easily misused, revise IT rules with multi-stakeholder input). Establish an impartial media-oversight authority, including journalists and citizens, to shield press from political pressure. Guarantee press freedom in the constitution and enforce penalties for unjustified shutdowns or raids. Finally, end anonymous electoral bonds and mandate disclosure of media ownership and funding to reduce hidden state influence.

Misinformation, Paid News, and TRP-Driven Sensationalism

News content in India has often devolved into infotainment and disinformation, much of it politicized. Fake stories on social media, “paid news” advertorials, and TV TRP races have undermined journalistic integrity.

• Fake News and Rumors: Viral misinformation on platforms like WhatsApp has had deadly consequences. For example, a 2020 investigation recounted how a WhatsApp rumor about child kidnappers led to lynchings across villages. In the first half of 2018 alone, over two dozen people died in India due to WhatsApp mob-lynching rumors. Fact-checkers note India’s low media literacy and rapid internet uptake allowed these false alarms to spread unchecked. Government efforts to curb this (like the controversial PIB fact-check unit) have faced legal pushback, highlighting tensions between combating disinformation and protecting speech.
• Paid News and Advertorials: “Paid news” – covert advertisements disguised as news – is rampant. In 2025 the government revealed that India’s Press Council received 468 complaints of paid news since 2021 (290 in 2024–25 alone). Editors have lamented that special-interest stories often get favorable coverage if deep-pocketed parties underwrite them, skewing public perception.
• TRP Scandals and Sensationalism: The commercial pressures on TV news are stark. In late 2020, Mumbai Police exposed a TRP-rigging scam where channels (including Republic TV) bribed or coerced panel homes to artificially inflate viewership. Such scandals underscored how chase for advertising revenue fuels sensationalism: eye-catching anchors, breakneck political dramas, and hyper-partisan breaking news banners became commonplace. Many channels routinely cross factual lines to boost ratings, eroding credibility.

Without political meddling, the media would focus on truth over clickbait. Newsrooms would invest in fact-checking and avoid amplifying unverified rumors. Public-interest reporting (health, education, rural issues) would compete on merit, not just by pandering to a party line. Reforms: Impose strict penalties for paid news (mandatory disclosures, fines, and license revocation for repeat offenders). Ensure TRP measurement is transparent and tamper-proof (for example, by deploying third-party auditors and switching to digital metrics). Launch national media-literacy campaigns to educate citizens on spotting misinformation. Encourage independent fact-checking organizations (via grants or legal backing) to debunk viral falsehoods quickly. Together, these steps would mitigate sensationalism and rebuild ethical journalistic standards.

Erosion of Public Trust and Credibility

All these pressures have shaken Indians’ confidence in traditional media. Multiple surveys show declining trust in news as outlets appear increasingly partisan or sensational.

• Falling Trust: The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report notes that “trust in mainstream news brands has been declining in India”. Globally, only about 42–44% of people now say they trust most news most of the time. In India, brand trust was historically higher (e.g. Times of India scored 74% on a 2021 Reuters survey), but recent figures suggest a downward trend. Large numbers of Indians now see media as “subject to undue political influence”, and scandals (like the above) feed skepticism. Citizens increasingly bypass legacy outlets in favor of peer networks (social media, YouTube) where they choose like-minded sources.
• Quality Decline: Viewers and readers often complain mainstream media favors ideology over depth. Reports indicate news fatigue is rising: more people feel “worn out by the news agenda” today than a few years ago. Researchers observe that thanks to the entwined business-politics structure, critical investigative journalism has thinned out. The result: many find television “argumentative” rather than informative, and place more trust in global or public broadcasters for measured content. Interestingly, state-run DD News and All India Radio frequently outperform private channels in trust scores – a hint that government-run networks (despite their flaws) have retained some credibility.

In an ideal media landscape, trust would be built on transparency and professionalism. News outlets would clearly separate news from opinion and disclose any conflicts of interest or political ties. Reliable fact-based journalism (like BBC or NPR standards) would be the norm. Reforms: Enforce journalistic codes of ethics through an empowered press council or ombudsman. Require media houses to reveal owners, funding sources, and governance structures to the public. Expand public-interest journalism (e.g. via a national press endowment) to reduce commercial dependency. Support independent journalism schools and training to raise reporting quality. By improving accountability (third-party audits, public editor columns, etc.), media can gradually win back citizens’ trust.

Emergence of Alternative, Grassroots, and Independent Media

Faced with mainstream decline, new voices have surged in recent years – from digital startups to grassroots outlets – trying to fill information voids.

• Digital Startups and Coalitions: The independent web media ecosystem has grown. Outlets like The Wire, Scroll.in, Newslaundry, The News Minute, and Alt News began as small teams and now attract millions of readers. Many operate on subscriptions, donations or NGO support rather than corporate ownership. To survive pressure, these outlets often band together: e.g. during the 2024 elections, Newslaundry, The News Minute and Scroll formed a 25-journalist consortium to investigate electoral bonds and fundraising. They crowdfunded nearly $48,000 for this campaign – modest by international standards, but enough to fuel in-depth cross-state reporting that mainstream TV largely ignored.
• Fact-Checkers and Citizen Journalism: Fact-checking sites like Alt News and Boom Live play a critical role debunking viral falsehoods. Alt News founder Pratik Sinha warned that a lack of media literacy and government action has allowed fake news to proliferate. Social media influencers and independent bloggers (often aligned with regional or social causes) have also become media figures in their own right. This DIY journalism can sometimes be more agile and even-handed than corporate channels, though it faces challenges in scale and reach.
• Press Freedom Advocates: Industry bodies and foreign-funded media are also staying active. Editors Guild of India and journalist collectives have criticized press curbs (e.g. during the PIB fact-check unit controversy). International outlets (like The Hindu, Caravan, foreign correspondents) continue investigative reporting.

Without political constraints, independent media would flourish. Grassroots outlets could compete on content quality and innovation instead of fighting harassment. They might expand into multilingual and local news, connecting communities often ignored by TV channels. Reforms: Provide legal safeguards and tax benefits for nonprofit journalism ventures. Encourage philanthropy and endowments in journalism (as exist in parts of the West) to diversify funding. Create community media grants and protected spaces for citizen journalism. Ensure press freedom watchdogs can operate without intimidation. By nurturing this independent sector (through donor transparency and NGO partnerships), India’s information ecosystem can become more resilient and reflective of diverse voices.

International Portrayal and Global Benchmarks

How the world sees India’s media – and how Indian media compares to global peers – is a vital perspective.

International rankings and foreign press reports often spotlight India’s press-freedom issues. For example, Reporters Sans Frontières’ 2024 World Press Freedom Index placed India near the bottom (151st out of 180), noting that recent corporate takeovers of media “signalled the end of pluralism”. Freedom House similarly found that under current laws, journalism in India is “significantly less ambitious” and plagued by government interference. These reports tend to emphasize India’s negative headlines (censorship cases, hate speech, etc.), reflecting international concern over shrinking press space. Indian commentators counter that such coverage often overlooks India’s accomplishments, accusing Western media of selective bias. In any case, global media portrayals have sharpened since 2014, focusing on issues like minority rights, digital surveillance, and supposed “Hindu nationalist” influence in news.

By contrast, media in countries with strong press traditions enjoy more structural independence. For instance, the UK’s BBC is publicly funded via a license fee and governed by an independent board, which helps it maintain high editorial standards. In the US, NPR and PBS rely on a mix of public funding and listener donations, protecting them from advertiser pressures. Germany’s Deutsche Welle and France’s AFP function under charters that legally insulate them from government meddling. These models help ensure balanced reporting and public trust. In India, no such model exists outside a politically appointed state network.

• Trust and Ratings: Interestingly, global surveys show some Indian news brands still rate high in trust. A 2021 Reuters study found the Times of India (a commercial paper) had a 74% trust score in India (higher than any UK or US outlet). Public broadcasters DD News and All India Radio ranked right behind TOI among Indians, on par with the BBC’s 62% trust in Britain. This suggests that India’s public broadcast model (if run well) can command credibility.
• Freedom Index: However, on press-freedom indices India lags far behind its BRICS peers. The 2025 index notes India at 151st (very serious situation) while countries like South Africa and Brazil – with similar development levels – are ranked much higher. This gap highlights systemic issues.

Vision without political domination: India’s media could adopt global best practices. Independent public funding (e.g. a license fee or parliamentary grant) could support an unbiased national broadcaster. Regulatory bodies would be modeled on BBC Trust or U.S. Federal Communications standards, ensuring transparency and neutrality. Reforms: Revise governance of state media (Prasar Bharati) to be truly independent – perhaps through a mix of governmental and civil-society oversight. Introduce public media-financing mechanisms (like a minimal TV license or a small "press levy") to reduce corporate dependence. Foster reciprocity with foreign media: simplify visas for international journalists and allow them to cover Indian stories freely, which can help project India’s image abroad in a balanced way. By benchmarking itself against outlets like BBC, NPR, DW and Al Jazeera (which have charters or trusts), India can gradually elevate its standards to global levels.

Social Media and Political Polarization

India’s social media landscape is deeply polarized along political lines, intensifying national divides. Political parties and interest groups exploit online platforms to mobilize support, often with little regard for truth.

• Propaganda and Echo Chambers: Analyses of Indian social media observe that both BJP and Congress (and now many regional parties) heavily use Facebook, Twitter (X), WhatsApp and other apps to broadcast narratives. A GIGA report notes that social media campaigns in India are “misused for propaganda, hate speech, and disinformation” which can undermine democratic pluralism. Algorithms further create filter bubbles, so users mainly see posts from like-minded contacts. This environment has sharpened “echo chamber” dynamics – memes and false claims reinforcing each side’s biases.
• Spike in Hate Speech: Alongside political messaging, online hate speech has surged. The India Hate Lab documented a 74% increase in recorded anti-minority hate incidents in 2024 (peaking during elections). Muslim communities were targeted in nearly all of these cases, often via viral videos and slogans shared on WhatsApp groups and YouTube channels. Notably, the report identified top politicians (including PM Modi and Home Minister Shah) among frequent purveyors of sectarian rhetoric. Such content, when amplified online, contributes to social polarization and outbreaks of communal tension offline.
• Distrust and Anger: Surveys reflect this climate: many Indians now believe mainstream media and social networks are heavily politicized. As Reuters notes, “large numbers” of people feel media is driven by political agendas, and user trust in social platforms for unbiased news remains low. Heated debates over laws, identity issues, and diplomacy on platforms like Twitter (X) often turn vitriolic, eroding civil discourse.

In an ideal scenario, social media discourse would be civil and fact-based, not a battleground of propaganda. Online communities would feature open debate rather than one-sided shouting matches. Reforms: Platforms should enforce stricter moderation of hate speech and misinformation – including transparent algorithms and demonetizing clearly propagandistic content. Implement mandatory digital literacy education so users can spot clickbait and deepfakes. Enact clear election-ad rules for social media (e.g. require disclosure of sponsor and message truthfulness), as is done in advanced democracies. Finally, encourage inter-party dialogue forums online, where opposing views can be aired under fact-checked conditions. Together, these steps would reduce divisiveness on social media and channel political energy into informed discussion rather than outrage.

Case Study: Media Narratives During India–Pakistan Tensions

Recent India–Pakistan flare-ups illustrate how political forces can warp news coverage on both sides – and how an independent media might behave differently.

• Polarized Reporting: During heightened tensions in May 2025, Indian TV channels and Pakistani media engaged in parallel propaganda campaigns. An Al Jazeera review documented Indian channels “flooding the public with fake news, doctored visuals and sensationalist coverage” that stoked panic. For example, TV networks repeatedly aired footage from unrelated conflicts (e.g. Gaza war clips) as supposed evidence of Indian airstrikes in Pakistan. Meanwhile, social media in Pakistan saw military-linked accounts broadcasting alerts of Indian warplanes taking off and vows of retaliation. Ordinary citizens on both sides were led to fear imminent war by these narratives. Observers noted this became “a war of narratives” rather than facts.
• Selectivity and Hype: Each country’s media framed events to match the government’s stance. Indian outlets prioritized stories of Pakistani “aggression” and national retaliation, omitting dissenting voices that called for diplomatic calm. Pakistani media likewise emphasized Indian moves as hostile. Independent fact-checkers on both sides had little platform. This one-sided reporting inflamed citizens’ emotions instead of informing them.

There are numerous of these incidences. It will take a complete blog to discuss those. If you are enthusiast to know those. Leave a comment and let me do the rest.

If depoliticized, media coverage would be far more sober and nuanced. Journalists would verify claims on the ground rather than rerun governmental press releases. For instance, Indian media would demand evidence of any strike before broadcasting, avoiding unverified videos. Pakistani reporters would likewise seek corroboration of military statements. Reforms: Create cross-border journalist exchange programs so media professionals report on each other’s soil under observer status, building empathy and fact-sharing. Encourage neutral third-party fact-checks during crises (e.g. joint India-Pak committees of former diplomats/journalists). International media outlets should be allowed freer access to report (as outside observers did on occasions). Governments can help by publicly committing to let neutral agencies assess allegations. By emphasizing diplomatic dialogue over nationalist rhetoric, both media ecosystems could focus on peace-promoting narratives rather than hype – a change that would likely lower public tensions.

Vision for the Future: A Post-Political Media Environment

Envisioning “India Minus Politics” in media means creating a system where journalism serves citizens unchained from partisan control. In such a future, Indian media would be fact-driven, independent, and diverse. Major practical reforms could include:

• Institutional Safeguards: Enshrine press freedom by law, and establish an independent Media Council or Ombudsperson free from government or commercial control. Strengthen the judiciary’s ability to protect journalists (dismantle criminal defamation/sedition laws).
• Transparent Ownership and Funding: Mandate that all news outlets publicly disclose ownership, financial backers and political links. Ban or strictly regulate anonymous political donations to media. Encourage non-profit and cooperative ownership models for newsrooms.
• Public Media Reform: Reconstitute Prasar Bharati as a genuinely autonomous public service broadcaster (with an independent board and guaranteed budget) to provide high-quality programming. Consider a small license fee or public levy (like at PBS/NPR) to fund it, reducing advertiser dependence.
• Capacity Building and Literacy: Invest in journalist training and rural reporting networks so quality news can reach all regions. Implement nationwide media-literacy education so citizens critically evaluate news (as seen in some Western countries).
• International Cooperation: Join global press-freedom initiatives, host international journalism conferences, and allow foreign media greater freedom in India – steps that could pressure improvements.

These changes would gradually restore credibility and trust. In a depoliticized media ecosystem, consumers would be better informed, political debates more substantive, and societal harmony stronger. The goal is not to mute politics (difficult in a democracy) but to keep it out of media influence. An informed public, served by transparent and accountable news, would ultimately strengthen India’s democracy and global standing. Such a reimagined media future – one where “India Minus Politics” means journalism with integrity – is achievable with concerted policy action and civic commitment.

Sources: Reputable studies and reports have informed each section (e.g., Reuters Institute surveys, RSF and Freedom House analyses, media watchdog findings, and academic journalism research). These highlight current challenges and outline paths for reform.

Again,

"At last there is Space for your Own evaluation and Perception."