“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress, all the rest is advertising.” – Alfred Harmsworth, founder of the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror.

Now consider this: A minister in a State government gives an outrageously arrogant reply to a senior journalist who asks the minister a specific question on deaths due to contaminated drinking water. The journalist shares the clip on social media. The media house also shares the clip from its official handle. What follows is an outpouring of support for the journalist for his courage and commitment. The media house deletes the social media post.

To be fair, the media house did not delete the story, nor did they act against the reporter. And the reporter did a follow-up story as well. However, to give context to what happened in media terms, consider these numbers. India has about 900 private television channels, half of which are dedicated to news coverage. 21 crore homes have television sets. Then there is social media, which has become the primary source of news consumption for a sizable portion of the population. A report by Reuters Institute revealed that seven out of ten people in India prefer to consume news content online, with half of them relying on social media. 54% consume news on Youtube, 48% on WhatsApp, and 35% on Facebook. These numbers will give you a fair idea about the ramifications of deleting a post that had gone viral on social media.

Let’s say it like it is. When a media house deletes a video clip from their social media handle, it is effectively like using water to douse flames. That raises the question: is editorial independence often sacrificed at the altar of corporate media ownership? When powerful conglomerates, who run big businesses, across sectors, also have stakes in media companies, is it only but natural that they would not want to rock the boat?

Here is some interesting data. In 2024, a pre-election analysis of the stories carried by news channels revealed that over half had anti-opposition themes, 27% were pro-government, and just over 1% were on substantive issues like jobs or education. As your columnist said on the floor of Parliament, “There is an old Zulu proverb. The problem with the media owners. A dog with a bone in its mouth cannot bark”.

India ranks 151 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index 2025. Here is the verbatim quote from the profile on India by Reporters Without Borders, which states that, “With an average of two to three journalists killed due to their work every year, India is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media. Journalists who are critical of the government are routinely subjected to online harassment, intimidation, threats and physical attacks, as well as criminal prosecutions and arbitrary arrests. They can be victims of violence, from police officers and political activists, as well as criminal groups and corrupt local officials”.

There are stories one would hear in (the now defunct) Central Hall of the not-so-subtle influence of the ruling party in setting the agenda for news outlets. The late Arun Jaitley had a whacky sense of humour; so even when we called him Plantation Manager (for allegedly planting pro-BJP stories in the media), he would laugh it off and even order a second round of toast with butter and coffee.

This is no laughing matter. If the fourth pillar of democracy is coerced and bludgeoned into submission, the very essence of democracy in India will be weakened.

Postscript: Any commentary on the Indian media would be incomplete without one factoid: the Prime Minister of India, now in his third term, is yet to make his debut at a press conference.