TV media sinks lower as independent media offers glimmer of hope in 2025

 Broken News

2025 in Review

Published in Newslaundry on December 22, 2025

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/12/22/tv-media-sinks-lower-as-independent-media-offers-glimmer-of-hope-in-2025

As we come to the end of 2025, how do we assess the state of our mainstream media? Can it sink lower than it already has, given that it stands at 151 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index? 

It can because in more than two instances this year, mainstream media, especially TV news, has demonstrated the depths to which it can fall.

Yet there is a glimmer of hope: despite the dismal performance of mainstream TV channels, independent journalists and digital platforms still survive and do the kind of journalism this country needs.

The two lowest points for our mainstream media this year, in my view, were the coverage of Operation Sindoor and the reporting and follow-up stories after the Delhi blast, when a car exploded at peak hour near the Red Fort, killing an estimated 15 people.

Indian TV channels love war and conflict. It allows them to dramatise, increase decibel levels, and stage the conflict in their studios by pitching individuals who can outshout their opponents. But the coverage of Operation Sindoor exceeded expectations. 

Indian channels, even so-called “respectable” news channels like India Today, fell for the fake news that India had captured Lahore and bombed Karachi. In the rush to be the first, these channels fell hook, line and sinker for the most obvious fake news. 

Even a slight pause, a pinch of scepticism, and taking time to implement a basic journalistic norm – verify and double check – would have saved them from this stupid and appalling faux pas. But no, who has the time these days to do this? Scepticism is reserved for statements made by those who oppose the government, while obedience to the narrative of those who support it is the norm.

Just watch this episode of TV Newsance by Manisha Pande to remind yourself of the disgraceful coverage by our leading TV news channels. It is cringeworthy.

In fact, Rajdeep Sardesai, one of the many anchors who allowed these fairy tales to be broadcast as if they were verified news, acknowledges that it was a mistake and says he apologised on air. A long profile piece on him in Caravan mentions that in a post-mortem bureau meeting, when asked why they didn’t verify the news, India Today staffers said that several reporters had been called by ministers and senior officials from various ministries telling them that this was precisely what was going to happen and that TV channels should “break” this news.

The media’s behaviour during Operation Sindoor reconfirms what’s now well known: that the government briefs journalists through messages and phone calls about what should be reported.

The other low point in my view is the way the media reported the Delhi blast and its aftermath. All kinds of unverified information were instantly broadcast and reported. Basically, anything the government or investigative agencies told the media was presented as the truth, with no effort at fact-checking (read here).

A consequence of such reporting was felt immediately by ordinary Kashmiris in other parts of the country and in Kashmir. The demolition of the house of the main suspect was reported but not questioned; the fact that all doctors from Kashmir were being viewed as potential suspects was also not questioned. 

And if this was not enough, the locked office of the Kashmir Times in Jammu was raided by the State Investigation Agency, which claimed it had found guns and ammunition in it. The editors and owners of the paper, which is now published remotely as a digital publication, have been charged under various sections, including for violating India’s “sovereignty”. Kashmir Times is practically the only independent voice coming out of Kashmir, as most others have either fallen in line or been banned. 

The state of the media in Kashmir, and the problems that journalists there face almost every day, continues to be the litmus test for the extent of freedom that the Indian media enjoys. Just this week, the police arrived at the home of Jehangir Ali, the reporter for The Wire, and without a warrant, seized his phone without providing him with the hash value to ensure that it would not be tampered with. He finally got the phone back after several hours.

A glimmer of hope

Despite the Modi government's proactive efforts to ensure that mainstream media sticks to the approved narrative, and the threats and intimidation, especially against journalists in Kashmir, aimed at sending a clear message to other journalists who choose to do their jobs, several remarkable investigative stories have appeared on independent platforms.

At a time when the word “environment” is clubbed with the killer air pollution levels in Delhi and in many other cities in India, it is important to remember that there are other pressing environmental challenges that get precious little coverage in the media, such as the handing over of forests to private interests. 

A story to note is independent journalist M. Rajshekhar's piece on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Writing in Time magazine, Rajshekhar reports on the disaster that the natural resources of the islands and the indigenous communities face due to the government’s policies.

Another story that stands out for the challenge the reporter must have faced while investigating it is Nidhi Suresh's report in The News Minute. The journalist did a remarkable job by talking to the nun who alleged she was raped by Bishop Franco Mulakkal in 2018. Although the Bishop was acquitted, no one knows what happened to the nun. Nidhi Suresh traced her and persuaded her to speak. The result is a chilling narrative in 10 parts of the life of this woman.

Another recent investigative story is Sukanya Shantha's three-part series in The Wire.  Based on publicly available data, Shantha has followed up on the National Investigation Agency’s claims that it secured convictions in 100 percent of its cases in 2024. Her digging revealed that this was happening because the people accused, the majority of them Muslim men charged under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), were persuaded to plead guilty when faced with the reality that they would spend much longer in jail as undertrials waiting for the trial to begin.  

While Alt News remains outstanding in its fact-checking work, as seen best during Operation Sindoor, Newslaundry has also done notable stories, like this one on the stampede during the Kumbh Mela this year. The government insisted that only 30 people had died. NL reporters, however, found that as many as 79 had died in the stampede. This was established by doing the kind of routine work that journalists are expected to do: first being sceptical of government data, then following up and checking for yourself. When that is done, as we saw during the Covid pandemic, there’s always a yawning gap between official figures and reality.

While “vote chori” and elections continue to be widely covered, the back story of how political parties like the BJP are funded, particularly before the Supreme Court scrapped the Electoral bonds scheme, did not get the same kind of attention. 

Although Indian Express has now done a detailed story on who funds political parties, earlier it was independent platforms that investigated the Electoral Bonds scheme. More recently, the Reporters’ Collective has investigated the BJP's funding in Assam. The results are revealing. Most of the funders are people who have won lucrative government contracts.

And finally, like Kashmir, some of the best reporting on Northeast India, which only comes into focus during conflict, is from reporters working for independent digital news platforms. Like this report by Rokibuz Zaman of Scroll of the people physically pushed out of Assam into Bangladesh because they were suspected to be “foreigners” even though they were Indian citizens.

In sum, at the end of 2025, we are where we were at the end of 2024. The mainstream media houses, and specifically their television channels, continue to compete to go lower with news that is sometimes untrue and almost always divisive in a country where the nature of our politics increasingly fractures the polity.

And for real journalism, for in-depth stories, practically the only source – although some print media like Indian Express, The Hindu and Times of India have done some excellent long-form stories – are the independent digital news platforms that continue to survive, even if precariously.

India’s fog of war: Print media treads cautiously, TV media loses the plot

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on May 9, 2025

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/05/09/indias-fog-of-war-print-media-treads-cautiously-tv-media-loses-the-plot

Illustration of an anchor shouting through a television while viewers cower on their couch. |Manjul

Subscribe nowIndia today is enveloped in a fog, the fog of war. It is so thick that we can neither see nor hear what is going on. We must wait patiently for someone in “authority” to tell us what is happening.

India today is enveloped in a fog, the fog of war. It is so thick that we can neither see nor hear what is going on. We must wait patiently for someone in “authority” to tell us what is happening.

Ever since the launch of Operation Sindoor on the night of May 6-7, when Indian armed forces launched nine precision strikes that targeted what were suspected to be terror outfits in Pakistan, Indian media – or at least some sections of it – has gone ballistic.

As for Indian TV news channels (which gave up on doing any kind of serious journalism years ago), they had already launched their own “operation” against Pakistan without waiting for the Indian government to act. Indeed, within days of the terror attack in Pahalgam where 26 people were killed, TV anchors were not just demanding war, but even demonstrating how it ought to be conducted. (It’s worthwhile, even now, to watch this episode of TV Newsance by Manisha Pande to get a sense of the madness on television screens.)

The official start of the clash between India and Pakistan has now given these channels additional ammunition and the madness has reached a higher pitch. Disinformation, misinformation, drama and ear-splitting decibel levels are par for the course. If you watch Indian TV, you might say this is normal. But is it, when the country is virtually at war with its neighbour, when the government is putting out all kinds of advisories about misinformation and fake news? 

Why is it that no such advisory has been directed at these channels, not even a gentle rebuke, when the government has the power under existing laws to do so? Is it because the government finds it convenient to let them rant in contrast to its official briefings that are restrained and low-key? Is it important for this government to keep up the ultra-nationalist fervour without seeming to be doing so directly? These are questions that we must ask, even if the mere act of asking questions now is considered “anti-national”. 

On the day after Operation Sindoor, barring headlines and display, the news coverage in all major newspapers was almost identical. What was missing was the story of the price being paid by the Kashmiris living near the Line of Control. An exception was the Indian Express, which had a story on its front page giving the names and ages of each one of those killed in the firing across the border.  

But the press could have given a human face to this war by asking why, if the government knew that it was mounting this operation, was there inadequate effort to make sure the most vulnerable, the people living on the border, had shelters, or somewhere else where they could go? 

And why should the Indian media not ask these questions, as Kashmir Times has done? Despite its constraints, Kashmir Times has been putting out daily reports on the lives of the Kashmiris affected along the Line of Control. If you visit some of the villages in Uri district, you can see the other side clearly, across a deep gorge with the Neelam River that divides the two sides of Kashmir. People on both sides face cross-border firing whenever there’s a problem between our two countries. Yet, so often, their stories are never told, or only in passing. The real price of war is paid by such ordinary people.

Apart from not reporting on the casualties along the LoC, the print media is also not asking legitimate questions. For instance, when the defence minister states that 100 terrorists have been killed in Operation Sindoor, we need to know who they are, where they were, and whether they were at any of the nine sites that were targeted in Pakistan. Yet so far, such a question has not been asked, and it is highly unlikely if it ever will be. 

There are other questions, including Pakistan’s claims on Indian fighter jets, and photographs of alleged debris. So far, there has been no official response.

Clearly, print media has decided to tread cautiously because they know that unlike TV channels, this government is not going to be charitable towards them if they report without official confirmation. Any speculation, or source-based story is likely to be regarded as antagonistic.

And with the Indian government’s action of blocking the sites of even established Pakistan media such as Dawn or GeoNews, Indian journalists have to depend on international media houses like the BBC or news agencies like Reuters to get a sense of what is being said and reported on the other side. Surely, this is something that the media in India ought to be able to access. 

Clearly, print media has decided to tread cautiously because they know that unlike TV channels, this government is not going to be charitable towards them if they report without official confirmation. Any speculation, or source-based story is likely to be regarded as antagonistic.

Also, while Indian TV news continues unchecked with its dangerous theatrics, 8,000 accounts on the social media platform X have been blocked on the request of the Indian government. Ironically, X’s own Global Government Affairs account which reported that these accounts had been blocked without a clear reason for why this should be done, has also been blocked.

Strangely too, accounts of senior Kashmiri journalists like Muzamil Jamil from Indian Express, who is not particularly active on X, and editor of Kashmir Times, Anuradha Bhasin, have been blocked. Also, the Kerala-based digital platform Maktoob Media, even though it is reporting on the ongoing exchange between India and Pakistan much as mainstream media is doing. 

At the time of publishing this story, The Wire announced that its website was blocked in India as well. 

When strategic affairs are involved, especially between India and Pakistan, the media is flooded with comments by “experts”. On television news, the expertise of some of some of these men, and they are all men, can be questioned. But they provide the optics for the shouting matches that are always the norm, and more so when the issue is India and Pakistan.

Fortunately, print remains more sober, and one can read, or listen to, counter-terrorism experts who speak with the knowledge and insight needed to clear the fog of disinformation.

One such is Ajai Sahni. In this long, but frank, podcast with senior journalist Nirupama Subramanian for Frontline, Sahni speaks about how much of the government’s response after the Pahalgam terror attack is pure optics, and what if anything can be done to deal with the reality of cross-border terror. Without mincing words, he says that Pahalgam was a policy failure, a propaganda failure, and a political failure.

In the fog of war, disinformation from all sides is the virtual norm. We have seen that in abundance in the last few days. The night of May 6/7 will be remembered for the deluge that followed Operation Sindoor. Yet, it was the much maligned Mohammed Zubair of Alt News who systematically separated the wheat from the chaff so to speak, and revealed how handles pretending to be Indians, were Pakistanis sharing old videos to show the extent of the attack by India. Later he also showed how handles in India, and even TV channels, were using old videos to show what was going on that night.

The scourge of social media did not exist in the previous major clashes between India and Pakistan (although there is hope that this one will not escalate into a major clash). Today, it is something that is virtually impossible to control. As a result, responsible media platforms without independent sources of verification are left with no option but to stick to what is confirmed officially, even if this is not the whole story. However, even within these constraints, there are stories about people, and the impact of conflict, that need to be recorded and told. 

All this started in Kashmir, when 26 people were brutally murdered on April 22 by gun-toting men identified as terrorists. It is a region that has now been pushed back into a time of tension and sorrow. Do read this sensitive and moving piece by Mirza Waheed, Kashmiri journalist and well-known writer, in The Guardian lamenting that Kashmiri voices are still missing. 

 in The Guardian lamenting that Kashmiri voices are still missing.  

Mainstream TV tattered the flag of press freedom. It can’t use it for a cover-up amid INDIA boycott

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on September 21, 2023

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/09/21/mainstream-tv-tattered-the-flag-of-press-freedom-it-cant-use-it-for-a-cover-up-amid-india-boycott

A new parliament building and the passage of a 27-year-old law have pushed to the background what had the potential of becoming a raging controversy. I am referring to the decision taken by the opposition alliance to boycott 14 TV anchors and not appear on the shows they host.

On September 20, the daylong Lok Sabha session on the Women’s Reservation Bill – the Constitution (128th Amendment) Bill 2023 – brought back memories of a parliament that once existed, where we heard both sides put forward their views. In the past, this kind of debate allowed the public to be informed about the pros and the cons of a law or a policy. Today, such debates are conspicuous by their absence.

Another takeaway from that day was to see the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, sitting through the discussion and ultimate passage of the bill. He has a record of the lowest attendance in parliament of any prime minister so far.

But whether this special session in its spanking new building will inform the way future sessions are conducted remains to be seen. Old habits die hard, and it is likely, as we enter election season, that we will once again witness little real debate and more walkouts and grandstanding even as important laws are rushed through.

The controversy around the boycott of 14 anchors has also been useful in some ways. It has brought into focus the state of mainstream television media in India. Irrespective of what people think of the opposition’s strategy of naming specific anchors, there is little doubt that this move has compelled viewers to look again at the channels where these anchors appear, and to ask whether what they see each night at prime time is even journalism.

Ideally, we need a forum to debate the state of mainstream media. But as the latter will certainly not provide space for a fair and reasoned debate, once again it is the independent platforms where the issue has been discussed. 

There have been several well-argued articles such as by Anjali Mody in Scroll and by Ravish Kumar in Wire. The lawyer Apar Gupta has written about why he chose not to appear on certain channels and suggests that “broken news will only be fixed by collective action”.

And Aakar Patel, in this article in Wire, argues that the opposition has every right to refuse to be part of what he calls “a rigged game by large sections of the media”.

On the other side, those against the opposition’s move, including the BJP, have conjured up scenarios about the freedom of the press being threatened and comparing what is a voluntary boycott to the Emergency. They also interchangeably use the term “ban” and “boycott” even though they must know that governments impose bans – individuals and groups can voluntarily boycott.

Furthermore, it is laughable that a political party that has allowed freedom of expression and the press to deteriorate under its watch until India is ranked amongst the lowest in the world in press freedom ranking, should talk about press freedom being threatened by a voluntary boycott.

Also, while we debate this issue, we cannot forget that the prime “boycotter” of the media is none other than the prime minister. In the last 10 years, he has made his disdain for media amply clear, cherry-picking a few journalists for ‘exclusive’ staged interviews and otherwise refusing to engage or answer questions.

Most of the mainstream media is not troubled by this “boycott”, and Modi knows this. Hence, every day, anything the prime minister says, or does, is reported uncritically in print media, and telecast on TV channels. There is not a whisper of criticism barring an occasional op-ed or an edit, questioning what he proclaims from various platforms. And this in a country that claims there is press freedom. 

While the opposition rightly blames some TV channels for spreading hate, and cutting out other viewpoints, there is little doubt that the same media is also responsible for perpetuating and building up the Modi cult.

But coming back to the opposition boycott, the listing of specific anchors has deflected attention from the principal reason the mainstream media, especially TV news, has declined so precipitously in its content and credibility. And that is the ownership of these channels and media houses. 

We tend to forget that the corporatisation of the media began in the 1990s and coincided with the growth of private television channels. The media became a “brand” and a profit centre for the owners of these media houses. The job of the media was not just to report all the news but to highlight the news that would sell the brand.

This is also when “celebrities” (film stars, models, the ultra-rich) entered the picture. What they did, or did not, became “news”. It attracted readers and viewers in a changing consumerist-oriented India. And once it was clear that the strategy worked, it was monetised. Soon we had the advent of “paid news” masquerading as reportage by journalists. 

On television, Arnab Goswami, when he was with Times Now, can be credited for taking the combative nature of TV debates that had already begun on other channels to another level. His “brand” sold the channel. Soon it became the norm in TV discussions across channels. Goswami moved on to Republic TV, but his style is visible each time you switch on any news channel.

A book worth revisiting at this time is Amrita Shah’s excellent 2019 take on mainstream media, ‘Telly-Guillotined, How Television Changed India’ (published by Sage and Yoda Press). It is a new version of her 1997 book, ‘Hype, Hypocrisy and Television in Urban India’. Re-reading the first paragraph of the preface would make you think she is referring to what’s happening today.  I quote:

“Loud, sensationalistic, irresponsible, trivial, dangerous – these are some of the ways in which the Indian news media is perceived by many in the country today. Terms like ‘fake news’ and ‘paid news’ are freely and sometimes gratuitously applied to journalistic output. Diminishing public respect has rendered journalists vulnerable to pressures of various kinds. Journalists are sacked en masse, heads of media companies are raided for expressing anti-establishment views, senior news staffers are fired for taking on powerful politicians and attacked for exposing corruption and wrongdoing. Even among crowds, while covering news events, reporters and photographers are liable to be roughed up and assaulted by random members of the public. How did we get here?”

Shah’s is a detailed exploration and cannot be summarised here. But essentially, she has traced how the process of what she calls the “decline of the journalist” and the power of “the salesman, the technician and the entertainer” grew and shaped what we see today.

Whether the boycott decision by the opposition can bring about any change in a system so well-entrenched is difficult to predict. Also, given the power and reach of this media, whether the opposition choosing not to appear on these shows and thereby lending them some credibility will dent their viewership is uncertain. One could argue that in election season, such a boycott might hurt the opposition more than those they criticise or oppose.

What can be said is that it is time that we debated the debasement of what is mainstream television news, and search for alternatives. As long as the owners of these channels allow the named anchors, and others not on the list, their poisonous and performative brand of journalism, and believe that they profit from this, there is little that individual viewers can do to intervene. Yet, boycotts have been effective if they are scaled up to the point where they hurt the bottom line of corporations.

At the end of the day, we are still left with the question: what is journalism? It is not what we are seeing day in and day out on our TV channels. But it is still taking place in spaces away from mainstream media.

Here is a piece that gives me hope that all is not lost. Not many of this generation would even know of Bhanwari Devi. She is not a celebrity. She still lives in her village of Bhatteri in Rajasthan. Yet, it is her life, and her fight for justice against the men who raped her, that led to a path-breaking law on sexual harassment at the workplace. In a deeply reported article in Print, that focuses on Bhanwari, Jyoti Yadav reminds us of the struggles that Indian women face today. So sensitive and informative journalism is still alive, as the article illustrates.