image

K.B. Mathur

A person in a suit and tie

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

New Delhi | Monday | 8 December 2025

The near collapse of credibility in the Indian media is no longer a matter of debate; it is a lived reality acknowledged in professional circles and increasingly recognised by the public. What appears today as a sudden decline is, in fact, the culmination of structural distortions that began more than three decades ago. The crisis is not merely editorial or political—it is institutional, economic, and ethical.

While many observers attribute the deterioration of journalistic values to recent years, the seeds of the crisis were sown in the 1990s. A crucial turning point came when leading media houses began recruiting journalists on short-term contracts, effectively weakening the autonomy and security necessary for independent journalism. The transformation of the Times of India under Samir and Vineet Jain, who emphasised advertisement-driven content, became a watershed. When the then editor Girilal Jain questioned this shift, he was replaced. His successor, Dilip Padgaonkar, too was eventually eased out, signalling that editorial independence had become secondary to commercial imperatives.

Over the decades, the role and stature of the editor—once the moral centre of a newspaper—were systematically eroded across organisations. Today, many leading dailies struggle to retain their readership, and large numbers of copies are distributed free merely to sustain advertisement numbers.

Article at a Glance
Indian media’s credibility crisis is the result of decades-long structural distortions rather than a sudden decline. Its roots lie in the 1990s, when major media houses shifted to contract-based hiring and advertisement-driven content, weakening editorial independence.
The diminishing authority of editors, falling readership, and the rise of sensationalist television debates further eroded public trust. Globally too, Indian journalism holds little influence due to its lack of neutrality and rigorous reporting.
Historical traditions of strong, ethical journalism—as seen in Swatantrata Bharat and Amrit Bazar Patrika—have largely disappeared as commercial pressures replaced public service values. Political factors, including the government’s limited engagement with the press and weakened labour protections, have compounded the crisis.
Misreporting, such as exaggerations of overseas incidents, deepens social divides. Yet, committed journalists and new independent platforms offer hope. Restoring credibility will require editorial autonomy, institutional safeguards, and a renewed commitment to truth and democratic accountability.

Television news, expected to offer a counterbalance, has largely failed to uphold public trust. Despite the Supreme Court’s reminder that the airwaves are a public resource, channels increasingly prioritise confrontation and spectacle over verified news. Viewers often struggle to remain with a programme for even a few minutes as debates drift into theatrics without substance.

The cumulative impact has been devastating: public discourse is distorted, misinformation circulates with impunity, and citizens seeking clarity find themselves navigating a fog of partisan narratives.

Despite India’s status as one of the world’s largest democracies, its media has negligible influence globally. Internationally, Indian journalism is neither respected for content nor for its ability to approach issues with neutrality. This marginalisation is symptomatic of a deeper problem—newsrooms have prioritised instant engagement over rigorous reporting, opinion has overshadowed facts, and journalism has been reduced to an instrument for political amplification.

This decline stands in sharp contrast to the traditions of robust journalism practiced in the post-Independence decades. Institutions such as Swatantrata Bharat, edited first by Ashokji—an ICS topper who chose journalism over elite colonial service under Gandhian influence—followed by Yogindrapati Tripathi, exemplified the idea that a newspaper was a public institution, not a private enterprise.

Under Pandit Tripathi, the paper became known for its classical journalism grounded in truth and social responsibility. His sudden death in the late 1960s was mourned across Lucknow; the city turned out in large numbers, recognising the extraordinary role he had played in shaping public conscience. His legacy lived on for years, influencing generations of journalists who saw their profession as a public service rather than a commodity.

Similarly, the expansion of the Amrit Bazar Patrika group into new Hindi editions such as Amrit Prabhat reflected the growing appetite for credible regional journalism in the 1970s and 80s. It was a phase when circulation grew, journalists were financially secure, and editorial leadership was respected.

These traditions have since eroded. After the passing of visionary proprietors such as Tusharkanti Ghosh, successors struggled to preserve institutional values. Market-driven decision-making slowly displaced editorial judgement, leaving a vacuum that commercial interests swiftly filled.

India's current media environment cannot be understood without examining the political context. The present government, despite its communication machinery, has shown little interest in engaging with the press. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not held a single open press conference in more than a decade in office, an unprecedented departure from democratic norms.

However, the crisis cannot be blamed on politics alone. Large media houses—including the Times Group, The Hindu, Hindustan Times and major Hindi dailies—bear responsibility for introducing exploitative contract systems that have stripped journalists of job security and independence. In some organisations, aspirants are reportedly required to submit signed resignation letters at the time of joining, a practice that demands urgent investigation.

The dilution of the Working Journalists Act through new labour codes has further weakened institutional safeguards, giving rise to fears that the media is being shaped into a pliant ecosystem rather than a platform for public scrutiny.

The consequences of compromised journalism are apparent in the distortion of even minor international developments. A recent example is the incident at a Hindu temple in Brampton, Canada, where officials of the Indian High Commission were attacked by Khalistani elements. No idols were vandalised, yet significant sections of Indian media portrayed it as an assault on the temple itself. Such misreporting deepens communal divides and corrodes social harmony.

Despite the bleak landscape, many journalists—young and old—continue to uphold professional values. Their resistance offers hope that Indian media can be rebuilt. Initiatives such as the launch of new independent publications by veteran editors indicate a renewed commitment to truthful, fair, and substantive journalism.

The path to revival lies in reclaiming editorial autonomy, restoring institutional protections for journalists, resisting the lure of sensationalism, and reaffirming that media exists not to flatter power but to question it. Democracies falter not when governments fail, but when the press stops asking difficult questions.

India’s media stands today at a defining crossroads. Whether it regains its lost credibility will determine not just the future of journalism, but the health of Indian democracy itself. (A veteran media person, K.B Mathur worked for Allahabad’s  Patrika group of publications as its chief executive. Later, he served the corporate world as media and policy advisor. Now in retirement he lives in Taranto, Canada, with his son and his family).

**************

  • Share: