In the lead-up to India’s 2024 general election, several prominent news broadcasters collaborated with polling agencies to project a decisive victory for the Bharatiya Janata Party, with some forecasts suggesting a two-thirds majority. Contrary to these predictions, the BJP secured only 240 seats, falling short of the 272 required for a simple majority in the 543-seat Lok Sabha. This stark disconnect between media projections and the actual electoral outcome exposed a concerning trend: the erosion of media independence through political and corporate influence.
This disconnect between media projections and actual outcomes underscores the phenomenon of media capture, where media outlets prioritise governmental narratives at the expense of their independence and objectivity. By sidelining critical issues such as unemployment, inflation, and agrarian distress, and by marginalising opposition voices, news media failed to represent the electorate’s true sentiments. This failure not only undermined public trust in mainstream media but also emphasised the urgent need for journalistic integrity to safeguard democratic values.
In a democratic society, the media is regarded as the “fourth estate”, entrusted with the critical roles of holding power accountable and keeping the public informed. However, in recent years, segments of the media in many countries have deviated from this responsibility, giving rise to what is commonly referred to as “lapdog media”. In India, this phenomenon is colloquially referred to as “godi media”. Popularised by journalist Ravish Kumar, the word “godi”, meaning “lap” in Hindi, symbolises the media’s cozy proximity to those in power, forsaking its watchdog role to champion governmental narratives.
This trend is not confined to India but represents a global pattern of media capture, where political and corporate interests undermine journalistic independence, resulting in a press that prioritises allegiance to power over its fundamental commitment to truth and public service.
This essay explores the rise of “godi media” in India as a manifestation of media capture, where political and corporate influences undermine journalistic independence, prioritising allegiance to power over truth. It delves into the mechanisms of media capture, including corporate ownership, financial dependencies, regulatory pressures, and self-censorship, which collectively erode the media’s role as a watchdog of democracy.
Understanding media capture
Media capture is a pervasive phenomenon that extends beyond authoritarian regimes, affecting democracies worldwide. Academic Anya Schiffrin, in her edited volumes In the Service of Power: Media Capture and the Threat to Democracy and Media Capture: How Money, Digital Platforms, and Governments Control the News, defines media capture as the process through which political actors, corporate entities, or a combination of both exert undue influence over media organisations.
This influence, as described by political scientist Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, manifests when media outlets prioritise vested interests over journalistic objectivity, often aligning their narratives with the interests of their patrons. Mechanisms of capture include ownership consolidation, financial dependencies, regulatory pressures, and intimidation, which collectively erode the independence and watchdog role of the press.
India exemplifies this phenomenon, with a media landscape dominated by a handful of powerful conglomerates. These corporations often have extensive business portfolios reliant on favorable government policies, creating structural dependencies that compromise editorial autonomy. For instance, Network18, owned by Reliance Industries, operates under such constraints. Reliance, a sprawling conglomerate with interests in energy, telecommunications, and retail, relies heavily on government approvals and policy support. This dependence has led to allegations that its media arm amplifies government-friendly narratives while sidelining critical issues, raising concerns about journalistic integrity.
A more recent and striking example is the acquisition of NDTV by the Adani Group in 2022. NDTV, long known for its critical coverage of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, experienced a significant shift in ownership when Gautam Adani – a businessman allegedly closely associated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi – acquired a substantial stake. This takeover prompted fears about the channel’s editorial independence, with many speculating that it would dilute NDTV’s legacy of critical journalism and align its reporting with the government’s agenda. Such instances illustrate how ownership consolidation and political affiliations can undermine the media’s ability to serve as an independent check on power.
These examples highlight how media capture not only narrows the scope of public discourse but also threatens the democratic fabric by silencing dissenting voices and reshaping narratives to serve entrenched interests. Schiffrin’s work underscores the global relevance of this issue, calling for urgent reforms to safeguard press independence and uphold democratic accountability in the face of such challenges.
The rise of godi media
The term “godi media” specifically refers to Indian media outlets perceived as excessively supportive of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Channels like Republic TV, Times Now, Zee News, and News18 have been criticised for their overt alignment with government narratives. For instance, Republic TV, founded by Arnab Goswami, has faced allegations of aggressively endorsing sectarian and nationalistic narratives. During critical events such as the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir or the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act, Republic TV’s coverage echoed government rhetoric, often sidelining dissenting voices.
This alignment is not confined to BJP-ruled states. Across India, regional media outlets exhibit similar biases aligned with their respective state governments. In Tamil Nadu, DMK-affiliated networks like Sun TV and Kalaignar TV promote the party’s narrative. Andhra Pradesh’s Sakshi TV, promoted by Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, consistently supports the YSR Congress Party and was targeted by the ruling Telugu Desam Party after coming to power. These examples demonstrate how political ownership and affiliations influence media content nationwide.
Mechanisms of media capture
The rise of godi media in India – media outlets aligned with government narratives – can be attributed to several systemic mechanisms. These tools of media capture closely align with broader violations of press freedom, illustrating a concerted effort to control public discourse and silence dissenting voices.
1. Corporate ownership and business interests
Media conglomerates in India often have diversified business portfolios, making them reliant on government policies and approvals in sectors beyond media. This structural dependency influences editorial decisions, leading to compromised journalistic independence. This form of media capture blurs the line between corporate and political interests, allowing governments to indirectly control narratives.
Network18, owned by Reliance Industries, exemplifies this dynamic. Reliance’s business empire spans telecommunications, energy, and retail, all heavily regulated sectors requiring favorable government policies. Consequently, Network18 has faced allegations of amplifying government-friendly narratives while downplaying critical issues.
2. Financial dependencies
Government advertising is a significant source of revenue for many media houses in India, particularly smaller regional outlets. This financial dependency discourages critical reporting that might jeopardise access to these vital funds. This dependency creates a system of soft censorship, where economic incentives dictate editorial choices. Media organisations may self-censor, avoiding stories critical of the government to ensure continued financial support.
The central government, as one of India’s largest advertisers, wields considerable power over the media landscape. During election periods, this influence becomes even more pronounced. For example, the BJP-led government significantly increased its advertising budget ahead of the 2019 general elections, ensuring favorable coverage across major outlets.
3. Regulatory pressures
Governments in India have increasingly used regulatory tools to intimidate and harass media outlets critical of their actions. Tax raids, defamation lawsuits, and restrictions on media operations are among the tactics employed to silence dissenting voices. Regulatory harassment not only silences targeted outlets but also creates a chilling effect across the media industry. Journalists and editors, fearing similar repercussions, are less likely to pursue investigative or critical stories.
In 2021, Dainik Bhaskar and Bharat Samachar, known for their critical reporting on the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, were subjected to tax raids. These actions were widely perceived as punitive measures intended to stifle independent journalism.
Similarly, in September 2021, the Income Tax Department conducted a “survey” at the offices of Newslaundry, an independent news portal known for its investigative journalism and critical stance on government policies. During the operation, officials accessed and copied data from personal and professional devices, including those of co-founder Abhinandan Sekhri, who was not permitted to consult with legal counsel during the process.
Other similar examples include tax raids at BBC offices in New Delhi and Mumbai in February 2023 following the release of a documentary critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and multiple regulatory investigations by the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation of NDTV, once a bastion of independent journalism where the charges were dropped after the sale of the broadcaster to the Adani group.
Implications for godi media
The alignment of certain Indian media outlets with government narratives poses significant challenges to the country’s democratic framework. This convergence undermines the media’s role as a watchdog, leading to several implications:
1. Undermining accountability
By consistently echoing government narratives, Godi media undermines its role in scrutinising power, weakening the checks and balances essential for a functioning democracy. Economic dependencies, such as reliance on government advertising and corporate backing, discourage critical reporting. As noted by journalist Aakar Patel, these financial pressures compel many Indian media outlets to align their coverage with government interests, further eroding editorial independence.
Republic TV exemplifies this dynamic. Founded in 2017 by Arnab Goswami, the channel has faced allegations of frequently aligning itself with the Bharatiya Janata Party and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Its coverage routinely amplifies government achievements while downplaying or ignoring contentious issues, including economic challenges, social unrest, and policies facing widespread criticism. Such alignment with state narratives diminishes the media’s ability to hold power accountable and undermines democratic transparency.
2. Polarising public discourse
Godi Media’s framing of dissenting voices as “anti-national” has fostered a deeply polarised media environment. This portrayal, aligned with the government’s agenda, marginalises critical perspectives and discourages public debate. Channels like Republic TV and Times Now have consistently labeled protesters, activists, and opposition figures as threats to national stability, particularly during significant events like the anti-Citizenship Amendent Act protests and the farmers’ agitation.
An analysis by media watchdog Newslaundry highlights how leading television networks – including Republic TV, Times Now, Zee News, and Aaj Tak – vilified anti-CAA protesters by portraying them as instigators of violence. This framing not only stifles critical perspectives but also reinforces a media ecosystem that prioritises partisan loyalty over democratic dialogue. By portraying dissent as disloyalty, Godi media discourages meaningful debate and contributes to the erosion of public discourse.
3. Self-censorship
As mainstream media increasingly aligns itself with government interests, public trust in traditional outlets has eroded, prompting citizens to turn to independent digital platforms for information. However, this shift has also led to a fragmented media ecosystem, susceptible to misinformation and echo chambers. The economic vulnerability of journalists further compounds this problem, fostering a culture of self-censorship.
Journalist Raju Narisetti notes that financial pressures, such as dependence on government advertising and corporate interests, have compromised editorial independence in major media outlets. For instance, in 2017, Bobby Ghosh resigned as editor-in-chief of the Hindustan Times, reportedly due to government pressure related to the newspaper’s critical coverage. This incident highlights the influence of political forces on editorial decisions and underscores the systemic challenges facing Indian journalism.
Other examples include censorship challenges faced by the documentary En Dino Muzaffarnagar, which investigated the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. The Central Board of Film Certification refused clearance for its release, and pressure was applied to cancel private screenings. Such instances reflect the broader environment of self-censorship and compliance, where journalists and media owners prioritise maintaining access to government resources over their role as independent watchdogs.
4. Marginalisation of key issues
Sensationalist reporting by godi media outlets often distracts from substantive discussions on critical issues like unemployment, economic inequality, and healthcare. This focus on emotionally charged and dramatic content serves to steer public discourse away from government accountability.
For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, disproportionate media attention was devoted to the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. Channels indulged in speculative and sensational reporting, overshadowing critical discussions on the government’s handling of the pandemic and its associated economic challenges. Similarly, during the 2019 general elections, media outlets emphasised divisive topics, such as religious tensions and nationalistic fervor, at the expense of informed debates on pressing policy matters like healthcare, education, and employment.
An analysis by The Diplomat revealed that media coverage during the elections frequently prioritised national security and religious nationalism, effectively diverting attention from the government’s performance on social and economic policies. These instances illustrate how sensationalism undermines the media’s ability to serve as a democratic watchdog by marginalising important issues and fostering a superficial and polarised public discourse.
5. Fake news as instrument of propaganda:
Godi media outlets, often accused of sensationalist reporting, have faced criticism and penalties for disseminating misleading information that frequently aligns with Hindu right-wing narratives. Prominent broadcasters like Republic TV, Times Now, Zee News, Aaj Tak, and News18 India have repeatedly been implicated in controversies for promoting content that fosters communal biases and supports majoritarian propaganda.
In the infamous 2016 Jawaharlal Nehru University sedition case, Zee News aired doctored footage claiming that students from Jawaharlal Nehru University raised anti-India slogans. A forensic report later confirmed the footage was manipulated. The same year, Zee News anchor Sudhir Chaudhary falsely reported that Rs 2,000 currency notes contained GPS chips to track money. This claim was debunked by the Reserve Bank of India and the Finance Ministry as baseless.
India TV, Aaj Tak, Zee News and Zee Hindustan, in 2022, faced penalties for sensationalist reporting on student leader Umar Khalid. The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority found the coverage to be unverified and directed the channel to take down certain broadcasts. Similarly, Aaj Tak, News18 India, Times Now Navbharat were penalised for its inflammatory reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic, including biased narratives linking the outbreak to the Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim group. Aaj Tak also faced penalties for similar communal narratives and for using divisive terms such as “Khalistani in Punjab.”
The other argument
While journalist Ravish Kumar coined the term “godi media” to describe news outlets aligned with the BJP, the challenges of media capture and press freedom in India are not confined to any single political ideology. Historically, Indian news media have been influenced by powerful political and corporate interests across the spectrum. However, the current landscape exhibits a more overt form of media capture, raising concerns about the independence of journalism in the country. This situation is exacerbated by issues such as the incursion of misinformation into newsrooms, declining editorial standards, and unsustainable economic models. These interconnected challenges collectively undermine the integrity of the news industry.
In discussions about media capture in India, some supporters of ruling parties, both at the federal and state levels, engage in “whataboutism” to deflect criticism. They often reference the press censorship during the Emergency period of 1975-1977 under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, suggesting that past transgressions justify current practices. However, this argument overlooks that a significant portion of the current population was not born during that era, and historical wrongdoings do not legitimise present-day infringements on press freedom.
Additionally, right-wing politicians frequently accuse the so-called left-liberal media of bias against them, failing to recognise that violations of press freedom transcend ideological boundaries. When the media’s role as a watchdog is compromised, transforming into a propaganda tool, it poses severe ramifications for the nation and the essence of a free society. Public trust in the media is already at a historic low; further erosion could lead to an existential crisis from which journalism may struggle to recover.
Often, economic growth is cited as justification for a strong government that seeks to control the media. However, while India’s current unique selling proposition might be its massive market, its biggest strength lies in its democracy. A free and independent press is essential for the proper functioning of a democratic society, and any attempts to undermine this freedom can have far-reaching consequences for both democracy and economic development.
Research indicates that democracies tend to experience more sustainable economic growth compared to authoritarian regimes. For instance, a study by Daron Acemoglu and colleagues found that democratisation leads to about a 20% increase in gross domestic product per capita over the long term. This is attributed to factors such as increased investment in education and healthcare, improved public goods provision, and the fostering of innovation through inclusive institutions.
Furthermore, press freedom plays a significant role in economic development. A study analysing data from 115 countries found a bidirectional relationship between press freedom and economic growth, suggesting that a free press facilitates information flow, enhances transparency, and attracts foreign direct investment. Additionally, research examining data from 97 countries between 1972 and 2014 revealed that reductions in press freedom are associated with a 1%–2% decline in real GDP growth, indicating that attacks on press freedom have measurable negative effects on economic performance.
Therefore, preserving press freedom is not only vital for democracy but also serves as a foundation for sustained economic growth and development.
Solutions and positive examples
Addressing the challenges posed by godi media requires a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach to restore and uphold press freedom in India – necessitating action at both policy levels, among media practitioners and the society. Key strategies include:
Empowering local journalism: Local journalism counters godi media by highlighting grassroots issues and amplifying marginalised voices, focusing on healthcare, education, and infrastructure rather than centralised narratives. During recent elections, several local outlets provided more accurate predictions by capturing ground-level sentiments missed by national media. Initiatives like 101 Reporters connect rural journalists with mainstream outlets, bridging the urban-rural gap. Supporting local journalism through funding, training, and collaborations can strengthen press freedom and democratic accountability.
Supporting Independent Journalism: Building a vibrant ecosystem of independent journalism is crucial to counter media capture. Digital platforms and non-profit models create spaces for critical reporting, allowing journalists to pursue investigative stories free from censorship or retribution.
Examples like Newslaundry, which operates on a subscription-based, publicly funded model, reduce reliance on corporate or state advertising. Collaborative efforts by platforms such as Newslaundry, The News Minute, and Scroll on joint investigations highlight the potential of independent media. Supporting these initiatives through grants, fellowships, and training can foster a resilient and diverse media ecosystem.
Strengthening Regulatory Frameworks: Transparent regulations on media ownership and funding are essential to uphold journalistic integrity and prevent conflicts of interest that compromise editorial independence. Independent regulatory bodies can help safeguard against undue political or corporate influence.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has acknowledged policy gaps, including outdated ownership regulations. However, government efforts, such as the proposed Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, have faced criticism for granting excessive powers that could suppress free speech instead of fostering independent oversight.
The absence of clear thresholds for ownership concentration across print, television, and online sectors has led to media monopolies, further complicated by fragmented regulation. Addressing these challenges requires clear ownership limits and a unified regulatory authority to ensure media operates free from undue influence.
Fostering Media Literacy: Media literacy empowers citizens to critically assess news sources, recognise bias and misinformation. Programs like FactShala, supported by the Google News Initiative, help individuals from small towns and villages discern facts from misinformation. Similarly, the BBC Young Reporter India programme educates school students on media literacy, critical thinking, and digital safety. These initiatives foster an informed citizenry capable of holding power to account.
Conclusion
The rise of godi media highlights the urgent need to combat media capture and its impact on democracy. As political and corporate interests undermine journalistic independence, the media’s role as a watchdog is at risk, jeopardising transparency, accountability, and India’s aspirations to emerge as a developed nation.
A robust and independent press is vital for safeguarding democracy and sustainable development. Transparency in media ownership, diversified revenue streams, and stronger regulatory frameworks are essential to restore public trust. Supporting independent journalism through digital platforms, grants, and media literacy programs can empower citizens and preserve the integrity of public discourse.
India must uphold press freedom to maintain its democratic credibility and influence. Politicians and corporations must prioritise long-term national welfare over short-term gains, fostering a media landscape that supports sustainable progress and sets a global precedent for democratic values.
Kunal Majumder is a Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellow at the University of Michigan. A journalist for 18 years, Majumder has led the India operations of the Committee to Protect Journalists for six years. Prior to that, he held editorial leadership positions at the Indian Express Group, Tehelka, and Rajasthan Patrika Group. Purohit is also empanelled as visiting faculty for journalism at Jamia Millia Islamia’s Mass Communication Research Centre in New Delhi.
This article was first published on Political Catchphrases.
