If the Achhe Din promised by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government have not arrived in your life, you may at least find one encouraging development: a growing number of Indians are seeking news beyond the familiar television studios that once dominated public debate.
For years, prime-time television presented a particular image of India. The country was supposedly marching towards becoming a Vishwaguru, its leadership was portrayed as invincible, and every criticism of the government was treated as an attack on national pride. Meanwhile, debates about Hindu-Muslim relations, nationalism, Pakistan and alleged anti-national activities often received more attention than questions about employment, education, inflation, public health and the accountability of elected representatives.
This style of journalism earned many television anchors the popular label "Godi Media," a term critics use for news organisations they believe have become excessively accommodating towards the ruling establishment.
The accusation is not that every television journalist is compromised or that every report favourable to the government is propaganda. Governments deserve credit when they deliver results. The real question is whether the media applies the same scrutiny to those in power that it applies to their political opponents. A democracy cannot function properly when journalists become cheerleaders for the government rather than independent observers of its actions.
That is why the growing influence of independent journalists, digital news organisations and YouTube-based commentators represents more than a change in how people consume information. It reflects a contest over who gets to define the national conversation.
THE NUMBERS BEHIND INDIA'S CHANGING NEWS HABITS
The digital transformation of Indian journalism is already visible in research. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, in its Digital News Report 2026, found that 44% of respondents in its Indian survey sample used television for news. At the same time, online sources and social platforms had become central to news consumption, with YouTube remaining one of the most prominent platforms. The institute's 2025 report found that 55% of its Indian respondents used YouTube for news, while 43% expressed overall trust in the news.
These figures need an important qualification. The survey primarily covers English-speaking online news users and is not nationally representative of India's population. It would therefore be wrong to claim that television has collapsed across the country or that all Indians have abandoned mainstream news.
Nevertheless, the research confirms a significant shift: digital platforms have become important gateways through which millions of people encounter news, political commentary and investigative reporting. The reasons are easy to understand. A television channel may devote hours to a political controversy without examining its consequences. An independent journalist can publish a detailed video explaining a government order, analysing economic figures or documenting an incident that received little attention on prime-time television.
Viewers can pause, replay, share and challenge such material. They can compare different accounts and consult original documents. The audience no longer depends on a handful of television studios to decide which questions deserve to be asked. This is the opportunity independent journalism has created. Whether every digital creator uses it responsibly is another question altogether.
THE BUSINESS CRISIS FACING TELEVISION NEWS
The financial health of media companies is another important part of this debate, but the figures must be examined carefully rather than used to build a convenient narrative. Consider Zee Entertainment Enterprises. According to Reuters' report on its results for the quarter ended June 2026, the company's net profit fell by 46.9% year-on-year to ₹76.3 crore. Advertising revenue declined by 11.5%, even as subscription revenue increased. Higher expenses, including the costs of its return to sports broadcasting, also hurt profitability.
The company's FY2025-26 disclosures tell a similar story of pressure on margins. Its consolidated profit after tax from continuing operations fell from ₹687.4 crore in FY2024-25 to ₹271.3 crore in FY2025-26, a decline of about 60.5%. These are significant developments, but they do not prove that viewers abandoned Zee's news coverage specifically. Zee operates across a wider entertainment and broadcasting business, and its results reflect several factors.
The same caution applies to NDTV, Aaj Tak and Network18. Their corporate structures, revenue streams and results differ, and losses at a parent company cannot automatically be attributed to one news channel. It would be equally misleading to blame every fall in advertising revenue on political bias or declining audience trust without evidence.
Yet there is a larger question the industry cannot ignore: what happens when a news organisation invests heavily in studios, branding and high-profile presenters but struggles to convince audiences that its journalism is worth their time? The answer is not necessarily that the business will collapse. It is that credibility has become an increasingly important competitive asset.
News organisations now compete not only with one another but also with creators who can investigate an issue, explain a complicated policy or report from the ground without the costs of a traditional television operation. A large studio may create an impressive visual experience. It cannot, by itself, create public trust.
WHEN NATIONALISM BECOMES A SUBSTITUTE FOR JOURNALISM
One of the most troubling trends in Indian television has been the habit of treating criticism of the government as criticism of the nation. The two are entirely different. India is not the BJP. The government is not the Constitution. A prime minister is not the country. And a journalist questioning a government decision is not automatically an enemy of the national interest.
Asking uncomfortable questions is among the most important responsibilities of the press. When critics question employment figures, electoral procedures, communal violence or the treatment of protesters, the right response is to examine the evidence. Dismissing every question as anti-national does not answer it.
This matters all the more when prominent anchors claim that news consumed through social media is unreliable while presenting their own studios as the ultimate authority on truth. Digital platforms do have serious problems. Algorithms can amplify outrage, sensationalism and misinformation. False claims spread rapidly, and emotionally charged content often attracts more engagement than careful reporting.
The Reuters Institute's 2025 report found that 53% of its Indian respondents saw WhatsApp as a channel posing a major threat from false or misleading information. That finding underlines the dangers of misinformation online. But it also raises a broader question: if misinformation is dangerous on social media, why should television journalism be exempt from scrutiny?
A false claim does not become true because it is broadcast from an expensive studio. Nor does a poorly researched argument become reliable because a confident anchor delivers it. The real distinction is not between television and YouTube. It is between journalism that verifies its claims and content that asks audiences to believe without sufficient evidence. An independent journalist who fabricates a story deserves criticism. A television anchor who spreads misinformation deserves the same scrutiny. The standard must be consistent.
FINAL THOUGHT
The growing digital audience has created space for journalists and commentators such as Ravish Kumar, Abhisar Sharma and Dhruv Rathee, alongside platforms including The Wire, Scroll.in, Newslaundry, The Quint, The Deshbhakt and The Decoder. They have different formats, editorial positions and approaches. They should not be treated as one uniform bloc, and not every claim they make should be accepted without verification.
Their significance lies in the alternatives they offer. Independent newsrooms can investigate public policy, interview people excluded from mainstream discussions, examine official records and challenge statements made by the powerful. Video creators can explain complex political and economic issues in accessible language, helping viewers understand material that might otherwise stay buried in reports and official documents.
Some digital journalists have also built large audiences by questioning government claims and examining issues that receive limited or superficial treatment on television. This is a healthy possibility for democracy, provided it comes with fact-checking, transparent sourcing, corrections and a willingness to admit mistakes.
Independent media should not simply replace one unquestionable authority with another. Its greatest contribution is to give citizens more sources to compare and more opportunities to challenge power. The measure of good journalism is not whether it supports or opposes a particular government. It is whether it helps people understand what is happening and why it matters.
---
Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media
Comments