Biased Media Is a Real Threat to Indian Democracy

In June 1975 the government of India declared an Emergency and imposed prior censorship on newspapers. Editors were required to submit news for approval before publication. Some protested by leaving their editorial columns blank. Others complied. Looking back, L. K. Advani, who had been jailed, remarked that the press had been asked to bend and had chosen to crawl. The episode is remembered as the low point of Indian journalism. It also shows what a government can do when the press is weak, and the topic asks whether bias in the media today poses a comparable danger to Indian democracy.

The relationship between a free press and democracy is old. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787 that, were it left to him to decide whether to have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, he would not hesitate to prefer the latter. Voters can make good decisions only if they are well informed, and the press is the main channel through which citizens learn about their rulers. The media is called the fourth estate because it watches the other three branches. The Indian Supreme Court has held that freedom of the press flows from the freedom of speech in Article 19.

Bias, in the sense of a tilt in how news is selected and presented, is hard to avoid. Every editor chooses what to cover and how, and every reporter has views. The question is of degree and of transparency. A newspaper with a declared political position that separates news from opinion is different from a channel that presents propaganda as fact. The danger arises when bias is hidden, systematic and in the service of power, so that citizens cannot discount it.

Several features of the Indian media increase the risk. Ownership is concentrated, and many large outlets belong to business groups with interests in telecoms, real estate and other regulated industries. A media house whose owner needs government licences is under pressure to keep the government happy. The Press Council of India reported in 2010 on the phenomenon of paid news, in which candidates and companies paid for favourable coverage disguised as reporting. The leaked recordings of the lobbyist Niira Radia in 2010 revealed the closeness of some journalists to the powerful. Advertising by governments and corporations is a lever that can silence criticism.

Advertising by governments and corporations is a lever that can silence criticism.

Television news in particular has changed. The competition for ratings has pushed many channels toward loud debates in which anchors shout and guests are chosen to provoke, and coverage of serious subjects such as drought, health and employment is crowded out by communal and nationalistic spectacle. Reporters Without Borders ranked India 140th among 180 countries in its press freedom index of 2019, and journalists reported intimidation, legal cases and in some instances killings. In such an environment self censorship spreads, and editors avoid stories that may offend.

Social media adds a new layer. WhatsApp messages carrying false rumours about child kidnappers led to a series of lynchings across India in 2017 and 2018. Political parties maintain online armies that spread selective and distorted information. The platform algorithms that decide what each user sees tend to reward outrage, and people end up in bubbles where their views are confirmed. The older gatekeepers of the press, who at least had editorial standards, have been supplemented by an unfiltered flow.

Legal and regulatory tools have done little to help. The Press Council has limited powers, and the television industry's self regulatory bodies are voluntary, so complaints are slow and sanctions weak. Defamation law is used by the powerful to intimidate reporters, and criminal complaints have followed critical reports. The instruments meant to protect reputation have become means of pressure, which adds to the bias that comes from ownership.

Why is this a threat to democracy and not merely a nuisance? The reason is that democratic choice rests on shared facts. If citizens receive systematically distorted accounts of the economy, of the opposition or of minorities, their votes are cast under a false impression. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky argued in Manufacturing Consent in 1988 that media ownership, advertising and reliance on official sources shape the news in ways that serve elites, though this happens through structure and not conspiracy. When groups come to distrust each other's sources, the possibility of common deliberation shrinks.

At the same time, the topic should not be exaggerated. India has an enormous and diverse media, with more than a hundred thousand registered publications in dozens of languages, and many outlets of independence and courage. Investigative stories have exposed scandals and forced the resignation of ministers. Digital portals and local reporters have created new spaces for critical reporting. The Indian press fought censorship during the Emergency and, once it ended, helped to defeat the government that had imposed it. Plurality is the best defence against bias, and so long as it exists, democracy has resources.

What should be done? Heavy handed regulation of the press by the government would be worse than the disease, since it would give the state the very power over information that the press is meant to check. More suitable measures include transparency of ownership and advertising, strong competition rules to prevent concentration, protection for journalists from legal harassment, and independent bodies for complaints. Public service broadcasting that is truly autonomous can offer a benchmark. Fact checking organisations and platform accountability may help to limit the spread of falsehood.

The final defence lies with the public. Citizens who read widely, check sources, compare accounts and pay for good journalism raise the cost of bias. Schools can teach media literacy as they teach reading. The paradox is that a biased media is a threat to a democracy only to the extent that its audience cannot detect or correct for the bias, and so it is also a test of the democracy's maturity. Whether a population can train itself to be that discerning, at a time when the volume of information has outrun any individual's capacity to check it, is the question on which the answer depends.