Godi Media and the Erosion of Indian Democracy: Crony-Sponsored Yellow Journalism?

Posted on 1st June, 2025 (GMT 16:53 hrs)

ABSTRACT

This article examines the phenomenon of “Godi media” in India, characterized by media outlets aligning with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and its implications for press freedom and democratic integrity. Focusing on the controversial appointment of Sudhir Chaudhary to Doordarshan for a ₹15-18 crore annual package and his airing of a fake video in May 2025, the analysis explores how state-sponsored journalism, economic pressures, and misinformation undermine the press as the fourth pillar of democracy. Drawing on the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, fact-checking by Alt News, and social media discourse, it evaluates whether “Godi media” manufactures consent in a Goebbelsian manner and if India exhibits Orwellian traits. While democratic institutions and independent voices provide resilience, the article highlights the urgent need for reforms to restore media independence and protect public trust.

A. Introduction

The Indian press, often hailed as the fourth pillar of democracy, faces a critical juncture in 2025, with its role as a democratic watchdog undermined by the rise of “Godi media”—outlets accused of aligning with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and spreading blatant propaganda, fake news, and communal narratives.

Furthermore, India’s ranking of 151st in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index (RSF), although improved from 159th in 2024, places it in the “very serious” category, highlighting challenges such as media ownership concentration, journalist harassment, and government influence (RSF, 2025). The appointment of Sudhir Chaudhary, a journalist with a controversial track record, to Doordarshan for an annual package of ₹15-18 crore and his airing of a fake video in May 2025 epitomizes these issues, raising concerns about state-sponsored journalism and the misuse of public funds. The involvement of BJP-allied corporate tycoons like Adani in acquiring NDTV raises these concerns further. This article also examines the role of “Godi media” in manufacturing consent, its Orwellian implications, and the broader impact on Indian democracy, drawing on fact-checking by Alt News and public discourse on platforms like X.

B. Godi Media and Manufacturing Consent

The term “Godi media,” coined by journalist Ravish Kumar, refers to outlets like Times Now, Republic TV, News18, Zee News, Aaj Tak, and post-2022 NDTV, accused of serving as government “lapdogs” by prioritizing BJP narratives over journalistic integrity. These outlets exhibit traits of manufacturing consent, a concept from Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, where media shape public opinion to align with elite agendas. Ownership by corporate giants like Mukesh Ambani (News18) and Gautam Adani (NDTV) ties these outlets to political interests, with economic pressures like reliance on government advertising fostering self-censorship (StudyIQ Analysis, 2025). For instance, News18’s show Desh Nahin Jhukne Denge, hosted by Aman Chopra, has been criticized for targeting Muslims, amplifying communal tensions (Clarion India, 2025). Similarly, Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami and Times Now’s Navika Kumar use high-decibel debates to promote nationalist fervor, often demonizing minorities and opposition as “anti-national” (Newslaundry, 2020).

These tactics inevitably echo Goebbelsian propaganda—repetition, emotional manipulation, and enemy creation—as seen in OpIndia’s debunked communal claims or Times Now’s fake video in May 2025, exposed by Alt News (Outlook Business, 2025). However, unlike Joseph Goebbels’ centralized Nazi propaganda, India’s pluralistic media landscape, with independent outlets like The Wire and fact-checkers like Alt News, dilutes the extent of control. Alt News, founded by Pratik Sinha and Mohammed Zubair, has been pivotal in exposing misinformation, such as Zee News’ false narratives during the 2020 Delhi riots or Aaj Tak’s misrepresentation of farmers’ protests (Wikipedia: Alt News, 2025). While “Godi media” manufactures consent, its Goebbelsian label is only partially applicable due to the presence of counter-narratives and public resistance.

C. Sudhir Chaudhary and State-Sponsored Journalism

The appointment of Sudhir Chaudhary to Doordarshan, India’s taxpayer-funded public broadcaster, for a reported ₹15-18 crore annual package through ESSPRIT Productions Pvt Ltd, marks a significant escalation of “Godi media” influence into public broadcasting (The Indian Express, 2025). Chaudhary, previously with Zee News and Aaj Tak, has a history of spreading misinformation, including false quotes, communal narratives, and a 2008 fake prostitution story, alongside legal troubles like a 2012 extortion case (Wikipedia: Sudhir Chaudhary, 2025). His debut show, Decode, on May 15, 2025, aired a fake video falsely claiming Indian air defense systems thwarted Pakistani attacks, later exposed by Alt News as footage from an Iranian strike on Israel in 2024 (Vartha Bharati, 2025). This incident, coupled with the exorbitant salary, sparked outrage on X, with users labeling it a “waste of taxpayers’ money” and “state-funded propaganda” (X post, 2025).

The deal raises ethical, financial, and political concerns. Ethically, Chaudhary’s history of misinformation undermines Doordarshan’s credibility as a public broadcaster. Financially, the opaque ₹15-18 crore contract, justified as within CBC rates, diverts public funds from critical services, fueling accusations of favoritism (PGurus, 2025). Politically, the appointment, monitored by Prime Minister Modi’s media team, suggests an attempt to align public broadcasting with BJP narratives, mirroring “Godi media” tactics of private outlets like News18 and Republic TV (New Indian, 2025). This move risks transforming Doordarshan into a state propaganda tool, eroding its mandate to serve the public interest.
Orwellian Traits and Democratic ResilienceIndia exhibits some Orwellian traits from George Orwell’s 1984, such as media manipulation, surveillance, and dissent suppression. “Godi media” outlets resemble the Ministry of Truth by spreading selective truths, as seen in NDTV’s shift post-Adani acquisition or Republic TV’s conspiracy theories during the 2020 Delhi riots (Wikipedia: Godi Media, 2025). Surveillance tools like Pegasus and laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), used against journalists like Siddique Kappan and Mohammed Zubair, suggest state oversight (The Wire, 2025). The 2021 IT Rules enabling content removal further echo narrative control (StudyIQ Analysis, 2025). However, India is not a fully Orwellian state. Democratic institutions remain functional: the 2024 elections saw opposition gains, the judiciary occasionally checks executive overreach (e.g., 2021 sedition law review), and independent media like Scroll.in persist (The Hindu, 2025).

Social media, often considered a “fifth pillar,” plays a dual role. Platforms like X and YouTube amplify “Godi media” propaganda but also enable fact-checkers like Alt News and influencers like Ravish Kumar to counter misinformation, as seen in the 175% viewership increase for Kumar’s YouTube channel in 2024 (Outlook Business, 2025). Public protests, such as the 2020-21 farmers’ protests, and opposition activity, like the INDIA alliance’s boycott of biased anchors, demonstrate resilience against authoritarian drift.

D. The Broader Democratic Landscape

The press’s weakening, driven by “Godi media” and state-sponsored efforts like Chaudhary’s appointment, impacts the other pillars of democracy. The legislature faces polarization and reduced debate time, yet opposition gains in 2024 show its vitality (The Hindu, 2025). The executive, led by the BJP, is criticized for centralizing power and limiting transparency (e.g., Modi’s lack of press conferences since 2014), but elections and protests ensure accountability (StudyIQ Analysis, 2025). The judiciary, despite delays and alleged pressures, delivers rulings protecting rights, preventing total collapse (The Wire, 2025). While no pillar has collapsed, their interconnected vulnerabilities—amplified by a compromised press—threaten democratic integrity.

I. Press Freedom in India 2025 – A Detailed Analysis

Press freedom in India in 2025 presents a nuanced picture, marked by marginal improvements in global rankings yet persistent and significant challenges that undermine the media’s role as a democratic watchdog. This analysis, based on the latest data from the World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) 2025 by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and other sources, provides a comprehensive overview of the situation, its implications, and the broader context.

India’s Ranking and Global Position

According to the RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025, India ranks 151st out of 180 countries, marking a slight improvement from 159th in 2024 and 161st in 2023. Despite this upward shift, India remains classified in the “very serious” category, indicating a highly challenging environment for press freedom. This ranking places India below several South Asian neighbors, including Nepal (90th), the Maldives (104th), Sri Lanka (139th), and Bangladesh (149th), but above Bhutan (152nd), Pakistan (158th), Myanmar (169th), Afghanistan (175th), and China (178th). The global top performers are Norway (1st), Estonia (2nd), and the Netherlands (3rd), highlighting a stark contrast with India’s position.

The WPFI, published annually by RSF, evaluates press freedom based on five indicators: political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety. India’s score, while improved in rank, still reflects a decline in overall scores across most categories, except security, as noted in previous years’ reports .

Key Challenges to Press Freedom

Several overdetermined factors contribute to India’s low ranking and the “very serious” classification, as detailed in various analyses:

• Concentration of Media Ownership: A significant concern is the consolidation of media ownership in the hands of influential political and corporate entities. For instance, Mukesh Ambani, a prominent industrialist, owns over 70 media outlets, while the Adani Group acquired NDTV in 2022, raising fears of editorial bias . This concentration threatens media plurality, as outlets may prioritize the interests of their owners over public interest journalism, leading to self-censorship and reduced diversity of viewpoints.
• Rise of “Godi Media”1: The term “Godi media,” coined to describe media outlets perceived as aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has gained traction. These outlets are often criticized for promoting government propaganda, sidelining investigative journalism, and echoing official narratives. This phenomenon, as highlighted in the StudyIQ Analysis, undermines the media’s role as a check on power and contributes to a polarized information ecosystem.
• Harassment of Journalists: Journalists in India face significant risks, including online trolling, legal harassment, and physical threats. The use of sedition laws and other legal mechanisms, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), has been criticized for targeting critical reporters. For example, cases like the arrest of Siddique Kappan in 2020 under UAPA for his reporting highlight how legal tools are weaponized to silence dissent . Online harassment, particularly against women journalists, is rampant, with doxxing and threats often ignored by authorities, further deterring critical reporting.
• Lack of Government Transparency: The Indian government’s engagement with the press has been notably limited, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi not holding a press conference since 2014 and granting interviews primarily to “friendly” outlets. This lack of transparency restricts journalists’ ability to hold the government accountable and fosters an environment where critical questioning is discouraged .

Economic and Political Pressures

Economic pressures exacerbate these challenges, with many media houses relying on government advertising revenue, which can be withheld to punish critical coverage. The dominance of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon in advertising revenue absorption, as noted in the RSF report, further weakens the financial sustainability of traditional journalism. This economic fragility, combined with political interference, creates a climate where media outlets may prioritize survival over editorial independence.

Constitutional Guarantees vs. Practical Realities

India’s Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes press freedom. However, the practical implementation is marred by legal, political, and economic constraints. The judiciary has occasionally intervened to protect press freedom, such as the Supreme Court’s 2021 order to review sedition laws, but such actions are inconsistent, and the higher judiciary has been criticized for reluctance in decisive action .

Positive Aspects and Civil Society Efforts

Despite these challenges, India’s media landscape remains vibrant, with thousands of outlets across print, TV, and digital platforms. Independent outlets like The Wire and Scroll.in continue to publish investigative pieces, holding power to account. The internet has democratized voices, allowing citizen reporters and independent journalists to bypass traditional gatekeepers. Civil society and journalist unions, such as the Press Council of India, also push back against restrictions, though their influence is limited .

Global Context and Implications

The global state of press freedom, as per the 2025 WPFI, is classified as “difficult” for the first time, with economic pressures being a leading threat. This global trend mirrors India’s situation, where the media is caught between preserving editorial independence and ensuring economic survival, as quoted by Anne Bocandé, Editorial Director at Reporters Without Borders (RSF): “There is no free press without economic independence” 2 . This underscores the need for structural reforms to protect media autonomy, not just in India but worldwide.

Regional Comparison

The following table compares India’s ranking with its neighbours in 2025, highlighting regional disparities:

Country	Rank (2025)	Category
Nepal	90	Problematic
Maldives	104	Problematic
Sri Lanka	139	Very Serious
Bangladesh	149	Very Serious
India	151	Very Serious
Bhutan	152	Very Serious
Pakistan	158	Very Serious
Myanmar	169	Very Serious
Afghanistan	175	Very Serious
China	178	Very Serious

This table, sourced from StudyIQ Analysis, illustrates India’s position within South Asia, where press freedom is generally constrained, but India lags behind several neighbors despite its democratic framework..

Press freedom in India in 2025 is under significant strain, with legal, political, and economic factors creating a challenging environment for journalists. While the slight improvement in ranking is a positive sign, the “very serious” classification and ongoing issues like media ownership concentration, “Godi media,” journalist harassment, and lack of government transparency underscore the urgent need for reforms. The role of civil society and independent media remains crucial, but systemic changes are essential to ensure a free and diverse press that can fulfill its democratic function.

World Press Freedom Day, observed on May 3 and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1993 based on the Windhoek Declaration (1991), serves as a reminder of the importance of independent, pluralistic media, a goal India is yet to fully achieve .

This analysis is particularly relevant for understanding governance, media freedom, and democratic accountability, making it a critical topic for UPSC and other competitive exams, as noted in the StudyIQ Analysis.

II. Press Freedom in India 2025: Analysis of “Godi” Media/Modia and Fake News

Press freedom in India in 2025 presents a nuanced picture, with “Godi” media—a term used to describe media outlets perceived as biased towards the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—at the center of debates over fake news and misinformation. This analysis, based on recent data, fact-checking reports, and social media discussions, provides a comprehensive overview of “Godi” media, their alleged spread of fake news, and their frequent exposure by transparency activists, particularly Alt.news.

These Godi Media outlets, including channels like Times Now, Aaj Tak, News18, and others, are accused of biased reporting, promoting propaganda, and spreading fake news to align with the BJP’s narrative.

Allegations of Fake News

Research suggests that “Godi” media often spreads fake news, with numerous documented instances. For example, during the 2020 Delhi riots, channels like Zee News and Republic TV were accused of running sustained demonization campaigns against students, labeling them as “tukde tukde gang” and peddling conspiracy theories without context.

More recently, on May 9, 2025, Times Now was caught spreading a fake video, exposed by Mohammed Zubair of Alt.news, leading to the channel deleting the tweet.

This incident, among others, highlights a pattern of misinformation, often targeting religious minorities and amplifying communal tensions.

The New York Times, in a recent report, noted that Alt.news has provided evidence of numerous fabrications aired by prominent national channels, including Aaj Tak and News18, underscoring the scale of the issue.

Such fabrications include false claims about political events, war tensions, and social issues, often without retraction or apology, contributing to a polarized information ecosystem.

Economic and Political Pressures

The spread of fake news by “Godi” media is influenced by economic and political pressures. Many media houses rely on government advertising revenue, which can be withheld to punish critical coverage, leading to self-censorship . The dominance of online advertising by tech giants like Google and Meta further strains traditional media, pushing some outlets to align with government narratives for financial survival.

Role of Transparency Activists and Alt.news

Transparency activists and fact-checking organizations, particularly Alt.news, have been pivotal in exposing “Godi” media’s fake news. Alt.news, founded by Pratik Sinha and Mohammed Zubair, monitors social media and mainstream media for misinformation, applying a nonpartisan approach to fact-checking . They have documented numerous cases where “Godi” media outlets spread false claims, such as:

• Debunking a viral claim about a Uttar Pradesh tableau under Samajwadi Party rule, which was actually from Bihar in 2011, spread by accounts like Akash RSS and Purva Dixit ([Alt News Fact-Check]([invalid url, do not cite])).
• Exposing Opindia’s communal claims, leading to an FIR against its editors for inflammatory articles .

Alt.news’ work has been recognized internationally, with reports highlighting their role in combating disinformation in a post-truth world . However, their efforts have faced backlash, with co-founder Zubair arrested in 2022 for allegedly hurting religious sentiments, perceived as retaliation for their fact-checking work .

Frequency of Exposure

It seems likely that “Godi” media is often caught by transparency activists and Alt.news, given the frequency of fact-checks and social media discussions. For instance, recent X posts highlight multiple instances in May 2025 alone, such as the Times Now fake video incident and discussions about Aaj Tak and News18 (X post, X post). Alt.news prioritizes fact-checks based on potential negative impact, ensuring high-profile cases of misinformation are addressed, often leading to public outrage and media accountability.

Regional and Global Context

The issue of “Godi” media and fake news is part of a broader global trend, with press freedom under threat due to economic fragility and political interference. India’s ranking below neighbors like Nepal (90th) and Bangladesh (149th) in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index reflects regional challenges, while above Pakistan (158th) and China (178th) . This context underscores the importance of fact-checking organizations in maintaining democratic accountability.

“Godi” media in India does spread fake news, as evidenced by numerous fact-checks and exposures by Alt.news and transparency activists. While not all instances may be malicious, the pattern suggests a tendency to prioritize political agendas, often caught and called out, highlighting concerns over media freedom and integrity. The role of civil society and fact-checkers remains crucial, but systemic reforms are needed to ensure a free and diverse press.

III. Is RTI Dead?

Indian transparency activists have played a crucial role in promoting accountability and combating corruption, often through the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 and other anti-corruption initiatives. Below is a list of notable Indian transparency activists, drawn from various sources highlighting their contributions to transparency and governance.

Some Prominent Indian Transparency Activists:

• Aruna Roy: A key figure in the RTI movement, Roy is a bureaucrat-turned-activist who co-founded the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). Her work was instrumental in the enactment of the RTI Act, which empowers citizens to seek government information, enhancing transparency and accountability. She has received awards like the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership (2000).
• Anjali Bhardwaj: A prominent RTI activist and founder of Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), Bhardwaj has been active in the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI). She was recognized by the U.S. Biden administration in 2021 with the International Anti-Corruption Champions Award for her work in transparency and anti-corruption efforts. She noted that nearly 6 million RTI applications are filed annually in India.
• Venkatesh Nayak: A noted RTI activist associated with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Nayak has been involved in ensuring effective implementation of the RTI Act. He has highlighted the issuance of guidance notes during Manmohan Singh’s tenure to strengthen the Act’s implementation.
• Nikhil Dey: A social activist with MKSS, Dey has worked alongside Aruna Roy to promote transparency through the RTI Act. He has been vocal about the need for decentralized planning and transparency in government spending, notably criticizing budget cuts in social sectors.
• Anil Galgali: A renowned RTI activist and freelance journalist, Galgali has been recognized for his engaging sessions on the RTI Act, hosted by organizations like the Praja Foundation. His work focuses on empowering citizens to use RTI for accountability.
• Ravindranath Guru: An 80-year-old former scientific officer, Guru has filed over 1,100 RTI applications over two decades, focusing on exposing corruption and promoting transparency in governance.
• Teesta Setalvad: A human rights activist and journalist, Setalvad has advocated for transparency and accountability, particularly in the context of the 2002 Gujarat riots. While her work extends beyond RTI, her efforts align with broader transparency goals. She has faced legal challenges, highlighting the risks activists face
• Lokesh Batra: A transparency crusader known for uncovering details through RTI applications, Batra has been instrumental in analyzing and publicizing government data to hold authorities accountable.

These activists have faced significant challenges, including harassment and violence. Reports indicate that around 65-80 RTI activists have been killed since the Act’s inception in 2005, with many more facing intimidation. Transparency International notes that India’s weak protections for activists and journalists contribute to these risks, with the country ranking 85th in the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index.

The RTI Act, championed by these activists, has led to over 3.2 crore applications filed nationwide, empowering citizens to demand accountability. Their work underscores the need for structural reforms to protect media autonomy and activist safety, aligning with Anne Bocandé’s statement on the necessity of economic independence for a free press. For further details on their contributions, refer to sources like Transparency International India and reports from The Wire or The Hindu.

The following article, reports that the Indian government introduced the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019, in the Lok Sabha, sparking protests from opposition parties and activists. The bill seeks to amend the RTI Act of 2005 by granting the central government authority to determine the salaries, tenures, and other service conditions of Central and State Information Commissioners, previously fixed at levels equivalent to Election Commissioners. Minister Jitendra Singh, who introduced the bill, argued it would streamline the RTI Act’s delivery and correct anomalies, claiming the original Act was drafted hastily. Opposition leaders, including Congress’s Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Shashi Tharoor, criticized the bill as a threat to the independence of the Central Information Commission, with Tharoor calling it an “RTI elimination bill.” Activists and opposition parties, including Congress, Trinamool, DMK, and AIMIM, argued that the amendments undermine the RTI Act’s autonomy, potentially allowing government control over commissioners. The bill’s introduction saw procedural objections, as it was not circulated to MPs two days prior, leading to a walkout by several opposition members. The bill passed in the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2019, with 218 votes in favor and 79 against, amid ongoing concerns about weakening transparency mechanism

Government introduces Bill to amend RTI Act, opposition protests VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on July 19, 2019 ©The Indian Express)   

This view was also subscribed by  GFiles that asked: “Should the truth about the arbitrary, autocratic, corrupt and opaque functioning of government and its instrumentalities be brought in the open and made accountable? When the government is killing the Information Commission it is expressing its own fear of the truth and is projecting a false image before the public.”

These crucial questions lead us to the nature of Indian governMENTALITY–is it suffering from persecutory paranoia with megalomania? Is BJP under the sword of Damocle3?

RTI Act Amendment: Killing one more institution? VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on August 7, 2019 ©gfilesindia.com)  

The above article criticizes the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019, for undermining the autonomy of the RTI Act, 2005, a key transparency tool in India. The amendments allow the central government to control the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of Central and State Information Commissioners, previously set at a fixed five-year term and equivalent to Election Commissioners. This shift is seen as eroding the independence of Information Commissions, which are vital for enforcing the RTI Act and ensuring government accountability. Critics, including opposition parties and activists, argue that the bill enables the government to influence commissioners, potentially suppressing information disclosure on critical issues like corruption and policy decisions. The article highlights the RTI Act’s role in empowering citizens, with millions of applications filed annually, and warns that these amendments threaten democratic transparency by aligning the commissions with government control, thus weakening a cornerstone of participatory governance.

SEE ALSO:

The aforementioned article discusses a Right to Information (RTI) application submitted to the Supreme Court of India regarding the accountability of various institutions like the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board (IBBI) in the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) case. It highlights the lack of transparency in RTI responses and issues with governmental portals, raising concerns about possible intentional obstructions and secrecy by the ruling party. The post also reflects on India’s political economy under increasing opacity.

The above article critiques the weakening of the Right to Information (RTI) Act (2005) in the context of politico-economic policing in India involving the rapid censorship or suppression of democratic spaces for dissent by means such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It highlights how crony oligarchical forces of exclusion often resist transparency, using legal loopholes or claiming exemptions under the guise of national security or privacy. Despite RTI’s intent to empower citizens and ensure accountable communicative competence, it is frequently undermined by bureaucratic hurdles, delaying tactics, and increased threats on RTI Activists. The piece underscores how this undermines democratic engagement and public trust in the various law enforcement institutions in India.

IV. Key “Godi Media” Outlets: Ownership, Editors, Anchors, and Allegations

1. Times Now

• Ownership: Owned by The Times Group (Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited), a major media conglomerate with no direct ownership by Adani or Ambani. However, its financial dependence on government advertising and corporate influence has been noted as aligning it with pro-BJP narratives.
• Editors/Managing Editors: Navika Kumar (Managing Editor), known for her aggressive pro-BJP stance and anchoring style.
• Anchors: Navika Kumar, Rahul Shivshankar, and Padmaja Joshi are prominent faces. Kumar, in particular, is criticized for losing “interrogating prowess” when interviewing BJP leaders like Narendra Modi or Amit Shah.
• Allegations of Islamophobia, Hate Speech, and False News:
  • False News: On May 9, 2025, Times Now was caught spreading a fake video, exposed by Alt News’ Mohammed Zubair, leading to its deletion. The channel has been accused of running misleading narratives, such as during the 2020 Delhi riots, where it allegedly vilified minorities.
  • Islamophobia/Hate Speech: Critics argue Times Now engages in communal framing, often targeting Muslims in debates. For instance, its coverage of protests and riots has been accused of fanning communal hatred by selectively presenting narratives.
  • Fact-Checking Evidence: Alt News has repeatedly flagged Times Now for misinformation, including fabricated stories about political events and communal issues, contributing to its “Godi media” label.
• 2. Republic TV
• Ownership: Founded by Arnab Goswami and backed by Asianet News Media & Entertainment, with investments from Rajeev Chandrasekhar (a BJP-affiliated politician). No direct Adani or Ambani ownership, but its pro-government stance aligns with corporate-political interests.
• Editors/Managing Editors: Arnab Goswami (Editor-in-Chief and Managing Director), known for his aggressive, pro-BJP anchoring.
• Anchors: Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan, and Sweta Tripathi. Goswami’s primetime shows, like The Debate, are often cited for polarizing rhetoric.

Allegations of Islamophobia, Hate Speech, and False News:

• False News: Republic TV was heavily criticized during the 2020 Delhi riots for running conspiracy theories and labeling students as “tukde tukde gang,” contributing to divisive narratives. Alt News has debunked multiple false claims by Republic TV, including misleading reports on protests and communal issues.
• Islamophobia/Hate Speech: The channel is accused of nourishing Islamophobia through Hindu-Muslim debates that stereotype and vilify Muslims. For example, posts on X highlight Republic TV’s role in running “non-stop Hindu-Muslim propaganda”.
• Fact-Checking Evidence: Alt News and other fact-checkers have documented Republic TV’s role in spreading disinformation, with anchors like Goswami accused of amplifying hate speech under the guise of debate.
• 3. News18 (CNN-News18)
• Ownership: Owned by Reliance Industries, controlled by Mukesh Ambani, one of India’s richest individuals. This direct Ambani ownership is often cited as a reason for its pro-BJP bias, as Reliance’s business interests align with government policies.
• Editors/Managing Editors: Bhupendra Chaubey (Executive Editor) oversees editorial direction, though Ambani’s influence is seen as overriding editorial independence.
• Anchors: Aman Chopra, Amish Devgan (also associated with Republic TV), and Zakka Jacob. Chopra, in particular, has been flagged for inflammatory content.
• Allegations of Islamophobia, Hate Speech, and False News:
• 4. Zee News
• Ownership: Owned by Essel Group, led by Subhash Chandra, a former BJP Rajya Sabha member. While not directly linked to Adani or Ambani, Chandra’s political affiliations align Zee News with pro-BJP narratives.
• Editors/Managing Editors: Sudhir Chaudhary (former Editor-in-Chief, now with Doordarshan) and current editorial leadership under Pradeep Bhandari.
• Anchors: Sudhir Chaudhary (until recently), Pradeep Bhandari, and Aditi Tyagi. Bhandari’s shows are noted for their aggressive pro-government stance.
• Allegations of Islamophobia, Hate Speech, and False News: False News: Zee News was criticized during the 2020 Delhi riots for running demonization campaigns and conspiracy theories, such as labeling protesters as anti-national. Alt News has debunked multiple false stories aired by Zee News.
• Islamophobia/Hate Speech: The channel is accused of nourishing Islamophobia through communal framing in its coverage, particularly targeting Muslims in debates and news segments.
• Fact-Checking Evidence: Fact-checkers, including Alt News, have frequently exposed Zee News for spreading misinformation, with its anchors accused of promoting divisive narratives.
  
• 5. Aaj Tak
• Ownership: Part of the India Today Group, owned by the Living Media India Limited, with no direct Adani or Ambani ownership. However, its alignment with government narratives has been noted due to economic pressures and advertising revenue dependence.
• Editors/Managing Editors: Supriya Prasad (Managing Editor) oversees editorial operations.
• Anchors: Sudhir Chaudhary (joined from Zee News, now in Doordarshan), Sweta Singh, and Anjana Om Kashyap, known for their high-decibel, pro-BJP anchoring styles.
• Allegations of Islamophobia, Hate Speech, and False News: False News: Aaj Tak has been flagged by Alt News for spreading false claims, including during the 2020 farmers’ protests, where it misrepresented protester actions. Its coverage often aligns with government narratives, drawing “Godi media” accusations.
• Islamophobia/Hate Speech: Anchors like Chaudhary and Kashyap are criticized for framing Muslims negatively in debates, contributing to Islamophobia. X posts highlight Aaj Tak’s role in spreading divisive content.
• Fact-Checking Evidence: Alt News has documented Aaj Tak’s misinformation, with anchors accused of prioritizing sensationalism over facts.
• 6. NDTV (Post-2022 Acquisition)
• Ownership: Acquired by the Adani Group in 2022, led by Gautam Adani, a businessman allegedly close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This acquisition shifted NDTV’s historically critical stance towards a more pro-BJP alignment.
• Editors/Managing Editors: Sanjay Pugalia (CEO and Editor-in-Chief), a former Reliance executive, oversees editorial direction, raising concerns about Adani’s influence.
• Anchors: Ravish Kumar (left in 2022 due to the acquisition), Sreenivasan Jain, and new anchors aligned with the Adani-led editorial shift.
• Allegations of Islamophobia, Hate Speech, and False News: Islamophobia/Hate Speech: While less overt than others, NDTV’s shift has led to accusations of subtle bias in framing communal issues, though less evidence exists of direct hate speech compared to other outlets.
• Fact-Checking Evidence: Alt News has flagged NDTV for selective reporting since 2022, though its pre-acquisition reputation was more independent.
• 7. OpIndia
• Ownership: Owned by Aadhyaasi Media and Content Services, with no direct Adani or Ambani ownership but noted for its pro-BJP editorial line. It operates as a digital outlet with strong ties to right-wing narratives.
• Editors/Managing Editors: Nupur J Sharma (Editor-in-Chief), known for her vocal support of BJP and Hindu nationalist causes.
• Anchors/Contributors: While primarily a digital platform, contributors like Nupur J Sharma and Swati Goel Sharma drive its content.
• Allegations of Islamophobia, Hate Speech, and False News:  OpIndia is infamous for targeting Muslims, with articles and social media posts accused of inciting hatred. X posts highlight its role in spreading “communal claims”.
• Fact-Checking Evidence: Alt News’ fact-checks consistently expose OpIndia’s misinformation, with its content described as “nourishing Islamophobia”.

“Godi media” outlets like Times Now, Republic TV, News18, Zee News, Aaj Tak, NDTV (post-2022), and OpIndia are accused of spreading fake news, Islamophobia, and hate speech, often aligned with BJP narratives. Ownership by Adani (NDTV) and Ambani (News18) directly ties these outlets to corporate-political interests, while others are influenced by economic dependencies. Anchors like Navika Kumar, Arnab Goswami, Aman Chopra, and Sudhir Chaudhary, along with editors like Nupur J Sharma, are central to these allegations, frequently exposed by Alt News and transparency activists. This pattern underscores a broader crisis in Indian media, where economic fragility and political pressure undermine journalistic independence, threatening democratic accountability.

Analysis of the Fourth Pillar: The Press

The press, often called the fourth pillar of democracy, is tasked with holding power accountable and ensuring transparency. In India, its condition is precarious but not entirely collapsed:

• Challenges:
  • Ranking and Environment: India’s 151st rank in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index (up from 159th in 2024) reflects a “very serious” situation, driven by media ownership concentration, harassment of journalists, and government influence RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025. Outlets like Times Now, Republic TV, News18, Zee News, Aaj Tak, and post-2022 NDTV, often labeled “Godi media,” are accused of spreading propaganda, fake news, and Islamophobia, aligning with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
  • Ownership and Economic Pressures: Corporate ownership by figures like Mukesh Ambani (News18) and Gautam Adani (NDTV) ties media to political interests. Many outlets rely on government advertising, leading to self-censorship StudyIQ Analysis. The global decline in media revenue, as noted by RSF, exacerbates this, with tech giants absorbing advertising funds.
  • Harassment and Censorship: Journalists face legal harassment (e.g., sedition laws, UAPA), online trolling, and physical threats. Cases like Siddique Kappan’s 2020 arrest and Alt News’ Mohammed Zubair’s 2022 detention highlight this  Alt News. The 2021 IT Rules and government pressure on platforms to remove critical content further restrict press freedom.
  • “Godi Media” Role: Outlets like Republic TV (Arnab Goswami), News18 (Aman Chopra), and OpIndia (Nupur J Sharma) are frequently exposed by Alt News for spreading fake news and hate speech, particularly targeting Muslims Outlook Business. For example, Times Now deleted a fake video in May 2025 after Alt News’ exposure.

• Resilience:
  • Independent Media: Outlets like The Wire, Scroll.in, and pre-2022 NDTV maintain investigative journalism, exposing corruption and social issues. Digital platforms and citizen journalists leverage the internet to bypass traditional gatekeepers.
  • Fact-Checking and Civil Society: Alt News and other fact-checkers consistently debunk misinformation, holding “Godi media” accountable. Journalist unions and public campaigns, like the INDIA alliance’s boycott of biased anchors, resist media capture .
  • Judicial Interventions: The Supreme Court’s 2021 review of sedition laws and occasional rulings protecting press freedom show judicial support, though inconsistent StudyIQ Analysis.
• Assessment: The press has not collapsed but is significantly weakened. “Godi media” undermines its democratic role, but independent outlets, fact-checkers, and public resistance prevent a total failure. The press’s ability to function as a watchdog is compromised, particularly in polarized or communal contexts, but it retains some efficacy.

V. Analysis of the Other Three Pillars of “Democracy”

1. Legislature:
   • Challenges: The Indian Parliament faces criticism for polarization, reduced debate time, and the frequent use of ordinances, bypassing legislative scrutiny. Opposition parties, part of the INDIA alliance, allege the BJP dominates proceedings, limiting dissent. The suspension of MPs during protests (e.g., 2023 Winter Session) raises concerns about democratic space The Hindu.
   • Resilience: The legislature remains functional, with elections (e.g., 2024 Lok Sabha) allowing opposition gains. Parties like Congress, TMC, and DMK actively challenge the BJP, and parliamentary committees continue to scrutinize legislation.
   • Assessment: The legislature is strained by majoritarian tendencies and procedural issues but has not collapsed, as it still facilitates representation and debate.
2. Executive: Challenges: The executive, led by the BJP since 2014, is criticized for centralizing power, undermining federalism (e.g., through GST or farm laws), and limiting transparency. Prime Minister Modi’s lack of press conferences since 2014 and reliance on “friendly” media reduce accountability StudyIQ Analysis. Policies like the CAA and Article 370 revocation have sparked accusations of authoritarianism. Resilience: The executive operates within constitutional bounds, with elections ensuring democratic turnover. Opposition-ruled states (e.g., West Bengal, Tamil Nadu) counterbalance central power, and public protests (e.g., farmers’ protests) influence policy reversals. Assessment: The executive is powerful and occasionally overreaches, but it has not collapsed, as democratic mechanisms like elections and protests remain effective.
3. Judiciary: Challenges: The judiciary faces accusations of delayed justice, selective rulings, and pressure from the executive. High-profile cases, like the prolonged bail hearings for activists under UAPA, raise concerns about independence. The collegium system for judicial appointments is contentious, with government influence alleged The Wire. The Supreme Court and High Courts have delivered landmark rulings protecting rights, such as the 2021 sedition law review and privacy judgments. Public interest litigations (PILs) continue to hold the government accountable. Assessment: The judiciary is under strain but functional, with moments of independence preventing collapse.

POST-SCRIPT

It was two years (1988-89) before the advent of Neo-liberal economy in India. A small group of people anticipated the dangers of new media in the context of Electronic as well as Digital and/or Cyber Capitalism⤡ ⤡. They sought to expose mass media as a consent-manufacturing machinery committed to the motto of “mass alienating mass media.” This group referred to themselves as Niranandaloka⤡ (subverting the mainstream Anandaloka, a populist magazine).

ENDNOTES

1. “Godi” media, coined by journalist Ravish Kumar, translates to “lapdog” media, implying outlets that sit in the government’s lap, prioritizing political agendas over journalistic integrity. “Godi” media refers to Indian outlets perceived as biased towards the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), accused of spreading propaganda rather than objective journalism. This term, meaning “lap” in Hindi, indicates these media act as government lapdogs.
   A. Evidence of Fake News. Evidence suggests “Godi” media frequently disseminates fake news, with cases like Times Now recently caught sharing a fabricated video, exposed by Alt.news’ Mohammed Zubair, which led to its deletion. Other examples include misrepresentations during the 2020 Delhi riots, which amplified communal tensions.
   B. Role of Transparency Activists. Transparency activists, particularly Alt.news, regularly uncover these fabrications. Alt.news has documented numerous instances, such as debunking false claims made by TV channels like Aaj Tak and News18, as highlighted in recent reports.
   C. While not every “Godi” media outlet consistently spreads fake news, the pattern indicates a tendency to do so, often identified by fact-checkers, raising concerns about media integrity in India. The term gained traction during events such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and the 2020-2021 farmers’ protests, when critics argued that these media outlets vilified protesters.
2. “There is no free press without economic independence,” is accurately referenced in multiple sources related to the 2025 World Press Freedom Index. RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025: Economic fragility is a leading threat to press freedom (published May 5, 2025, on rsf.org): This report highlights economic pressure as a major threat to press freedom, with Bocandé emphasizing the need for stable and transparent financial conditions to ensure media independence. The quote directly relates to the Index’s findings on the global decline in press freedom due to economic constraints. Global state of press freedom in ‘difficult situation’ warns RSF – Society of Editors (published May 4, 2025, on societyofeditors.org): This source quotes Bocandé’s statement in the context of the 2025 Index, underscoring the historic low of economic indicators and its impact on media autonomy. RSF report says global press freedom deteriorating as economic fragility and authoritarian control deepen – The Online Citizen (published May 5, 2025, on theonlinecitizen.com): The article reiterates Bocandé’s quote, linking it to the broader call for structural reforms to counter economic pressures on journalism worldwide.
3. The “Sword of Damocles” is an idiom that refers to a situation where there is an imminent and ever-present threat of something bad happening. It originates from a Greek anecdote about Damocles, a courtier of Dionysius II, the tyrant of Syracuse. Damocles admired Dionysius’s luxurious lifestyle and the power he wielded, so Dionysius decided to demonstrate the burdens of power by placing a sword suspended by a single hair above Damocles’s head during a banquet.