+ Follow
Image by Pixabay

In media studies, critics sometimes use the term “prostitute media” to describe news outlets that effectively sell coverage to the highest bidder, whether corporate advertisers, political patrons, or the demands of ratings metrics. In such a system, truth is treated as a commodity. As one media scholar observes, “the more news is treated as a market commodity, the less certain it is to supply the kind of information a democratic society requires”. In the Indian context, analysts like Thussu (2005) note that neoliberal media reforms have created a ‘façade of media plurality’ that, in reality, deepens the democratic deficit. This article applies these perspectives, drawing on public-sphere theory, political economy, and discourse analysis, to examine how truth is commodified under the pressures of power and profit in Indian journalism. We analyse cases such as paid news, TRP manipulation, and sensationalist coverage to show how market and political imperatives distort democratic discourse.

Theoretical Framework

Public Sphere Theory

Habermas’s public-sphere concept envisions a media environment where citizens engage in free, rational debate on matters of common concern, independent of both state and market coercion. In this ideal, the press functions as a forum for critical discussion among individuals. However, Habermas cautioned that mass-media commercialisation can erode this ideal. He describes modern media as an “impoverished pseudo-public sphere, lacking its original capacity for rational-critical discourse”, an entity easily manipulated by states and corporations, effectively serving to legitimise decisions already made. Under such conditions, media discourse fails to challenge power and instead helps sustain it.

Political Economy of Communication

The political economy approach emphasises how media ownership and funding sources act as filters on news content. India’s media landscape illustrates this clearly: a handful of large conglomerates now own most major media outlets, and these owners often have diversified business and political interests. For example, in recent years, Reliance Industries (Mukesh Ambani) and Adani Enterprises have acquired dozens of TV channels, newspapers, and online news sites. This concentration of ownership means that corporate interests from telecom to natural resources can influence news agendas. Dependence on advertising revenue further biases content: as research notes, “advertising and the need to keep advertisers happy is of prime importance” in Indian media, giving business interests leverage over editorial decisions. Scholars argue that in such market-driven systems, journalism tends to produce economic benefits while creating what they term democratic deficits. The Press Council has warned that paid-news practices are a “cancer afflicting media undermining the very process of democracy”, a testament to how political and corporate filters corrupt the news.

Critical Discourse and Media Ethics

Critical discourse analysis reminds us that media narratives are constructed and often serve powerful interests. Language and framing choices can marginalise dissenting voices and normalise elite perspectives. Empirical studies of India’s media environment find that mainstream outlets frequently “amplify manipulation and degrade the quality of [the] news,” propagating polarising stories on behalf of vested agendas. For example, analyses of prime-time TV debates show that they often resemble a “theatre of polarisation” rather than a forum for reasoned democratic deliberation. In this way, media discourse can reinforce existing power structures by sensationalising issues and presenting them through a narrow ideological lens, betraying the ideal of rational-critical public debate.

Literature Informed Discussion

Academic research on Indian journalism corroborates these concerns. Thussu (2014) documents how the exponential growth of TV news (from 1 channel in 1991 to over 100 by 2012) occurred alongside fierce competition for eyeballs and advertising. He argues that this resulted in an “excessive marketisation of news”, as channels prioritised entertainment value and high-TRP content over in-depth reporting. Earlier, Thussu noted that deregulation and corporate takeovers in the 1990s produced a false plurality of outlets, which in practice contributed to a ‘democratic deficit’. Content analyses support this: one study found that intense TRP competition had prompted news networks to “provide news in an entertaining manner,” essentially blending journalism with infotainment. Similarly, media scholars like Croteau and Hoynes (cited in related literature) observe that market-oriented media tend to treat citizens as consumers first, yielding economic gains at the cost of democratic discourse. In sum, the literature indicates that India’s market-driven media environment encourages formatting news as a consumable product, with adverse consequences for public deliberation and informed citizenship.

Structural Factors

Several structural features of the Indian media system exacerbate the commodification of truth:

  • Ownership Concentration: The media market in India is extremely concentrated. Reporters Without Borders notes that just a few owners control the vast majority of media reach. For example, four major Hindi daily newspapers (Jagran, Hindustan, Amar Ujala, Bhaskar) together capture over three-quarters of national circulation, and leading conglomerates (for instance, media arms of Reliance and Adani) hold stakes in dozens of TV and digital outlets. This vertical integration means that newsrooms can rarely pursue stories that conflict with their owners’ business interests. Researchers observe that under such conglomerate ownership, media outlets face strong incentives to stay “in proximity to power”, pushing editorial agendas towards pro-industry and pro-government narratives.
  • Advertising Dependence: Indian media operate in a classic dual-product market, producing news content to attract audiences, which are then sold to advertisers. In practice, this means advertising revenue dominates. For instance, in 2022 Indian newspapers earned roughly ₹165.95 billion from ads versus ₹76.30 billion from sales. Because ads fund the business, journalists often avoid stories that could alienate top advertisers or government patrons. As one analysis notes, since advertising is “of prime importance,” the need to please advertisers further weakens editorial freedom. In effect, news becomes shaped by the tastes and interests of corporate sponsors rather than by the public interest.
  • Political/Soft Censorship: Rather than overt censorship, the Indian state often exerts control via softer means. Government advertisements, regulatory licenses, and legal scrutiny are used as levers: friendly outlets receive benefits while critical outlets face pressure. Media analysts list practices like withholding government ads, restricting event access, demanding tax or legal inquiries, or using sedition/defamation laws as tools to impose self-censorship. These pressures create a climate where news organisations self-regulate content to avoid conflict with power. Journalists report that important stories (such as corruption or social unrest) are sometimes toned down or ignored to keep owners and rulers appeased.
  • Digital/Algorithmic Pressures: India’s news consumption has rapidly shifted online, where algorithms rule. Social platforms and news apps prioritise engagement above all. Research finds that these algorithms tend to amplify “emotionally charged, polarizing, or sensational content” at the expense of nuance and fact-checking. In such an attention economy, publishers and channels learn that outrage and controversy drive clicks. Consequently, many outlets now optimise headlines and topics for virality and spectacle, often at the cost of accuracy. This digital dynamic magnifies sensationalism (communal rumours, celebrity scandals, “breaking” news junk) and sidelines sober analysis, further shrinking the space for reasoned debate.

Case-Based Analysis

Paid News in Elections

One of the clearest examples of media commodification in India is the “paid news” scandal. Investigations by the Press Council of India in the 2000s revealed that political candidates routinely paid media houses and reporters to publish favourable stories disguised as legitimate news. In one high-profile case during a state election, a top politician’s official expenditure records showed almost no spending on advertising, yet multiple newspapers carried lavish praise pieces about him. Subsequent inquiry exposed these as paid-for content: the politician had effectively bought positive coverage, and the media had treated this propaganda as news. The PCI report bluntly characterised paid news as “a cancer afflicting media as a whole, undermining the very process of democracy”. This case starkly shows how media space can be directly sold to the highest bidder, subverting its role as an independent informant.

TRP Manipulation and Sensationalism

Television Rating Points (TRPs) themselves have become a form of currency, incentivising sensational content. In 2020, authorities uncovered that some news channels were fraudulently inflating their TRP numbers to attract ads. For example, Mumbai police testimony described how channel operatives paid families to install TRP-monitoring boxes and tune them to the channel, even though the viewers weren’t actually watching. The police noted that such “manipulated TRP ratings” mislead advertisers and cause losses of “hundreds of crores of rupees”. In practical terms, this scandal shows how competitive ratings pressure can turn viewership data into a traded commodity, rewarding gimmicks over genuine audience interest. The chase for TRPs has also encouraged channels to crank up sensationalism: crime, celebrity scandals, and polarising debates receive prime-time slots, since they are known to drive short-term ratings spikes. Complex policy issues, by contrast, are often sidelined, as they do not promise the same immediate “punch” in numbers.

Digital Disinformation and Narrative Control

The rise of digital media has brought its own distortions. Politically aligned groups in India have used social media and digital outlets to launch coordinated disinformation campaigns, often aligning them with wider media narratives. For example, during periods of communal tension or farmer protests, misleading viral posts and doctored videos have proliferated online. Studies have found that some mainstream news portals and channels then pick up these viral falsehoods without scrutiny. One analysis notes that the Indian mainstream media can unwittingly “amplify manipulation” and help spread propaganda. In this way, false narratives seeded online become reinforced by traditional media, further blurring the line between journalism and political marketing.

Ethical Implications

These developments have dire ethical implications for journalism and democracy. First, they corrode the information environment that democracy depends on. A well-functioning democracy assumes that citizens share a reasonably reliable base of facts and analysis. In contrast, India now faces what observers call an “information disorder,” where fact and fiction mingle, and the public cannot easily discern truth. Media that prioritise sensationalism and patronage over objectivity leave voters misinformed or polarised. Public debate becomes distorted: voters may choose sides based on emotional narratives or outright propaganda rather than on evidence and reasoned argument.

Second, the core norms of journalism are violated. Ethical codes (e.g. Press Council guidelines) emphasise accuracy, fairness, and independence. Practices like paid news and hidden sponsorship directly breach these standards. As one critic laments, prime-time television in India now serves less as a platform for reasoned public deliberation and more as “a theatre of polarisation”. Investigative journalism the expensive but vital work of uncovering wrongdoing, is waning under these pressures. In market-driven media, “all the news that’s fit to sell” often crowds out “all the news that’s fit to print”. The result is that media fail their watchdog role: powerful figures escape scrutiny and important issues remain underreported.

Third, there is a broader social cost: trust and diversity suffer. When audiences see news content as biased or bought, they lose trust in the press as a social institution. Over time, cynicism grows, and constructive engagement with public issues erodes. Meanwhile, many voices fall silent. Stories that might threaten corporate profits or ruling-party narratives – such as farmer grievances, labour strikes, or environmental concerns – often receive minimal coverage. In contrast, trivial or sensational stories are elevated because they sell (or align with power). This selective silence effectively denies many groups a voice in national discourse, undermining the democratic principle of equal representation.

The evidence above paints a stark picture: under pressures of political power, corporate capital, and TRP-driven competition, Indian media often treats truth as a tradable commodity. This “prostitution” of media undermines democracy by narrowing the range of debate, promoting misinformation, and weakening accountability. To counter this, reforms are needed. Legal measures could limit media cross-ownership and impose transparency on news funding and ratings. Civil society and journalistic bodies must enforce ethical standards and promote media literacy so citizens can critically evaluate news. Supporting independent, public-interest journalism beyond the reach of pure market logic would also help restore balance. Ultimately, democracy requires a press that serves the people, not the powerful; restoring that ideal is essential for India’s public sphere to truly thrive.

.    .    .

References:

Discus