How can media remain independent in an era of corporate and political pressure?

By Laxminarayan Kanungo

To ensure the media's impartiality, the first requirement is that its capital and funding must come from reputable sources. Otherwise, how can those who spend crores of rupees have no vested interest or agenda? This seeming dilemma has been addressed by Bengaluru’s “IPS Media Foundation.”

Let us see how this model works. In 2015, a foundation was started in Bengaluru with donations from a few wealthy businesspersons. Initially, the foundation was built with a corpus of Rs 100 crore under the name IPSMF (Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation), its objective was to create a few independent digital media outlets in India, so that they could challenge the mainstream media which often functions under various pressures.

This would help reduce obstacles in delivering truthful and fact-based news to the people. Digital media outlets that maintain standards, exercise extreme care in reporting, and offer sharp analysis would receive the necessary financial support. Which digital media outlet would receive funding would be decided by a trust board. Donors who wish to see an impartial media would have no role in this decision-making. In such a model, interference by individuals or groups who provide funding for media institutions is minimised.

Under this model, over the past ten years, several quality digital media outlets have been created in India with grants from the IPS Media Foundation. Digital media platforms that have received assistance ranging from Rs 2 crore to Rs 5 crore include The Wire, The Caravan, Alt News, Live Law, The Print, The News Minute, Better India, Swarajya, MediaNama, Mojo Story, Imphal Free Press, and Kashmir Observer, among others.

Those who contributed the initial Rs 100 crore to the IPS Media Foundation, either individually or through their foundations, include Azim Premji Philanthropic Initiatives Private Limited, Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, Srinataraj Trust, Piramal Enterprises Limited, and Manipal Education and Medical Group India Private Limited, among others.

Now the question may arise: if the source of funds is clean, will the editorial neutrality follow automatically? Won’t editors still face pressure? To address this issue, large editorial boards could be formed within media outlets to take major decisions, with their decisions being final. This can help reduce pressure.

In 1919, Motilal Nehru, the father of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, published the newspaper “The Independent.” Mahatma Gandhi had written a letter at that time, and its relevance remains even today.

Gandhiji wrote: “At present, newspapers give more importance to advertisements than revenue from readers. A newspaper that writes about the harmful effects of alcohol also carries advertisements praising alcohol. These practices have come from the West. We should stop them or reform them. We must exercise some control over advertisements. When media runs solely with a profit motive, corruption will increase.”

This shows that to run newspapers or media on a long-term basis, sustainable funding is essential. If the revenue model is not right, newspapers or media cannot remain independent.

In a 2012 interview, Samir Jain, the owner of The Times of India, said: “We are not in the news business, we are in the advertising business.” This statement triggered widespread debate at that time. Over the past few years, most leading newspapers such as The Times of India, The Hindu, and The Indian Express have made subscription fees mandatory for reading online or digital news. Some even charge premium fees for exclusive content. However, for some reason, this has not yet happened in Odia-language newspapers.

The founder of The Indian Express, Ramnath Goenka, used to say: “The Indian Express is not an industry, it is a mission.” For this, he had to face the government’s wrath during the Emergency. Yet many acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to run media for long without a sustainable revenue.

Founder-editor of ‘Outlook’- Vinod Mehta explained how Outlook magazine lost advertisements for a long time from companies like the Tata Group after publishing the Nira Radia tapes. In his 2014 autobiography “Editor Unplugged,” he wrote: “After publishing Ratan Tata’s conversations in the Nira Radia tapes, the Tata Group not only stopped advertisements but also stopped issuing press advertisements to the Outlook group. Even our owner Raheja was unhappy. However, later the Tata–Outlook relationship improved.”

In Britain, BBC News is primarily funded through a mandatory annual license fee paid by television owners. However, six years ago, Sweden abolished such a license fee for its national broadcaster (SVT). Now, only income-tax payers pay an additional one percent TV tax. Although BBC’s fact-checking standards are high, questions about its impartiality have also been raised at times.

Unlike Doordarshan, the United States does not have a government-run media. Private companies operate channels in a free market, competing to survive and meet audience demand. Even in the US, questions have been raised about media bias.

The British daily The Guardian, which emerged nearly 200 years ago, has a reputation for impartiality. Though it was run by a trust and later converted into a company in 2008, it was decided that there would be no political or business interference in its reporting. Founded by Manchester textile merchant Edward Taylor, The Guardian became profitable only about a decade ago.

In Odisha, “Samaja” was founded 106 years ago by Utkalamani Gopabandhu Das and is run by a trust. Does trust-run media ensure greater press freedom and impartiality? Former senior journalist Sampad Mahapatra of NDTV, who worked there for 19 years, says: “The idea that free journalism can be done simply because a media house is run by a trust is not entirely correct. When those in power harass the owners, journalists’ courage diminishes. Whether at the Centre or the state, you cannot write critically about two or three top leaders. If you do, you are dismissed. Many fearless journalists no longer find jobs and have turned Youtubers.

Enhancing journalists’ social security would increase their courage, and the media would not become subservient to the government. India’s rank has reportedly slipped to 151 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has stated that India is among the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists who wish to work independently.

Senior BBC journalist based in Odisha, Sandeep Sahu, says: “For a country aspiring to be called a ‘Vishwaguru,’ this is by no means a matter of pride or glory. Despite all odds, we must support the few journalists and media institutions striving tirelessly to uphold the great tradition of journalism.”

For a free media ecosystem, multiple media outlets must exist. However, digital and television media are often accused of cheapening content in the race for views and TRPs. It is said: as the people, so the ruler; as the voters, so the government. Similarly, one could say: as the audience, so the television. 

If viewers ignore bad content and show interest in quality news, television and digital media content will also improve, because platforms like YouTube provide revenue based on audience viewership, though the algorithm of digital platforms like YouTube has remained opaque. If there isn’t transparency in the algorithm, then the content in media outlets will be skewed.

Finally, it can be said that readers and viewers should financially support good media through subscriptions. This will help create a free and fair media ecosystem and strengthen democracy through the noble profession of journalism.

(The author is a senior journalist. The Views here are personal.)