Changing Role of News Media: From Information to Entertainment to Fake News

Subhash Dhuliya

Brief History of News Media

The history of Indian news media reflects the broader political, social, and economic transformations of the country. Before independence, journalism assumed a distinctly missionary role. Newspapers and journals were not passive recorders of events; they were active participants in the freedom struggle. Titles such as Kesari, Harijan and The Hindu acted as instruments of political awakening, giving voice to nationalist leaders and mobilizing public opinion against colonial rule. In this sense, journalism was unapologetically advocacy-driven, with clear political goals. It functioned less as a neutral observer and more as an ally of the independence movement, committed to building a consciousness of resistance.

In the immediate decades after 1947, the press turned its attention to the task of nation-building. The media aligned itself with the state-led development agenda and played a crucial role in social reform campaigns against untouchability, caste discrimination, and the oppression of women. This continued the tradition of advocacy journalism, but with a new emphasis on integration, unity, and modernization. The government, too, invested heavily in communication infrastructure, with All India Radio and later Doordarshan emerging as powerful public service broadcasters. In this period, media and the state often appeared to be on the same page, both focused on creating a cohesive national identity and promoting developmental goals.

Rise of Professionalism

By the 1970s, however, the contours of journalism began to shift. Professionalism emerged as the new ethos, with newsrooms increasingly guided by norms of objectivity, accuracy, and balance. Investigative journalism gained ground, and the Emergency of 1975–77 became a watershed moment. The press, silenced through censorship during this period, reasserted itself afterwards as a watchdog of democracy. Ethical codes and professional standards became central to journalism’s identity. The slower pace of news cycles, shaped by limited technology, gave reporting a depth and credibility that is often contrasted with today’s rapid-fire environment.

Liberalization and Emergence of Infotainment

The 1990s brought about a radical transformation. With economic liberalization in 1991, Indian media entered the global marketplace. Satellite television, the rise of private news channels, and the onset of the 24×7 news cycle reshaped both the structure and culture of journalism. Media houses increasingly operated as corporate entities, competing fiercely for advertising revenue and audience attention. Editorial choices became driven less by public service and more by ratings (TRPs) and market logic. This period saw the blending of information, education, and entertainment into a single format often described as “infotainment.” Sensationalism, celebrity culture, and consumer-oriented stories proliferated as media sought to capture the imagination of a growing middle-class audience with rising purchasing power.

As competition intensified, the character of journalism shifted further toward entertainment. News was no longer simply a civic responsibility or a medium for democratic dialogue; it became spectacle. Prime-time debates, crime and scandal coverage, and lifestyle features increasingly overshadowed serious reporting. In-depth journalism, which required time and resources, declined. Instead, audiences were fed with bite-sized, visually stimulating, and emotionally charged content. The global influences of the “CNN effect” and the “Foxification” of news amplified this trend, encouraging immediacy, sensationalism, and polarization in reporting.

The Digital Revolution

The digital revolution of the 2000s magnified these transformations. With the spread of the internet, smartphones, and social media platforms, content creation was democratized in unprecedented ways. Anyone could now be a publisher, blurring the distinction between professional journalism and citizen-generated content. While this opened new spaces for expression, it also triggered a crisis of credibility. Fake news became a defining feature of the new media ecosystem, spreading rapidly through political propaganda, clickbait economics, and algorithm-driven echo chambers.

 The consequences have been far-reaching: polarization, the erosion of public trust in journalism, and growing threats to democratic institutions. In response, fact-checking initiatives and media literacy campaigns have emerged, but their reach remains limited compared to the scale and velocity of misinformation. Recent surveys underline this crisis: the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024 found that trust in news in India remains volatile, with only about 38% of respondents expressing confidence in most news, while the Lokniti-CSDS Media Survey (2023) documented rising concerns over misinformation, especially in the context of elections and communal polarization.

In this long trajectory, Indian journalism has moved from advocacy to professionalism, from public service to commercialization, and finally into the digital age where credibility itself is at stake. The journey reflects not only the changing role of the press but also the tensions between democracy, market forces, and technology in shaping how societies communicate and understand themselves.

Diversity and Plurality

Media plurality and diversity contracted significantly over time. The Indian press once operated on a three-tier structure — national, regional, and local. However, with advances in print technology and the proliferation of satellite communication, the national press ceded ground to the regional press, which itself became so hyper-localized that the genuinely local press virtually disappeared. Simultaneously, the rise of newspaper chains with multi-location editions, even at the district and tehsil level, produced a new oligopolistic concentration of media ownership.

Political plurality was an equally severe casualty. Earlier, the media ecosystem reflected a wide range of ideological orientations. In Delhi, for example, titles such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Statesman, Patriot, National Herald, Motherland, alongside Indian-language dailies, represented a spectrum from Left to Right, from pro-government to anti-establishment. This heterogeneity created space for contesting discourses and sustained democratic deliberation. The Delhi media landscape became concentrated in the hands of a few dominant players, shrinking space for dissenting voices.

To understand and further analyse Indian political landscape, it was imperative to study all these newspapers to and get acquainted with varied perspectives. Consolidation and corporate control gradually reduced this diversity. Price wars launched by two major dailies -the Times of India and Hindustan either marginalised or eliminated financially weaker newspapers which were largely dependent on subscription revenue as their circulation drastically went down because of price. It narrowed down the ideological spectrum and homogenizing content.

With the consolidation of corporate-controlled media, however, this plurality eroded. Aggressive price wars, made possible by an advertising-driven revenue model, marginalized or eliminated smaller newspapers that lacked comparable financial backing. The consequence was a homogenization of news agendas and a narrowing of the ideological spectrum. In effect, the Delhi media landscape — once marked by rich diversity — became concentrated in the hands of a few dominant players, shrinking the discursive space for dissenting and alternative voices.

News Gathering No More a Priority

With the intensification of profit-driven models, media houses drastically reduced resource allocation for news gathering. In-depth reporting and investigative journalism were among the first casualties. Such stories are inherently resource-intensive, requiring days or even weeks of sustained effort. In the new newsroom culture, however, reporters were expected to file multiple stories per day, as overall editorial staff strength was cut.

Quantity displaced quality.

This restructuring also deepened reliance on news agencies and syndicated feeds. Consequently, newspapers and television channels began carrying near-identical content, leading to what media scholars term the homogenization of news agendas. The pursuit of exclusives, once a hallmark of competitive journalism, diminished; resource-intensive investigations became economically unviable. The diversity of content — a crucial marker of media pluralism — was severely compromised.

The erosion of exclusivity also affected the quality of day-to-day reporting. As reporters were expected to deliver a higher volume of stories within compressed deadlines, the pursuit of diverse sources — once central to robust journalism — became increasingly impractical. Reporting in a hurry meant that journalists depended on a narrow set of accessible, official, or press-release–driven sources. This reduced the range of perspectives in news coverage and eroded the tradition of engaging with multiple, sometimes conflicting voices.

Profit-driven models reduced resources for in-depth reporting. Investigative journalism, requiring sustained effort, became impractical as reporters were expected to file multiple stories daily. Reliance on news agencies and syndicated feeds homogenized content, eroding diversity. The pursuit of exclusives declined, and reporting depended increasingly on narrow, official, or press-release–driven sources. Informal “pool systems” emerged, accelerating the uniformity of reporting, a phenomenon known as “pack journalism” where outlets replicate each other’s narratives and angles, producing uniformity and weakening the watchdog role of the press.

.In many beats, an informal “pool system” emerged, whereby reporters began sharing stories or leads among themselves rather than undertaking independent verification or fieldwork. While efficient, this practice accelerated the trend toward sameness in reporting.

At a deeper level, the erosion was also epistemological. Traditionally, Indian journalism adhered to what was informally described as a “journalism of five major stories”: across outlets, a small set of key issues was consistently prioritized for front-page or lead coverage. This informal consensus created shared benchmarks of news values and reinforced the media’s agenda-setting. However, in the commercialized era, this consensus fragmented. Each outlet began privileging stories based not on civic importance but on ratings, readership analytics, or advertiser alignment.

Fragmentation of the informal “journalism of five major stories” consensus further weakened media’s agenda-setting role.  Commercialized news prioritized ratings and advertiser alignment over civic importance, diminishing diversity and narrowing journalism’s public service mandate.

The result was a weakening of the media’s role as a collective agenda-setter for democratic deliberation. Instead, the news ecosystem became fragmented and market-driven, with audiences consuming different “priorities” depending on which outlet they followed. This shift represents not only a decline in diversity but also a narrowing of journalism’s public service mandate.

Concentration of Media Power: Ownership and Corporate Takeover

The ownership pattern of Indian media has historically been complex and heterogeneous. Newspapers and magazines were owned by different types of stakeholders: large business houses, influential families, and politicians or political parties. This diversity produced a wide range of publications, from mainstream dailies to specialized weeklies—political magazines, crime and investigative journals, literary and cultural magazines, and niche publications on science, women’s issues, or children’s literature.  

These publications were often driven by a commitment to social good, with ownership spanning across business houses, families, and political entities. Publications focusing on science, women’s issues, or children’s literature gradually disappeared, as they were not financially lucrative. In one notable instance, a magazine, focusing on women’s issues, in Mumbai was shut down because the revenue it generated was far lower than the rent of the space it occupied, even though the magazine itself was not running at a loss.

The era of economic liberalization in the 1990s fundamentally altered this landscape. Media was no longer viewed only as a cultural or political instrument; it became a highly lucrative business venture. For many industrialists, owning a media company became a way not only to diversify investments but also to gain political influence and protect their business interests. Real estate developers, for instance, emerged as significant media owners during this period, using newspapers or channels as tools for shaping public perception and gaining access to corridors of power.

Alongside this, a broader trend of corporate consolidation took shape. Big business houses began acquiring stakes in established media outlets or launching their own television channels, newspapers, and digital platforms. This created an ecosystem where cross-ownership became the norm—companies controlling interests across print, television, radio, and digital platforms. Such concentration gave rise to questions about editorial independence, as the financial and political stakes of owners increasingly shaped content and newsroom priorities.

Political-business-media nexuses

Another phenomenon was the rise of political-business-media nexuses. Politicians and parties invested in media companies directly or indirectly, while corporate owners often aligned themselves with political factions to secure regulatory and financial advantages. The result was the blurring of lines between journalism, commerce, and politics, with media often serving as a tool for influence rather than an independent watchdog.

Over time, this ownership concentration contributed to the erosion of diversity in perspectives. While the number of channels and publications multiplied, the range of voices represented narrowed. Critical reporting on powerful corporations or political allies was muted, and coverage often mirrored the interests of ownership. Even in cases where robust reporting survived, commercial pressures pushed newsrooms towards high-circulation or high-TRP content at the expense of investigative and public-interest journalism.

This structural transformation—media moving from family or socially motivated ownership to consolidated corporate and political control—has had far-reaching implications for democracy.

In many cases, the media ceased to act as a check on power and instead became enmeshed within it. Scholars have described this as the “capture” of media by political and business elites, a trend that has only intensified in the digital era with the rise of corporate-backed news portals and cross-platform conglomerates.

 Commercialization, TRPs, and Sensationalism

 The consolidation of media ownership set the stage for profound changes in newsroom practices and content strategies. As corporate houses and politically aligned conglomerates gained control over major media outlets, editorial decisions increasingly reflected the commercial and strategic interests of owners rather than purely journalistic considerations. This concentration of power created the conditions for a market-driven approach to news, where maximizing audience engagement and advertising revenue became paramount. In other words, the structural shifts in ownership directly paved the way for the rise of profit-oriented, sensationalized journalism, transforming not only what was reported but also how it was reported.

The entry of corporate players into Indian media transformed journalism from a public service into a market-driven enterprise. Profit became the overriding objective, and the quest for higher viewership and advertising revenue dictated editorial and programming decisions. The content was no longer solely the editor’s domain, as the marketing team was integrated into editorial decisions, with brand managers playing a crucial role in shaping the editorial content.

In television news, this translated into an obsessive focus on TRPs (Television Rating Points), with higher ratings directly linked to greater financial returns. Newsrooms became highly competitive, with each channel striving to capture audience attention through bold, often sensational content.

This race for profit led to the widespread adoption of the “lowest common denominator” approach, where stories were designed primarily to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Complex issues were simplified or dramatized, while controversial or emotionally charged topics were given prominence. Serious investigative reporting was often sidelined in favor of spectacle. The rise of noisy, confrontational anchors, visually intense graphics, and shouting matches in prime-time debates became commonplace, creating a media environment that prioritized entertainment over information.

Alongside sensationalism, the pressure for rapid content production contributed to the proliferation of fake news and misinformation. Stories were broadcast or published without thorough verification, often to capture fleeting attention or go viral on social media. Breaking news” journalism became the order of the day, with newsrooms prioritizing real-time updates and rapid dissemination over in-depth analysis, often bypassing thorough verification to meet audience demands for instant information. . This culture of speed over accuracy fed into what scholars and media critics describe as hysterical news programming, where shock value and emotional appeal dominate over reasoned analysis and fact-based reporting.

The consequences of this commercialized model are profound. Audiences are increasingly presented with content that entertains and provokes rather than informs, eroding public trust in journalism and weakening the media’s role as a democratic watchdog. The emphasis on ratings and profit has also narrowed the range of voices and perspectives in news coverage, further diminishing the diversity that is essential for informed public discourse. In short, the commercialization of media, driven by corporate imperatives and TRP competition, has reshaped not only what audiences watch but also how news is produced and perceived.

Manufactured News: A Case in Point

The relentless drive for ratings and market dominance had turned sensationalism into a high-stakes environment. Some outlets went beyond exaggeration, crossing the line into outright fabrication of news. These trends set the stage for a new, more dangerous phase—where news was not just dramatized, but deliberately manufactured.

The period of Operation Sindoor is a case in the point which posed a significant challenge to the nation, when all stakeholders were expected to act in a coordinated and responsible manner. During this time, the role of the media proved highly irresponsible, with several outlets deliberately manufacturing news. Coverage often contradicted official briefings, which maintained a calm, fact-driven narrative, and instead presented dramatized or fabricated accounts that undermined government priorities, public understanding and harmed the nation’s image

Some national channels ran headlines falsely claiming that Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, had been captured and that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had surrendered—claims with no evidence and quickly debunked. In another instance, a channel reported that INS Vikrant had attacked Karachi port, using old stock footage to dramatize unverified events. Clips purporting to show Indian strikes on Pakistani installations were also aired, though the visuals were unrelated, including scenes from Israel’s Iron Dome system dating from 2021, repurposed deceptively.

 The proliferation of outright lies and blatant news fabrication marked the darkest era for Indian journalism, as the media industry sank to its lowest depths.

Artificial Intelligence Tools: Deepfakes

Artificial intelligence tools—including deepfakes, voice clones, and synthetic images—were used to create false visuals of Pakistan admitting defeat or exaggerated combat scenes, filling narrative gaps where no authentic footage existed. Despite repeated efforts by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) to fact-check and refute viral misinformation—challenging fake advisories, misattributed visuals, and fabricated claims of threats to Indian territory—the reach and impact of these corrections were limited. Independent fact-checkers and media watchdogs also played a crucial role in debunking misleading content, yet manufactured stories had already circulated widely.

 During such crises, nearly the entire media audience consumes news voraciously. Real-time reporting profoundly influences audience perceptions, while fact-checked content often goes unnoticed, appealing primarily to a niche group of analysts and scholars.

The Centre for Justice and Peace filed complaints against at least six major news channels—including Aaj Tak, NDTV, Times Now, and News18—for broadcasting misleading footage, sensational claims, and defamatory content involving an innocent civilian. Research from think tanks highlighted how this disinformation campaign fueled online panic and heightened geopolitical tension, turning social media into a parallel battleground.

 Operation Sindoor served not only as a test of military strategy but also as a stark demonstration of the dangers of fabricated news. Numerous outlets intentionally crafted, manipulated, or distorted content for sensational impact, eroding public understanding and jeopardizing national priorities. This episode highlights the critical need for ethical journalism, rigorous editorial standards, and enhanced media literacy, especially in coverage of conflict and  national crises.

Algorithms and AI-Driven Media

The rise of digital platforms has transformed media production and consumption, largely through algorithms that decide what content reaches audiences. Social media feeds, news aggregators, and streaming services increasingly rely on automated recommendation systems designed to maximize engagement. These algorithms prioritize content that is likely to attract clicks, views, or shares, often favoring emotionally charged, sensational, or polarizing material. While this personalization can enhance user experience, it also reinforces echo chambers and narrows the diversity of perspectives that audiences encounter.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has further intensified this transformation. Newsrooms are now experimenting with AI-driven tools for content creation, from automated writing of earnings reports and sports summaries to AI-generated images, videos, and even deepfakes.

These technologies can increase efficiency, allowing media organizations to produce high volumes of content rapidly. However, they also raise significant ethical and credibility concerns, as the boundary between authentic reporting and machine-generated content becomes increasingly blurred.

Algorithms also shape the economic incentives of media. Content that performs well with audiences is promoted further, creating a feedback loop where sensationalism and virality are rewarded. In this environment, AI tools can be misused to amplify misinformation, manipulate narratives, or fabricate visual content, making it harder for audiences to discern fact from fiction. The result is a media ecosystem where profitability and engagement metrics can outweigh editorial judgment and verification standards.

The growing dependence on AI and algorithms calls for a reevaluation of journalistic ethics and media literacy. Media organizations must establish robust editorial oversight for AI-generated content, ensure transparency in automated recommendations, and actively counter disinformation. At the same time, audiences need critical tools to understand how algorithms shape the news they consume. Without these safeguards, AI-driven media risks undermining both credibility and public trust, reinforcing polarization, and compromising the democratic role of journalism.

Conclusion: What the Future Holds

The journey of Indian news media—from its early advocacy and nation-building role to commercialization, sensationalism, and the rise of fake news—reflects the profound pressures shaping journalism today. As ownership consolidates, corporate imperatives dominate, and technology transforms content production and distribution, the boundaries between information, entertainment, and manipulation continue to blur.

Looking ahead, the future of media will be shaped by how well the industry balances profit motives with public responsibility. AI, algorithms, and digital platforms will continue to influence what audiences see, how stories are told, and how narratives are shaped. While these tools offer unprecedented efficiency and personalization, they also carry risks: echo chambers, manufactured content, and algorithmically amplified misinformation may further erode trust.

At the same time, opportunities exist to reclaim the journalistic mission. Investment in ethical reporting, editorial rigor, media literacy, and fact-checking can counterbalance the distortions introduced by commercial and technological pressures. Emerging technologies, if guided by transparency and accountability, can enhance reporting—through data journalism, AI-assisted verification, and wider audience engagement—without compromising integrity.

Ultimately, the future of Indian media depends on the choices made today by media organizations, policymakers, and audiences. A media ecosystem that values credibility, diversity, and public service over spectacle and profit can restore trust, strengthen democratic discourse, and ensure that journalism continues to inform, enlighten, and empower citizens in an increasingly complex world.

 References (for further reading)

• Jeffrey, Robin (2000). India’s Newspaper Revolution: Capitalism, Politics and the Indian Language Press. Oxford University Press.
• Kumar, Keval J. (2010). Mass Communication in India. Jaico.
• Lokniti-CSDS (2023). Indian Media Survey 2023: News Consumption, Trust and Misinformation.
• McCombs, Maxwell & Shaw, Donald (1972). “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly.
• McQuail, Denis (2010). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. Sage.
• Mehta, Nalin (2012). India on Television: How Satellite News Channels Have Changed the Way We Think and Act.
• Mukherjee, Aditya (Ed.) India Since 1947: The Independent Years.
• Ninan, Sevanti (2007). Headlines from the Heartland: Reinventing the Hindi Public Sphere. Sage.
• Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis & Fletcher, Richard. The Changing Business of Journalism and its Implications for Democracy.
• Press Council of India reports (various years). Media Ethics and Responsibility.
• Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2024). Digital News Report 2024. Oxford University.
• Schudson, Michael (2003). The Sociology of News. W.W. Norton.
• Suleyman, Mustafa. The Coming Wave.
• Thakurta, Paranjoy Guha (2011). Media Ethics: Truth, Fairness and Objectivity. Oxford University Press.
• Tiffen, Rodney (1989). News and Power. Allen & Unwin.
• Wardle, Claire & Derakhshan, Hossein (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe.
• Alt News & BoomLive. Case Studies and Reports on Misinformation in India.

Author: Prof.  Subhash Dhuliya is a distinguished academician, researcher, and educational administrator with over four decades of experience in media academics and as a practicing journalist. He served as Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Open University and Professor at IGNOU, IIMC, and CURAJ. He worked as Assistant Editor and Editorial Writer at Navbharat Times, Sunday Times of India, and Times Television, and as Chief Sub-Editor at Amrit Prabhat. He has been editor of  IIMC’s research journals, Communicator, and Sanchar Madhyam, and founded Newswriters.in. Prof. Dhuliya has designed journalism courses, served as a UNESCO Consultant for Journalism Education in the Maldives, and led training for journalists from Nepal and Afghanistan.

The conceptual framework and ideas in this article are solely those of the author. ChatGPT (OpenAI) provided assistance in editing and refining the text.

Photo:  Hartono Creative Studio. Unsplash