Nidhi Razdan discusses media freedom, ownership control, and the rise of YouTube journalism in India. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

When I was working with the BBC, they reduced the Hindi service. The argument was that they had to retain Urdu and Burmese because those media environments were not fully developed. That argument may not be made today, because a lot of the space for critical thinking is being filled by foreign media sources. Abhijit Banerjee, the Nobel laureate, said recently that the two most critical issues India faces are media freedom and transparency. I would like to ask you about these comments.

I disagree with him on just one thing. I agree that media freedom and transparency are two big issues, but it is more than that. We are seeing an institutional decline across the board in our democracy. The media is one pillar, the judiciary another. Institutions like the Parliament are no longer given the importance they should be getting. If you look at the data, fewer bills are being debated, fewer are being sent for scrutiny to standing committees, and the Parliament is sitting far less. All these democratic institutions have, for the last decade, come under a lot of strain. It is not just the media. And that is a deadly cocktail.

Do you think media freedom is under threat in India?

Obviously it is. You can see what has happened over the last decade. There is a reason why we rank so badly in the World Press Freedom Index. The government says they do not believe these numbers and that our press freedom is great, but we also know that it is lobbying within the same group to improve its ranking.

Media freedom is threatened in different ways. It is not just sending reporters to jail or overtly threatening them, which has also happened. It is also a systematic decimation of news organisations, controlling the narrative in the press, and coercion through the use of agencies, whether against newsrooms, corporates, or political rivals.

We recently saw television anchors repeating the same government handout without changing a comma. Is the situation now such that these anchors have to do this at the government’s behest?

Let us talk about television, because that is where I worked for 25 years. The problem is that it is a very tightly controlled narrative by the government. We know that WhatsApp groups have been set up by different ministries, including from the very top, where information is given as sources, and then is regurgitated by reporters and anchors. It speaks very poorly of them because there is no application of mind or even quoting where this has come from. They just put it out like stenographers. In many newsrooms, there is a sense that they do not have a choice because they are under pressure. I personally believe we all have a choice.

But the reporter or anchor may be excluded from that WhatsApp group if they show any application of mind, right?

Then you have to decide: is access journalism the only way to do journalism? A lot of reporters think that the only way to do real journalism is through access to the corridors of power. But we know that is not the case. Some of the best journalism we see today is from reporters who are not in Delhi, not in the corridors of power, but are just reporting what is happening on the ground. Look at COVID or the plight of migrants who had to walk on foot. That was not access journalism; that was good journalism, but it did not require a PIB card.

The Washington Post, owned by billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, laid off more than 300 journalists on February 4, 2026. Here, protesters at a rally outside its office building, in Washington DC on February 5. | Photo Credit: Heather Diehl/AFP

The Modi government has clear access to owners. They have direct pipelines, and the pressure comes from the owners on their editors and reporters.

Ownership structures in the media are ultimately at the heart of this entire debate. That is not just in India. Look at what happened to The Washington Post. Just this week, we saw mass lay-offs. Billionaires are taking over media institutions. Those ownership structures were not perfect even when I was part of NDTV.

Ultimately, the only way truly independent media will thrive is if people subscribe to watch or read news. That is still a big challenge in India. Newslaundry is trying to do it, but it is not easy. People do not want to pay. If they get an article on WhatsApp behind a Rs.100 paywall, even if it is a good investigative piece, they do not want to pay. They ask for a PDF or for screenshots. They will do anything but pay.

That is at the heart of the problem. We have to address media ownership structures. It is a debate the whole world is grappling with.

There are many reporters who are still trying to do their job. Recently, Anurag Dwary of NDTV Hindi politely but firmly told off a senior BJP minister, Kailash Vijayvargiya.

That is why I do not think the situation is totally bleak. I am teaching journalism students, and I honestly do not recommend they watch television news because it is not news any longer, with some honourable exceptions. A lot of good journalists went into the independent YouTube space, which is why the government wants to clamp down there.

Unsung reporters working as stringers in far-flung parts of Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh will bring out stories on corruption, sand mafias, mining mafias, midday meal scheme scams etc. They are doing really good journalism. They often pay a very heavy price for reporting.

The trouble is that our bar is so low that when a reporter or anchor even asks a question—which is part of their job, which would have been normal once upon a time—we say, “Wow, you are so brave.” It is not bravery; you are doing your job.

You reported when Congress was in power, and also during the initial phases of the Modi government. Do you find a difference in approach between the UPA and the Modi government as far as media is concerned?

When I started reporting, Vajpayee was the Prime Minister. When you look at that BJP-NDA government, everybody had access to the top leaders. You would get viewpoints and interviews. There was room for disagreement. All governments try to control the narrative; that is their job. It is also the job of the media to push back.

Even under the UPA, there was pressure on media houses. You would get messages from top ministers asking, “Why is this ticker running?”. The Radia tapes, for example, were not a moment of glory for the media. There were a series of scams and alleged scams under the UPA. But we were free to report on them without worrying that the Enforcement Directorate would come knocking at our door the next day. The NDTV that was branded as anti-BJP later was the same NDTV that, night after night, would make the 2G scam a headline, or the Commonwealth Games scam, or the coal scam, or the Nirbhaya gang rape, and covered all those stories relentlessly.

Former corporate lobbyist Niira Radia at the Patiala House Court, in New Delhi on May 28, 2013. | Photo Credit: Atul Yadav/PTI

But you still had access to people if you wanted them.

To be honest, during the last year of Dr. Manmohan Singh’s prime ministership, people within his government also started closing off. I used to cover the Foreign Ministry. At one time we could walk in with our PIB cards and talk to any official or secretary. They started closing off that access. Even when a foreign dignitary was visiting, you could ask a domestic political question at the joint press conference.

Firstly, there used to be press conferences. But that started changing under the UPA when it became more tightly controlled. We were told you cannot ask domestic questions. We were also supposed to submit questions in advance. As a result, some very atrocious questions were asked to President Obama during his first visit.

What is different under the BJP is that there is now a fear. If I report on an issue perceived to be anti-government, then I or my news organisation will face consequences. And now, with the proliferation of social media, it is very easy to label people as anti-national or anti-India.

You have a presence on social media. Do you worry about backlash and trolls?

Anyone who says they take trolling in their stride is lying, because it is very hurtful and nasty. As a result of this organised trolling, which I have faced from all sides, you do self-censor a little. You think twice, especially as a woman journalist, about whether you want to put out your views. That is unfortunate because there was a time when you felt you could say anything.

I do not like social media, but I have to use it. Sometimes, you want to put out a view, but we all end up doing a lot of self-censorship and thinking twice before posting about whether it is worth the headache that follows.

You worked in NDTV for a long time. Would you like to work in any news channel today?

To be honest, opportunities were coming my way even after I quit. But I have worked with the best in the industry—Prannoy and Radhika Roy. They are our mentors. Every major journalist you see on television today, and even those who have veered into print, come from Prannoy Roy’s School of Broadcasting. I cannot imagine working for anyone else.

Every news channel now is a mirror image of the other. They are all pretty much government mouthpieces. There are one or two exceptions among anchors still doing good work, but they are so few and far between. I would find it very difficult to work in an atmosphere where I am told that the spin on everything has to be positive, or where editorial policy is decided for me. So no, I would not like to work in a news channel today.

Ravish Kumar at the Ramon Magsaysay award ceremony in Manila on September 9, 2019. Many journalists have left legacy media to rebuild their careers on YouTube, directly reaching millions. | Photo Credit: AP

What is your sense of YouTube journalism? We have Ravish Kumar, Ajit Anjum, Abhisar Sharma, and others, especially in Hindi. Is this the future of independent journalism?

I think it is the present. It is already happening. These are all people who have had to pay a price in legacy media for not toeing the line, and who then decided to go out on their own and are doing really well. Even my dad, in his 80s, is watching more news on YouTube and does not turn on the television any more. His friends and cousins are doing the same thing.

These people have a phenomenal following. It is not easy to do journalism on YouTube. It is quite relentless. But these guys are at it. That is why the government wants to have rules in place to control online content as well.

Do you feel that with technology evolving, it will become easier to build small institutions? We have websites like The Wire and Scroll.

I do not think it is easy [to build these institutions]. It is easy to romanticise these independent digital platforms, but we know the financial struggles they face. But they are going on and there is a space for it.

I do not think mainstream television is going anywhere. People still want to watch that, especially when something big happens, like elections. During COVID, people came back to watching television news because they wanted information. It is still a very important medium.

But there is space for all these other platforms. People now are not just consuming news from one news channel or one newspaper. There is a lot to choose from. But the question is: how many people realise the biases and slants, even in newspapers?

They are also part of the same WhatsApp groups, whether print or television.

In television, it is more in your face. In newspapers, it is often more subtle. It depends on how the editorial is written, who is writing it, where the headlines are placed on page one. I can tell, if I am picking up Newspaper X, what its lead will be, as opposed to Newspaper Y, because of its politics.

Twenty years ago, if you picked up an array of newspapers, you would get different points of view from the same meeting. But today, it is pretty much uniform.

That way, I like the British press because they make their allegiances known, whether they support the Tories or Labour. So you know where their political preferences lie.

You teach journalism to students. What do you tell them about it as a career option?

One thing that saddens me is that today, I do not see that enthusiasm for a hardcore reporting career amongst students that was there even 10 or 20 years ago. Journalism, the way we have done it, is not necessarily the first choice for this generation.

I am still an idealist. I believe that if you have good people in the profession, there is still hope. I clutch on to the positives. When you see the Ravish [Kumar]s, Abhisar [Sharma]s, and other independent journalists, all is not bleak. I try to encourage them. I tell them about the adventures I have had as a reporter: being able to travel around the world, interview and meet people, cover stories you could never imagine. But I do see a decline in interest in journalism as a profession and that is happening not just in India, but in the West also. Unfortunately, media is facing a trust crisis with consumers.

During Operation Sindoor, if you saw Indian TV channels, Lahore and Karachi had apparently been captured.

By doing stupid things like that, television media not only discredits itself, it also discredits what the government is trying to do when it is trying to tell the world what Pakistan did to India, and the seriousness of why it had to do Operation Sindoor. When you make fantastical claims and put out unverified statements, those countries turn around and mock you. They do not take you seriously.

Thumbnail for YouTube video claiming that Karachi port has been destroyed during Operation Sindoor. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

The credibility that the media carried was also a big soft power for India. Today, that soft power is quite decimated.

It is. If the world does not buy your narrative today, it is also because you have made a fool of yourself in the way you have covered a particular story. Especially on national security matters, there is a kind of fear to ask any question. You cannot question the army; you cannot question the armed forces.

India is a democracy. You should be able to question anybody, even the Supreme Court of India.

Once the Supreme Court gives its judgments, its judgments are fair game.

But who knows? Some honourable judge somewhere may think that we are in contempt.

How do you see foreign media? On the economy, I see Reuters doing stories that domestic media outlets should be doing. They have also been harassed by this government. What role will they play?

There is more critical and hardcore reporting on issues affecting the Indian economy from outlets like Reuters and Bloomberg. But I also think the Western media is not without its own bias. They look at India through a certain set point of view. India is a very complicated, complex country to cover. It is not a monolith. I do not think that often comes out in their reporting, which is very binary. But yes, some of them are still doing journalism that domestic news outlets should be doing.

More than foreign media, we should look at fact-checkers. Why should you have independent fact-checkers? Isn’t that what journalists should be doing—checking facts? Take Alt News, or BoomLive, or other fact-checkers; they are doing this because you do not have that basic fact-checking in mainstream legacy news organisations. They are filling that gap. Sections of the foreign media are filling that gap—not perfectly, but they are.

Legacy media thinks it is untouchable because of the way the political dispensation is, that this is how things will be and they can do things without being questioned.

That is a pretty scary thought. Fact-checkers should be embedded in journalism, and every reporter should be his or her own fact-checker.

Thank you, Nidhi, for talking to SpeakEasy and Frontline.

Thank you very much for having me.