"In America, the president reigns for four years, and journalism governs forever and ever."
–Oscar Wilde in 1891.
Wilde's postulation has been turned into a political burlesque. Roles have been reversed. Now, it's the President of the United States of America (POTUS) who rules and reins in the media. As Donald Trump berates, slays and humiliates the journalists and their organisations, the Fourth Estate has been painted as the Filth Estate. The messenger is now the most vulnerable and convenient pilgarlic for the political class worldwide. Editors, reporters, owners and even thought writers face calibrated calumny unleashed by those controlling money and power. The information and communication industry, which survived and thrived only on exposing the truth, reporting without fear or favour and questioning the mighty political monarchs, has been reduced to a medium for distributing handouts, printing press releases, airing pre scripted and edited interviews and devoting prominent space for the opinion pieces ghost written for top leaders from politics and the corporate world. The press and politicians have never been compatible cohabiters before.
Unfortunately, the battle against the free press has been launched ferociously from a nation which swears by freedom of expression. Irked by adverse and unpalatable reporting about his style and substance, a defiant and revengeful POTUS has set the tone for an anti-media tirade all over the world. Soon after winning a decisive mandate in 2024, he was back to what he considers himself to be the best at---media bashing. When a leader of the most powerful and affluent democratic country, like Donald Trump, denigrates media professionals from each and every platform, it acquires the shape of a contagious disease which spreads like wildfire. In February 2025, President Donald Trump, following a televised clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, remarked, "The fake news media twists everything—they're a threat to our democracy when they lie."
If POTUS fumes, he ignites fires in other parts of the democratic world as well. Even Chancellor Olaf Scholz, touted as one of the liberal European leaders, warned at a public meeting: "Freedom of speech ends where it incites violence—social media must be regulated." This paved the way for actions against X, accused of breaching EU digital laws. Early this year, French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly endorsed shutting down media outlets opposing his policies. He was furious at the X post, which questioned his government's handling of domestic issues. Last year, Germany's extreme right wing leader Alice Weidel also joined the anti-media bandwagon when he stated, "Mainstream media are puppets of the elite—journalists twist truth to smear us." Surprisingly, leaders of the ruling Labour party in the UK, considered to be the mother of democracy, were also competing with their counterparts in denigrating the media. While justifying restrictions on the media, its Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned, "We must curb misinformation that fuels division," following arrests for online posts, impacting platforms like X. Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban also declared in his parliament last month: "The corruption network that rules the entire Western world of politics and media must be eliminated." In India, leaders from all political parties have been singling out journalists for harassment through administrative and other agencies.
The relationship between the Establishment and the media has significantly altered. From issue based interactions, it has acquired the contours of a transactional companionship. During the 1970s till the beginning of the 20th century, the political class would humour and patronise the media. But it wasn't out of kindness. It was because they needed journalists to reach out to the masses and their target audience. Even the top corporate honchos would chase credible journos to not only extract information about the policy making processes but also to seek information about the leaders and civil servants.
In contrast, legacy media is now losing readers and viewers faster than the fall in temperature in the Alps during winter. Not only are the numbers dwindling, mainstream media outlets are losing their credibility, which they had built over a long time. Fewer people trust what they write in the newspapers and show during the prime time sponsored shows. Consequently, the media has paid a huge price for moving away from its avowed objective. According to published documents, both print and electronic media are facing the wrath of their patrons. The New York Times lost 54 percent of its circulation from over 6.50 lakh in 2015 to little less than three lakh. Over 40 percent of readers of The Wall Street Journal gave up their subscriptions. And the biggest loser has been The Washington Post, whose circulation plummeted from 4.30 lakh in 2015 to 1.25 in 2023--an almost 70 percent fall. Los Angeles Times, which dominated the West Coast, also suffered a decline of 67 percent in its circulation. USA Today is almost on the verge of extinction, with 81 percent of its readers dropping it. The media feels the same pressure in England, Europe and Japan. The Daily Mail, selling over 1.5 million copies a decade ago, is now down to just seven lakh copies. Even in Europe, the widely circulated and trusted newspapers like Bild, Der Spiegel (Germany) and EI Pais in Spain have lost between 30 to 60 percent of subscribers. Magazines like Time and The Economist, considered the final word on economic and political news, have seen their numbers shrinking fast. While Time has shrunk by 45 percent, The Economist dropped by 35 percent. In India, too, news publications are heading towards a deathly slide. Not only has the total circulation of all newspapers declined enormously, but even their revenue has crashed by over 50 percent because of the proliferation of politically motivated and promoted social media platforms. Most of the popular and prestigious magazines have either vanished or are facing forced closure in the near future.
Now, the ruling elite have found new avenues of amplifying their missionary messages. They don't need legacy media mavens. Instead, vainglorious political masters are now patronising a new class of social influencers whose primary mission is to make money. Heads of state are encouraging their corporate allies to take over either the existing media or float new ones, which would serve the cause of the ruling parties. Crippled by the adverse economics of the media landscape, a large number of them have started crawling. According to research by credible agencies in the United Kingdom, the revenue for traditional British journalism is today roughly only a quarter of what it was in 2007. Indian media isn't doing better, either. With advertising spend shifting to social and digital media, both traditional and print and electronic media have become totally dependent on state and central government funds. But it's only bad economics that is killing the medium. Only the media itself has chosen to strangulate itself. It should remember: "if all the headlines are identical, it's not news, it's free advertising." The media has lost both the money and the mojo.
Prabhu Chawla
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow him on X @PrabhuChawla