Strongmen vs. the press, part I

In this episode of Who’s Behind the News, host Matt Fidler speaks with Gordon Whiting, publisher of Newsjunkie, about the parallels between India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the United States under Donald Trump. Drawing from Newsjunkie’s global survey of media systems, Whiting outlines how political pressure, economic leverage, and the attention economy are reshaping the press—and what that means for public trust.

This is Who’s Behind the News. I’m Matt Fidler, and I’m here with Gordon Whiting from Newsjunkie. Give me a sentence or two about what Newsjunkie is.

Newsjunkie is a place to look at the news and try to get a sense of where it’s going based on where it’s been. We’ve surveyed the world’s news organizations, and our catchphrase is “Who’s Behind the News”—the title of this podcast.

That means the obvious: who owns the outlet, who owns the owner, what shell companies are involved—all that intrigue. But it’s also about who makes the news: the editors, publishers, and reporters. What are their motivations? What’s their economic situation, which is very much in flux right now? That’s our beat—the news business.

Well, things are certainly in flux. With the Trump administration, the subject changes so quickly that we don’t even get to finish conversations. And consumers may be manipulated—either into distrust or into feeling the news is so toxic they turn away from it. Is that fair?

We’ve been surveying global news organizations for more than three years, and what we’ve learned is that even those with an honest mission still have to sell their product. That leads to sensationalism—grabbing attention to drive subscriptions or engagement.

The “attention economy” didn’t start with social media—it goes back to newspaper titans in the late 19th century. It became profitable, and it stuck. So this isn’t entirely new—but it’s gotten worse.

There’s also a theory—one with a lot of traction—that the goal isn’t to replace truthful reporting with propaganda, but to break trust entirely. If nothing is trustworthy, then the strongman who appears decisive—who “restores order”—becomes the only thing people believe.

What about punishment of institutions that still have some trust—like CBS or 60 Minutes? We’ve seen lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, and that’s happening globally. We’ve been watching similar patterns in India.

Let’s talk about India. What can it teach us about where we’re heading?

There’s a lot in play, so you have to be careful not to jump to conclusions. But there are parallels.

India has a strongman leader—Narendra Modi—now in his third term. He leads a Hindu-oriented movement often described as Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism. There are over 200 million Muslims in India, and while they’re not being expelled, they are increasingly treated as outsiders.

The goal is to consolidate power among the Hindu majority—over a billion people.

How is Modi doing this—especially in relation to the press?

It’s complex, but in terms of media, he’s used both threats and pressure—mostly threats—against large press organizations.

India has a long tradition of a free press, but that has been significantly damaged. Major newspapers, television, and digital outlets have been brought to heel through tax investigations, licensing threats, and ownership changes. Cronies have been encouraged to buy media companies.

There’s effectively no independent television in India now. Either it’s government-owned or controlled by allies. The state broadcaster, Doordarshan, functions as a PR machine. The same is true for All India Radio.

Both once had a BBC-like quality. That independence is gone.

So the press is no longer functioning as a fourth estate?

That’s essentially correct.

Is that where you see the U.S. heading?

The comparison is more nuanced. In both countries, independent media still exists—and is often vibrant—but it’s smaller and more fragmented.

The internet has lowered the barrier to entry. In the past, starting a news organization required enormous resources. Now, anyone with an internet connection can publish.

That’s a major positive shift, even if it comes with downsides.

But investigative journalism is expensive. Can smaller outlets really fill that role?

Some can—and do. In India, there are strong independent investigative outlets, some based outside the country to avoid government pressure.

Their main advantage is that they’re small and diffuse—harder to control. Governments can pressure large organizations easily, but smaller ones require more effort to suppress.

That’s true in the U.S. as well.

Do these smaller outlets have the reach to matter?

Yes and no. They’re limited by resources—small staffs, tight budgets, reliance on freelancers. They can’t cover everything.

Even large organizations face limits, but the constraints are sharper for smaller ones.

That said, some—like ProPublica—have become highly influential. Others are still emerging.

We’re more connected than ever. Could these outlets collaborate—share resources and audiences?

That’s the hope. There are organizations like the Institute for Nonprofit News, which has over 500 members promoting collaboration.

But it hasn’t fully gelled into a real-time, networked system. It’s still more of a conference than an ecosystem.

What are the biggest lessons from India for the US?

Leaders like Modi and Trump both attempt to undermine trust in the press. They disparage the media, instill doubt, and reduce credibility.

When legacy media backs away from investigative reporting under pressure, it becomes less interesting—more hollow.

Audiences notice that. They tune out or look elsewhere.

And Trump fills that vacuum with spectacle.

Exactly. He’s extremely effective at holding attention. That’s a natural skill—it may not even be teachable.

But if news becomes entertainment, what happens to its function?

That’s the key question. News has evolved into something that triggers engagement—almost like entertainment—rather than purely informing.

The traditional model of carefully reported, rationally consumed news is fading. What replaces it is still unclear.

The challenge is whether we can shape that evolution into something that isn’t damaging—to individuals or society.