Strongmen vs. the press, part II

In part two of Newsjunkie’s Who’s Behind the News podcast, host Matt Fidler continues his discussion with Gordon Whiting, publisher of Newsjunkie.net, about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s relationship with the press and what it reveals about media power globally. Drawing on Whiting’s recent trip to India, the conversation explores press freedom, political influence, and how figures like Donald Trump can disrupt even tightly managed narratives.

Transcription edited and summarized for brevity.

You recently took a trip to India. Before we get into the lessons from that trip, can you talk about the relationship between the news media and the Modi government—some background there?

It’s complex, but I would say the signal event in Modi’s political career was the 2002 riots in Gujarat—Hindu-Muslim violence on both sides, but Muslims suffered the worst of it. The criticism of Modi, who was chief minister at the time, was that he instructed the police to stand by—that he tacitly allowed the mob violence to occur. That’s the encapsulation of the criticism.

There was a BBC interview where a reporter asked Modi whether he had any regrets or had made any mistakes in handling the violence. He said yes—he felt he had made a mistake in how he handled the media, not the violence itself.

So not instructing police to stand down—but how the event was covered?

Yes. As for the full truth of all the claims, we’ll leave that aside. But it shows where his focus went afterward—toward controlling the narrative and managing the media. That has clearly been a priority for Prime Minister Modi.

There’s been what we discussed in earlier episodes: a kind of crony control of major media. Broadcast media is largely in friendly hands now, and many legacy print outlets either support Modi or avoid challenging the BJP government. There are pressures—tax investigations, licensing threats, even control over real estate tied to media operations. The government can decide whether you’re fulfilling the “mission of the news.” So there are many reasons why outlets tread lightly around investigations of the BJP and its leadership.

It seems the Modi administration is pushing a narrative tied to Hindu supremacy—similar in some ways to Christian nationalism in the US. Can you talk about Hindutva?

It’s complex, so I won’t do it full justice here, but there are parallels to movements like Christian nationalism. The motivation is similar: unify a power bloc by appealing to identity and belief. That can be very effective.

Hindutva, however, has more specificity. It elevates Hindu origin—the Vedas, ancient traditions, and their modern descendants—while marginalizing others, especially Muslims. There’s more structure and intentionality to it, including plans to disenfranchise some groups while elevating others. The motivations may be similar, but the execution is different.

You mentioned in our last episode that independent media still exists in India. You met with some of those journalists. What did you learn?

There’s not much new in terms of their sense of pressure—it’s more of the same. They’re worried about freedom of expression and their ability to operate. But they’re also concerned about survival as businesses. Journalism is struggling globally, and it’s especially difficult in India.

They’re very brave—continuing to report important stories under real pressure. Some have even been charged.

Can you talk about the reporter from The Wire who was charged with sedition?

Yes—Siddharth Varadarajan, co-founder and editor of The Wire. In August 2025, he was charged with sedition by a regional police office in Assam. It wasn’t the national government directly, but many saw it as a proxy action.

The charge was based on an article that seemed fairly routine, but authorities claimed it threatened national security. There was a strong response from the journalistic community, and a high court stayed the process—meaning he wasn’t jailed while awaiting trial.

That’s important because, as they say, “the process is the punishment.” Trials can take years. He’s still working, but the threat remains—for him and others. It sends a message.

Is that having a chilling effect on other journalists who don’t have his level of support?

Yes—power, luck, and a fair judge helped him. Others may not be so fortunate. Journalists are balancing survival—paying staff, keeping the lights on—with reporting important stories. It’s a difficult environment.

And yet they persist—covering politics, business, and critical issues like air pollution and water quality. These are life-and-death concerns. Independent outlets are doing that reporting. Many others are not.

Are these independent outlets influencing public opinion?

Yes—but indirectly. They reach elites—professionals, investors, people deeply engaged with news—but not the mass audience.

In a country of over a billion people, even large publications reach a relatively small share. And like everywhere, people are glued to their phones. News competes with entertainment and quick-hit content. Many don’t go deep into reporting. So the influence exists, but it’s filtered.

So even if the press exists, its impact is diminished?

Exactly. If the public is distracted, the effect is similar. Leaders can shape narratives through speeches, events, and controlled messaging. The media’s ability to counter that is reduced.

What about Trump’s influence? Does his messaging affect India and Modi?

Yes—and interestingly, it disrupted Modi’s narrative. Even with strong media influence, global events—especially Trump’s actions—can’t be ignored.

For example, tariffs. Trump imposed, adjusted, and threatened tariffs on India—even tying them to India’s trade with Russia. That had to be reported. Modi couldn’t control that narrative.

It diminished India’s image. The idea that India had strong global standing was undercut. Neither Modi nor India’s global diaspora seemed able to counter Trump’s moves.

There was even a moment where the US gave India “permission” to trade—

Yes—there was outrage. The idea that the US could dictate terms like that was seen as humiliating. It made India look small overnight.

Is this similar to how Trump treats individuals—builds them up, then discards them?

There’s a pattern. Trump ensures he has the upper hand. We’ve seen it with individuals—Jeff Sessions, others—and now on the global stage.

If you’re aligned with Trump, you may benefit—or not. Loyalty is required. But the power dynamic is clear.

What lessons from India apply to the US?

News is becoming a smaller part of people’s daily information intake—more so in India, but also here.

Traditional, reported news—assigned, researched, edited stories—reaches fewer people. Instead, people consume streams of content, much of it not deeply reported.

In India, this shift is more advanced. And we may be heading in the same direction—both in how the public engages with news and how governments interact with that relationship.

A lot of lessons to learn from India.

Absolutely.