When the media learns to adjust, democracy pays the price

 In any real democracy, the relationship between power and the press is meant to be uneasy. It is not meant to be friendly. Comfort between the two is not a sign of health. It is a warning sign. The media exists to question authority, not to reassure it. When this role weakens, democracy does not collapse suddenly. It erodes slowly.

On paper, India understands this well. The Constitution protects free speech. The country has a long tradition of strong journalism. Its media landscape is large and diverse. Yet, in practice, the picture today is mixed. Some journalists and outlets still do serious work. Many do not. Especially on television, power is often echoed rather than examined.

This is not always because of direct censorship. More often, it is because of fear. Fear of raids. Fear of legal action. Fear of losing advertisements or access. Over time, this fear becomes internal. Stories are softened. Questions are dropped. Silence is explained away as “balance.” This is how self-censorship replaces free choice.

It is important to be clear about one thing. The media is not an opposition party. It should not behave like one. Opposition parties seek votes and power. Journalism seeks facts and accountability. But when political opposition becomes weak or cautious, the media is pushed into an adversarial role by default. This is not activism. It is necessity.

Problems arise when governments refuse to accept this role of the press. Harassment then becomes a tool. Not always to shut down stories, but to raise the cost of telling them. A tax notice here. A police case there. Public attacks on credibility. The message is clear even when unspoken: questioning power has consequences.

What choice does a free press have in such a situation? There are no easy ones. Compliance offers safety but destroys trust.   The only sustainable option is steady, disciplined journalism. Ask questions calmly. Verify every fact. Keep records. Repeat unanswered questions. Power can dismiss opinion. It finds facts harder to escape.

There is a lesson here from Joseph Pulitzer, one of the great figures in journalism. Pulitzer believed the press must serve ordinary citizens, not those in office. He valued reach and clarity, but he also warned against surrendering standards for popularity. Most of all, he understood that journalism must be independent of power, even when that independence is costly.

Indian media today stands at a difficult point. It is not completely silenced. But it is not consistently brave either. Good journalism exists, but it is scattered and often isolated. The deeper concern is that intimidation has begun to feel routine. When pressure no longer shocks the profession, something vital has already been lost.

A democracy does not need a press that praises its rulers. It needs a press that is free to question them without fear. The real danger is not a hostile government. It is a media that learns to live with hostility and adjusts itself accordingly. That is how democracies weaken—not with a bang, but with quiet acceptance.