Watchdog to Lapdog

The media is often described as the fourth pillar of democracy because its foremost duty is to question those in power, expose wrongdoing and keep citizens informed. Elections alone do not sustain democracy. Governments must remain under constant public scrutiny, and the press serves as the bridge between those who govern and those who are governed. When that bridge weakens, democratic accountability begins to erode. Instead of acting as an independent watchdog, it is increasingly seen as amplifying the government’s narrative while uncomfortable questions receive only brief attention before disappearing from public debate. Whether this perception is entirely justified is open to discussion, but the growing distrust itself is a matter of concern. The Electoral Bonds Scheme is perhaps the clearest example. In 2024, the Supreme Court declared the scheme unconstitutional, holding that it violated the public’s right to know who finances political parties. The disclosures showed that the Bharatiya Janata Party was the largest beneficiary. A judgment of such constitutional importance deserved sustained investigative coverage, yet the issue quickly faded from many prime time television debates. The PM CARES Fund also raised important questions about transparency. During the pandemic, it collected thousands of crores of rupees, yet it remained outside the ambit of the Right to Information Act. Regardless of the legal position, such an issue warranted persistent public scrutiny because transparency is essential in a democracy. The Pegasus spyware controversy posed an even greater challenge. Reports suggested that journalists, opposition leaders, lawyers and activists were possible surveillance targets. Many believe the mainstream media failed to defend its own profession with the determination such developments demanded. The Rafale aircraft deal, the Adani Hindenburg controversy and the devastating second wave of COVID exposed similar weaknesses. Independent journalists documented oxygen shortages, overwhelmed hospitals and administrative failures with courage, while much of television news appeared reluctant to pursue difficult questions of accountability. The repeated leaks of NEET and government recruitment examinations have shattered the confidence of millions of young Indians. Youth unemployment and examination integrity should have remained central national issues, yet they rarely dominated public debate for long. Questions have also been raised over the functioning of agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Department. Opposition parties allege selective action against political rivals, while the government rejects these claims. Such allegations deserve impartial and consistent journalistic scrutiny rather than selective attention. The farmers’ protest, the prolonged violence in Manipur, demonetisation in 2016 and the recent Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal, which reportedly removed over 70 lakh voters, also generated serious public concern. Whether one agrees with the government’s explanations or not, each of these issues affected millions of citizens and deserved sustained national attention. A free press must apply the same standards of scrutiny to every government, irrespective of political affiliation. Democracy is not weakened when governments are questioned. The true test of journalism is not how enthusiastically it praises those in power, but how fearlessly it holds them accountable. When the watchdog stops barking because it fears or favours the master, democracy loses one of its strongest safeguards, and accountability becomes the first casualty.