In every democracy, the role of the media is to question, to critique and to hold those in power accountable. The government, on the other hand, is meant to serve the people, uphold the constitution and protect democratic institutions. But when these two forces come together and instead work to glorify the ruling party or a leader into the status of a demi-god, the very foundation of democracy is shaken.
The situation becomes even more alarming when the media, instead of asking hard questions, becomes a cheerleader for those in power. In India, there is a term called “Godi Media” coined and popularized by veteran journalist Ravish Kumar perfectly captures this phenomenon. It describes sections of the media that are perceived to be subservient to the government, avoiding critical reporting and largely promoting the ruling party’s narrative. Instead of being the voice of the people, such media outlets act as the mouthpiece of the government.
When the media and government align in this manner, they create a cult of personality around a leader. The leader is not just a politician but is presented as a savior, a visionary, even a near-divine figure. His image floods television screens, social media platforms and newspapers daily. Achievements are magnified, failures are ignored and criticism is silenced. Over time the leader becomes inseparable from the identity of the nation itself. To question him is to question the country. Loyalty to the leader is equated with patriotism, while dissent is branded as betrayal. This is not a sign of strength; it is the hallmark of authoritarianism.
History has repeatedly shown us the dangers of such adoration of leaders. In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler was elevated to god-like status through relentless propaganda and media control, with disastrous consequences. In Mussolini’s Italy, the leader was portrayed as the embodiment of national pride and strength, while the press echoed his every word. In North Korea, the Kim dynasty continues to be depicted as almost divine, with citizens taught from childhood to worship their leaders. Each of these cases reveals the same pattern. The merger of state power with media propaganda results in blind loyalty, the erosion of institutions and ultimately the suffocation of freedom.
When the media doesn’t question and holds power accountable, truth is the first casualty. Real issues like unemployment, inflation, corruption, inequality and failing infrastructure are downplayed or ignored. Instead, endless coverage is devoted to praising the leader, celebrating government schemes, and demonizing opposition voices. This creates an alternate reality where the leader appears flawless and the nation seems to be thriving, while ordinary citizens continue to struggle with basic necessities. Such selective reporting robs people of the ability to make informed choices and cripples’ democracy from within.
This unhealthy union of government and blunt media has wide-reaching consequences. Journalists, activists and ordinary citizens who question authority face trolling, legal harassment or worse. Minority groups are painted as obstacles to national progress, further deepening social divides. Citizens consume carefully curated narratives that encourage blind faith rather than critical thinking and loyalty to one individual replaces loyalty to democratic values.
The glorification of a leader often gives the illusion of stability and strength. Rallies are broadcasted endlessly; achievements are hyped and the leader is portrayed as the only solution to the nation’s problems. But this image is a mirage. In reality, no individual no matter how charismatic can embody the
will of a nation or substitute for democratic processes. The real strength of a country lies in its people, its diversity and its institutions not in the hands of a single individual elevated to demi-god status. Recent global assessments offer a useful lens through which to view these concerns. The 2026 World Press Freedom Index released by Reporters Without Borders places India at 157th out of 180 countries, categorizing it under a “very serious” situation. While such rankings should always be interpreted with context, the consistency of India’s placement in the lower range over recent years invites reflection rather than dismissal.
The regional comparison is particularly striking. Countries such as Pakistan (153rd), Sri Lanka (134th), and Nepal (87th) rank higher in the same index. Each of these nations has its own political and media challenges, yet the comparison raises an important question: how does a country with India’s democratic legacy strengthen the independence and credibility of its media institutions going forward? The answer lies not in contesting rankings alone, but in addressing the underlying concerns they highlight.
One of the areas often discussed in this context is the use of legal and regulatory frameworks governing media and digital spaces. Laws such as the Information Technology Act play an important role in addressing cybercrime, misinformation, and digital security. At the same time, debates continue around how certain provisions are applied in practice. Instances involving content takedowns, restrictions on digital platforms, or legal scrutiny of journalists have contributed to a wider conversation about the balance between regulation and freedom.
For example, there have been cases where online content, ranging from investigative reports to critical commentary has been removed or restricted following official directives. In other instances, journalists and digital creators have faced legal notices under provisions related to defamation or national security. Supporters of these measures argue that they are necessary to maintain public order and prevent the spread of harmful misinformation. Critics, however, caution that such actions, if perceived as disproportionate, may create a climate of hesitation among independent voices. The challenge, therefore, is not the existence of regulation, but ensuring that it is applied in a manner that is transparent, proportionate, and consistent with democratic values.
The impact of a one-sided narrative extends beyond institutions into society itself. When public discourse is shaped by limited perspectives, alternative views can gradually be seen as less legitimate. Constructive criticism may be misunderstood as opposition, and debate may give way to polarization. In such an environment, citizens may find it increasingly difficult to access a full spectrum of information, which is essential for informed decision-making. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the relationship between media and government need not be confrontational. There are moments during national crises, public health emergencies, or major policy initiatives, when cooperation is both necessary and beneficial. The key distinction lies in maintaining independence within that cooperation. A media ecosystem that can support, question, and critique simultaneously is far more valuable than one that performs only a single role.
The rise of digital media has added both opportunity and complexity to this landscape. Independent platforms, regional voices, and citizen journalism have expanded the range of perspectives available to the public. Yet, this expansion also brings challenges related to misinformation, verification, and regulation. Strengthening media literacy among citizens, alongside ensuring fair regulatory practices, is essential in navigating this evolving space. Ultimately, the resilience of a democracy is measured not by how loudly it celebrates its leaders, but by how effectively it holds them accountable. Leaders are central to governance, but they operate within systems designed to ensure continuity, fairness, and balance.
When narratives become overly centered on individuals, there is a risk that institutions such as parliament, judiciary, and the press may gradually recede into the background.
A one-sided narrative, therefore, is not just a media issue; it is a democratic concern. It influences how citizens perceive reality, how they engage with governance, and how they exercise their rights. Restoring balance does not require uniform criticism or constant opposition but it requires a commitment to presenting a complete picture, where both achievements and challenges are given due space.
As India continues its democratic journey, the path forward lies in strengthening institutional independence while embracing responsible journalism. Encouraging diversity of viewpoints, ensuring transparency in regulation, and fostering a culture of informed debate are essential steps in this direction. A nation’s confidence is not diminished by scrutiny; it is reinforced by it.
Democracy thrives on checks and balances. The media must act as the fourth pillar, holding power accountable, not kneeling before it. Citizens must also remain vigilant and question the narratives fed to them. Leaders are human beings not divine figures. They are elected to serve not to be worshiped. When the government and media combine to create a leader-cult, the price is always paid by the common people in the form of lost freedoms, weakened institutions and a crippled democracy.
When government and media join hands, the result is the creation of a cult personality of a leader who is projected as infallible and unquestionable. This may serve the interests of the ruling elite in the short term but in the long run, it erodes democracy, suppresses truth and weakens the nation. A free press and an accountable government are not luxuries they are necessities for any modern society that wishes to remain democratic. To protect democracy, citizens must resist the urge to deify leaders and instead demand transparency, accountability and truth.
It is important to remember that strong nations are not built on the personality of a single leader but on the strength of their people and institutions. Leaders, no matter how charismatic, are human and should be subjected to scrutiny. Respect for leadership is vital but unquestioning devotion risks blurring the line between governance and personality cults.
The partnership between government and media is not inherently negative; in fact, cooperation can often help communicate important policies to the public. The challenge lies in ensuring that such cooperation does not come at the cost of truth, criticism or balance. When leaders are elevated to demi-god status, the short-term image may shine but the long-term health of democracy inevitably suffers. A free press and an accountable government are cornerstones of any thriving democracy. Preserving them requires vigilance, independence and a recognition that leaders, however capable serve the people not the other way around.
~ Moajungshi Menon
(The views expressed are those of the writer and not of the newspaper)
