Regulation strangling TV, billionaire news channels erode credibility: Aroon Purie

Mumbai: India Today Group Chairman and Editor-in-Chief used his keynote at FICCI Frames to deliver a blunt diagnosis of Indian news media: disruption never ends, and the industry’s business model has not kept pace. 

Drawing on five decades in the business, from launching India Today magazine to building four 24x7 news channels and a 60-brand digital portfolio that now reaches 750 million people, he argued that every technological leap has intensified two pressures: grabbing audience attention and chasing advertising.

India’s scale is unmatched, but the bill rarely comes from the consumer

He began by celebrating the “miracles” of Indian media: more than 1.4 lakh registered publications, about 900 permitted satellite channels, and over 375 round-the-clock news channels, numbers few markets can imagine. Yet the same ecosystem, he said, rests on fragile economics. 

Print lived for decades on “raddi economics,” pricing papers so low that scrap value offset cover price. Once a newspaper enters the home, it often keeps coming even if it’s no longer read. 

TV followed a similar path: when cable capacity was scarce, channels paid carriage fees to be seen, and despite digitisation, the absence of a “must-carry” rule means carriage has outlived its original purpose.

Regulation, not the market, is setting TV prices, and strangling growth

He reserved some of his sharpest comments for broadcasting regulation. 

TRAI’s price controls on channel packs, he said, treat television like an essential commodity, not a competitive market. 

The result: a sector that employs more than 1.7 million people is constrained by policy rather than enabled by it. 

Government’s role, he argued, should be to create a fair, level playing field and then step back.

Who pays for news? Advertisers first, journalism later

The structural flaw, in his telling, is simple. For consumers, news is cheap or free. Publishers and broadcasters capture little of what the audience pays. That leaves advertisers (corporate and government) as the primary paymasters. 

When survival depends on those wallets, independence is always at risk. 

Still, he was careful not to paint the entire press with one brush, crediting the ad-funded model for supporting major investigations and crisis coverage over the years.

Even so, he warned, the space for dissent is shrinking, not under the boot of censorship, but under the weight of balance sheets and monthly targets.

The rise of “billionaire news channels”

A newer distortion, he said, is the entry of deep-pocketed industrial houses into news, not as a business but as an instrument of influence and access. With most news channels losing money, “99%,” by his estimate, such ownership structures can erode credibility, the one currency no newsroom can afford to lose.

Platforms became the new editors-in-chief

The keynote turned to digital’s gatekeepers. Google, Facebook, YouTube and X produce no journalism but control discovery and monetisation, he said, while the law often treats them as neutral platforms rather than publishers. 

With digital advertising now more than half of all ad spend, he described a market where platforms “eat breakfast, lunch and dinner,” leaving crumbs for originators of content.

Algorithms, he argued, have replaced editors as the ultimate masters, rewarding speed, outrage and virality over depth, accuracy and nuance. Newsrooms that once invested in reporters now feel compelled to invest in SEO, chasing what is trending rather than what is important.

AI as the next existential test

If algorithms changed incentives, artificial intelligence may upend the value chain itself. Systems that can summarise several articles into one answer risk sending users straight to the machine, not the source. 

When the work of reporters and legal teams is scraped, synthesised and regurgitated without credit or revenue, he said, the threat is existential to the creation of credible information.

Stop apologising for value, build models that get paid for it

He did not claim to have all the answers, but his prescription was clear. The industry must innovate not only in content but in business models. Audiences must be persuaded that well-reported news is a public good, and, like any public good, it has a price. 

Subscriptions are not just transactions; they are votes for the kind of media people want to exist.

A note on tech, and a plea for courage

He closed on a familiar but forceful reminder. Disruption is not the enemy, it is the new normal. The real test is whether media has the courage, imagination, resilience and integrity to seize it. 

Technology should not intimidate newsrooms; it should help them tell more memorable and truthful stories. In a post-truth era, telling the truth matters more, not less. The future of truth in India, and the health of democracy, depend on it.

Here's the full speech:

"Good afternoon. It’s a privilege to be here at FICCI Frames, among the most influential minds and creators shaping India’s vast media and entertainment landscape. At the end of this year, I will have been in the media business for 50 years. If there is one lesson I have learned over the past five decades, it is this: disruption never ends. In fact, disruption is the only constant.

I began with a print magazine called India Today. At its peak, it had a readership of five million. We now run four 24-hour news channels and about 60 robust digital, mobile, and social-media entities. Today, the India Today Group’s combined media reach spans 750 million viewers, readers, followers, fans, and subscribers. We also launched India’s first AI news anchor, Sana, who is growing in capability every day. Each disruption has created a new opportunity.

In my years, I have seen disruption come in waves, each more powerful than the last. Each wave intensified two things: the fight for audience attention and the pressure on advertising. Beneath the technology shifts lies a deeper structural problem in the business model of news.

Before I get to that, let me start with the miracles of the Indian media world. By sheer volume, we are the undisputed global leader. No other country has over 1,40,000 registered publications. Just the city of Delhi wakes up to dozens of English dailies and as many in other languages. I doubt any city in the world has that. According to TRAI, India has around 900 permitted satellite TV channels, of which more than 375 are 24-hour news channels, with more in the pipeline. You will not find this scale anywhere else.

This is a gigantic industry. But who really pays for it?

For decades, major newspapers relied on what I call “raddi economics”: pricing a paper so low that, by week’s end, you get more for it from the raddiwala than you paid at the newsstand. Not only is it almost free, you even make a small profit from scrap. Once a newspaper enters a home, families rarely discontinue it—even if they stop reading it. Perhaps it is the only product where the consumer may stop consuming but the supply keeps coming.

Broadcasting adopted a similar practice when cable launched. Distribution was linear, and cable operators did not have capacity for the flood of channels. Broadcasters paid carriage fees just to be available to consumers. Even after digitisation—which was meant to solve carriage—the practice continues because there is no “must-carry” rule. The broadcaster’s problems did not end; they compounded.

TRAI’s price controls on channel bouquets are another brake on market forces. I do not understand why the government treats cable TV like an essential commodity whose price must be regulated like wheat or rice. In reality, regulation is strangling broadcasting—an industry that employs over 1.7 million people and could employ many more if markets were allowed to work. With apologies to the speaker before me, and in my humble view, the government has made a mess of broadcasting through lack of foresight and regressive policies. The government’s job is to ensure a fair, level playing field—to facilitate, not over-regulate.

Back to the business of news. For the consumer, news is largely cheap or free. Publishers and broadcasters receive little of what the consumer pays. So who pays for an industry with 375 news channels—the largest single category of channels at roughly 40% of the total? The paymaster is the advertiser; journalism comes after. When survival depends almost entirely on advertising from corporations and governments, independence is under constant threat. The hand that gives can also take away.

To be clear, I am not painting the entire industry with one brush. The advertising-funded model has, against the odds, produced outstanding journalism: Tehelka’s exposés, the 2G spectrum scam, the Commonwealth Games scandal, coverage of the Covid pandemic, Manipur, the Ukraine war, and more. These were brought to light by journalists working within this system.

But we must be honest. The space for dissent is shrinking—not because of jack-booted censors, but because of balance sheets and ad sales targets.

A new problem has arrived. Forgive me for saying this at a FICCI forum, but we are seeing the advent of billionaire news channels. Large industrial houses are entering news not as a business but as a tool for influence and access. Deep pockets are distorting the economics of news channels. This is bad for profitability and worse for good journalism. The currency of news is credibility. Such entries make viewers believe every channel is a mouthpiece for vested interests. Note that today, I would say 99% of news channels lose money.

We also chased scale and eyeballs because new gatekeepers demanded it. Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (now X) became the world’s new editors-in-chief. They produce no journalism but control its distribution and monetisation. It is maddening that the law does not treat them as publishers but only as platforms. If I publish a defamatory statement, I am liable; platforms are not—yet they take the bulk of ad revenue. They are the real media companies now, eating the breakfast, lunch, and dinner of publishers and broadcasters, and leaving crumbs on the table. Digital advertising is now over half of total ad spend, far surpassing TV and print.

Their master is the algorithm. The algorithm does not reward depth, accuracy, or nuance. It rewards outrage, speed, and virality. Our information ecosystem has become a battleground for attention, and public discourse is contaminated in the process. Newsrooms that once invested in reporters now hire SEO specialists. Digital media is as much about what is trending as it is about what is important.

The old master was the advertiser. The new master is the algorithm. And now comes the next great wave: artificial intelligence. AI is being positioned as a new arbiter of truth. It can summarise five articles into one paragraph and give you an answer so you never have to click. What happens to the original news organisations—the ones who pay reporters and fight court cases—when their content is scraped, synthesised, and regurgitated without credit or revenue? This is an existential threat to the creation of credible information.

Where does this leave us?

It leaves us with a profound challenge. The old models are broken. The new gatekeepers are ruthlessly efficient. The very value of professionally produced content is under threat.

I do not have all the answers. I do know this: we must stop apologising for the value we create. We must innovate not only in content but in business models. We must persuade audiences that credible, well-researched news is a public good. Like any public good, it has a price. It cannot be free. A subscription is not just a transaction; it is a vote for the kind of media you want to exist.

For 50 years, I have lived through failures, false starts, and occasional successes. Let me leave you with this: disruption is not the enemy; it is the new normal. The real question is whether we have the courage, imagination, innovation, resilience, and integrity to seize it. The challenge is not only to survive the next wave but to build a future where our journalism is not only viable but valuable. We are storytellers, and humanity survives on the stories we tell one another.

We should not be intimidated by new technologies. We should use them to tell stories in more memorable and truthful ways. In a post-truth era, telling the truth matters even more. The future of truth in India—and the health of our democracy—depends on it."