In a rapidly changing, highly contested and overcrowded landscape, what can be called the mainstream media? TV channels? Radio? Newspapers, portals or other platforms? Gone are the days when only a handful of newspapers or TV channels could shape the public narrative, around which people formed their opinions and decided how to react to different socio-political developments they encountered in their day-to-day lives.
“We may be approaching an information wasteland,” says Nancy Gibbs, former editor-in-chief of Time. In a webinar in January 2026, she said that the fragmentation of attention across various platforms has profound consequences. Within the media, competition for attention has made communication much more challenging. She pointed out that everything is now “breaking news”, designed to grab shrinking attention spans.
Recent Pew Research Center data show a decline since 2019 in the number of adults who follow the news across all age groups, with the decline being most significant among those aged 30-39. In response to a question about the media sources they use most, the data show that social media use is at an all-time high, at 61 per cent, while traditional outlets are in decline. In their place, independent creators, influencers, podcasters, YouTubers and subject-matter experts are building massive audiences.
Earlier, what we knew as mainstream media consisted of established, professionally run media organisations with wide public reach. These included national and regional newspapers, magazines, radio networks, and satellite and cable television news channels. In today’s scenario, which is undergoing breathtaking changes almost every day, the digital revolution has broadened the concept of mainstream media.
Mainstream media now includes both legacy media and major digital news platforms that command significant audience attention. Platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok have transformed the way people consume news. Sensing changes in public attention and adapting to them, traditional outlets such as newspapers and television channels have introduced digital editions and are now active 24×7.
In this wider landscape, mainstream media refers to organisations that reach large and diverse audiences, play a major role in shaping the public narrative, and are widely cited by governments, businesses and other major players.
Here, we may return to Gibbs for another significant observation. She said: “In the past, leaders governed first and received coverage afterward. Today capturing attention itself has become a form of governance.”
In India, the trust deficit that a section of major media outlets, particularly some prominent TV channels, have created through overtly partisan coverage and opinion-building is fast eroding their popularity and making room for other platforms to gain ground.
The competition for ratings, leading to greater sensationalism, dramatic debates and a constant breaking-news culture, has prompted criticism that speed is being prioritised over accuracy. It has become apparent to people across the political spectrum that many TV channels have become openly aligned with particular political viewpoints.
Some viewers feel that such coverage lacks sufficient critical scrutiny, while others believe it reflects public sentiment and reinforces perceptions of partisan reporting. Another perception gaining ground among audiences is that prime-time debates often emphasise confrontation over substantive policy discussions.
Another challenge is that errors and misleading claims are now quickly challenged or amplified on social media and other online platforms, making public trust more volatile. At the same time, a section of the audience continues to place considerable trust in particular networks, while others rely on newspapers, digital news outlets or a combination of sources.
There are too many instances in India that have contributed to eroding viewers’ faith in major broadcast media outlets.
To cite a few, one was the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, when broadcasters faced criticism for airing tactical information during the siege. The episode also triggered widespread debate about media responsibility.
During the 2024 parliamentary elections, digital media outlets fearlessly highlighted viewpoints, some of which ran counter to those of the ruling dispensation, putting a number of leading TV channels in a poor light.
The military conflict with Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack in May 2025 pushed a section of TV channels to what appeared to be a propaganda crossroads. Sensationalism reached new heights, with one channel claiming that India had destroyed Karachi Port, another claiming that Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir, along with his family, had fled the country in a helicopter, and yet another claiming that Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had moved to an underground bunker.
Overall, the erosion of trust in so-called mainstream media can be seen as the cumulative result of repeated controversies, perceived political bias, commercialisation and changing media consumption habits. The main exit points appear to be sensationalism, political polarisation, a declining distinction between news and opinion, and fierce competition from digital and social media platforms.
There have been too many turning points. Globally, the changes became clearly evident during the Arab Spring in 2011, when protesters relied heavily on social media to spread their grievances against ruling establishments.
In the latest turn of events in India, following the success of the recent non-televised Cockroach Janata Party protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, major dailies in the country have renewed their focus on another crossroads at which mainstream media, particularly television media, finds itself.
Noted commentator Arghya Sengupta, in an article published in The Times of India on July 29, 2026, wrote: “Large parts of broadcast media refused to see what was in front of them. Free speech in India is healthy, the protest proved it, but the audience has taken note of where it is free and where it isn’t. Expect still more of TV-watching audience to migrate to YouTube and Instagram. TV channels are now merely content within the feed, competing on the same scroll. They will continue competing, but with their role as non-partisan brokers a thing of the past.”
In contrast, leading and influential dailies reported on the protests, carried editorials on police action and government measures, and continued trying to maintain an objective stance.
This brings us to the calamity caused by floods in Assam. Alongside newspapers and television, social media and alternative media platforms now appear to be competing on almost equal terms. The plight of affected people, relief efforts, the slow pace of the government response and other such issues are being reported in detail through these platforms.
Another positive aspect is that ordinary citizens, especially young people, have been exposing and countering those who seek to spread communal hatred through various posts and videos. This is not to suggest that traditional media organisations have remained inactive. The point is that alternative media platforms, too, are now constantly active and are playing a significant role in shaping public discourse.
The reality is that multiple choices available to an ever-alert audience have turned the mainstream media space into a war zone. Any monopoly over public opinion can only be a daydream in this changed scenario.
The old players have to take note.