Why some Indian journalists are trading newsrooms for YouTube

Sohit Mishra cut his teeth as a journalist working for New Delhi Television (NDTV), and his decision to quit one of India’s leading news channels was not easy. But he says the “DNA of the channel” changed after its takeover in December 2022 by the Adani Group, a company headed by a close ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The final straw was an alleged diktat from the channel’s newly appointed editor-in-chief to “create a ruckus” at a press conference held by Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi.

Mr. Gandhi had organized the event to call for a parliamentary probe into allegations of stock manipulation by the Adani Group. But according to a report by Newslaundry, the NDTV editor asked Mr. Mishra – then the channel’s Mumbai bureau chief – to “change the narrative” by asking questions about Mr. Gandhi’s controversies instead. 

Mr. Mishra’s subsequent resignation from NDTV – which has denied the accusations – echoes the experiences of several Indian journalists, including vocal Modi critics, who have been driven out of newsrooms as the government’s influence over mainstream media grows.

Some, however, have found reprieve on YouTube.

The future of the platform as a journalistic outlet is uncertain. The government has drafted laws that would expand its regulatory power, and if Mr. Modi wins a third term in office in India’s national election, which concludes next week, observers say his administration is likely to impose further restrictions on the media. 

But for now, says senior journalist and longtime media observer Pamela Philipose, it’s “not surprising to see people leave mainstream [media] to join YouTube,” as the site offers journalists “a wonderful, very important quality ... independence.”

“They must seize it and make full use of it,” she says.

“This is what journalism is all about”

Government advertisements are a major source of revenue for Indian media houses, but they have also proved to be a cage, says Shyam Meera Singh, a young journalist who was fired by India Today Group – one of the country’s largest media networks – for criticizing the prime minister in posts on X.

Indeed, the Modi government has been accused in the past of pausing government advertisements in retaliation for critical and adverse stories. Mr. Singh says this dynamic forces media organizations to censor their journalists. “You are free to criticize the opposition leaders,” he says. “But the moment you choose to criticize PM Modi or [his Bharatiya Janata Party], you will face trouble.” 

Mr. Singh has since made the jump to YouTube, where he delves into the backgrounds of top news figures for more than 829,000 subscribers. He points to a recent video investigating the rise of Ramdev, a powerful but controversial yoga guru-turned-businessman who owns Patanjali Ayurved – a conglomerate that, as of August 2023, was one of the top TV news advertisers in India.

“No mainstream media channel can make [that kind of video] today,” Mr. Singh says. “Can you imagine the American media not being allowed to speak out against [Donald] Trump or [Elon] Musk?”

For Mr. Mishra, whose channel has grown to over 375,000 subscribers in recent months, YouTube provides the freedom and flexibility to produce thoughtful news. “In mainstream media, especially on television, there is a lot of pro-government bias, sensationalism, running around, and shouting loud,” he says. But on YouTube, he adds, he has time “to analyze things, to do hourlong interviews.”

Last October, Mr. Mishra did a report on women from a remote village in India’s Maharashtra state who had no access to water. A day after the video was posted, the state arranged for water tankers to be sent to the village.

“Within 24 hours, there was an impact,” he says. “This is what journalism is all about.” 

But despite the platform’s advantages, the shift to YouTube is extremely difficult for many journalists. 

Costs of doing business

Mr. Singh says that India has a “very weak crowdfunding culture,” and finding sponsors has been challenging. The revenue YouTube provides based on views is not enough to cover travel, video equipment, and other reporting expenses – necessities that reporters at major TV stations don’t need to worry about.

“While [these networks] have the resources, they aren’t doing their job,” Mr. Mishra says. “If they would have been doing it, there wouldn’t be any need for independent journalism.”

And although the ability to remain independent and politically neutral is a major draw of YouTube, Mr. Singh says the site’s algorithms still incentivize bias. 

“You have to pick the same side to keep your audiences with you,” he says. “If you take pro-left positions, you have to continue doing that blindly; otherwise you risk losing audiences.”

On a platform where views matter the most – especially when it comes to revenue – that’s a risk that most small, independent journalists cannot afford.

Meanwhile, an effort to modernize and streamline the various laws governing India’s broadcasting sector has sparked concerns about overregulation and censorship. The proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 would extend the government’s regulatory reach to individuals using social media to disseminate news content.

Critics say that the draft allows the government to prohibit broadcasting services on the vague grounds of “public interest,” without adequate guardrails. Ms. Philipose, who researches social media and journalism in India, believes the bill is “designed to finish off independent journalists.”

Its future will be decided by the newly elected lower house of Parliament after India’s polls close next week. Media experts predict that if Mr. Modi and the BJP return to power on June 4, they’ll throw their weight behind the bill, tightening their grip over independent and digital media.