Once upon a time, the media was an institution of universal acceptance. People considered the media to be impartial and understood it as a bearer of public responsibility. Journalism presented itself as an institution standing outside power, a courageous organ that questioned power. It was believed that the media was not just news, but a mirror of society. Now the media world is in crisis.

This article will attempt to discuss the structural crisis facing the media.

The knot of power, capital and legitimacy

The current distrust of the media is basically a structural crisis. It is wrapped in a complex knot of power, capital and legitimacy. As Max Weber said, legitimacy is not something imposed, it is a consent given by people.

The behavior of the capitalist media is not such that it is completely independent and above society, but is embedded within the capitalist structure. The style of ownership, the income from promotional materials and the interaction with the upper class determine what to say from the media, how to say it or what not to say and whose voice to speak louder. The voices that come to the editorial often come from such pressures. Therefore, in such a context, the job of the media is not to show reality, but to select facts through those who have raised the media.

Now these truths have become more multifaceted. The ownership of the media is gradually concentrated in commercial groups, due to which many of them are indirectly related to the political and economic power structures. As a result, the boundaries between the media, business and politics are becoming blurred. News organizations are no longer just carriers of public services, they have also become profit-making enterprises operating within a competitive market. When the very existence of the media begins to depend on sources of income tied to powerful parties (such as advertising, corporate partnerships or state protection), the scope for independent and critical journalism gradually shrinks.

Ideally, journalism is an autonomous field, guided by professional norms such as objectivity and public accountability. However, Pierre Bourdieu explains through the concept of ‘field’ that no field is completely independent and is always influenced by external forces, especially economic and political capital. When these forces begin to penetrate deeper into the field of journalism, its autonomy gradually begins to erode. And, with this erosion, what Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic capital’ also reduces credibility, authority and trust.

In this process, the reader observes, interprets and reacts. When news begins to reflect the interests of the powerful more than the concerns of ordinary people, suspicion arises. When the media appears selective in its criticism, aggressive towards some parties but silent on others, questions begin to arise. Over time, this suspicion deepens and turns into distrust, which is often described as a ‘crisis of credibility’ but is actually a crisis of legitimacy.

This crisis is not simply the result of the moral failings of individual journalists, but a structural condition. Today’s media is in a kind of paradox. They are expected to play the role of watchdogs, but they themselves are trapped within the very power structures they are supposed to monitor. This contradiction is at the heart of the public anger towards the media in contemporary times.

Shattered Truth

If the structural ties with power have weakened the legitimacy of the media, the rise of digital technology has destabilized the concept of ‘shared truth’. Habermas’ concept of the ‘public sphere’ envisioned a common space where citizens could engage in informed and critical debate guided by reason. In the twentieth century, traditional media, newspapers, radio, and television, played a central role in preserving this space. They acted as gatekeepers, selecting information, verifying facts, and presenting stories that, at least in theory, were accessible to a wide audience. However, the digital revolution has turned this upside down.

This crisis is not just the result of the moral failings of individual journalists, but a structural one. In the contemporary world, power no longer operates through centralized institutions, but through networks of information. Social media platforms have broken the monopoly of traditional media over the flow of information. Today, anyone with a smartphone can produce and broadcast content. This has democratized communication and given space to previously excluded (made?) voices. However, it has also created a profound epistemic crisis.

Information now spreads faster than it can be verified. Rumors, illusions, and deliberate propaganda spread alongside credible journalism. And in many cases, it is difficult to distinguish between them. The authority of traditional media as arbiter of truth has weakened. In such a situation, the question is no longer limited to ‘what is true?’ but rather ‘who determines what is true?’.

In this era of complex and modern information, people have to navigate the chaos and the responsibility of assessing credibility falls on their shoulders. However, they do not always have the necessary tools or skills. Each person begins to become their own ‘gatekeeper’, relying more on intuition, prejudice or social cues than systematic scrutiny.

Algorithms are designed to make people more ‘engaged’. They prioritize content that arouses emotions such as anger, fear and resentment, because such content spreads more. That content now becomes an ‘echo chamber’, where users often only see information that confirms their own beliefs. Groups now begin to live in their own information world, where the sources and standards of truth differ.

Trust is polarized in such a fragmented environment. People may have deep trust in some media outlets while rejecting others completely. Media is no longer a common point of reference, but a site of competition and controversy.

Amidst this rapid change, traditional media outlets are in a difficult dilemma. If they stick to professional norms such as fact-checking and in-depth analysis, they risk falling behind in the fast-paced, performance-oriented digital world. But if they want to get used to the greed, speed, sensation, etc. of going viral, they risk undermining their own credibility. In both cases, the outcome is uncertain and risky. In this sense, the crisis of trust is not just a decline in standards, it is a sign of a profound change in the social structure of knowledge.

The sword of fear hanging over South Asia

In India, the relationship between the media and the state has raised serious questions about democratic institutions and the autonomy of journalism. Many media outlets in India have reached the peak of their power-grabbing. Very few mainstream media outlets are now able to look at Modi critically. This reluctance is not just a result of direct censorship, but also a complex interplay of legal, economic and symbolic pressures.

In India, defamation laws, sedition cases, and strict anti-terrorism laws can be used against journalists and media outlets, creating a climate of legal risk. And this has always made journalism a dangerous profession, with a sharp sword drawn 24/7. Even if such cases do not lead to convictions, the process itself is long, expensive, mentally stressful and intimidating. The financial aspect is equally important. Government advertising is a major source of income for many media outlets. The distribution of such advertising can be selective, encouraging pro-government content and indirectly penalizing critical reporting.

These pressures are not always overt. They operate through cues, expectations, and anticipation. Journalists begin to internalize the boundaries of acceptable criticism. They learn, without being told, which topics are sensitive? Which questions are risky? And which incidents are acceptable? In this case, self-censorship becomes a viable survival strategy.

This transformation does not happen overnight. It is a gradual process. Even seemingly small changes, such as softening headlines, removing reports, or avoiding controversial topics, collectively shape the entire media landscape. The result is a culture of controlled expression, not a system of overt repression. There, dissent is limited and controlled, if not completely eliminated. This is exactly what the Indian media is in right now – very weak and scared.

The dramatic debates and polarised style of television may attract viewers but weaken trust even further. When viewers start viewing news as entertainment, its seriousness is questioned. In this situation, the media becomes a means of clarifying reality, not a means of making it clearer, but a factor in making it more complex and ambiguous.

The crisis of trust in the media in contemporary times is not an isolated phenomenon. It is the result of structural transformations in the economic, political and technological spheres. As Anthony Giddens has said, modern societies depend on ‘abstract systems’, the very functioning of which is based on trust. The media is one of the key institutions in such systems. When trust in the media weakens, the effects extend beyond journalism to the entire social fabric of democratic life.