It is time to move beyond celebrating Digital India in speeches and ensure that genuine digital journalism receives the recognition, support, and rightful place it deserves, writes Priyabrat Biswal

 

EVERYBODY says digital media is the future. Governments proudly promote Digital India, corporate houses embrace digital communication, and millions turn to online news portals for information. Yet, when it comes to government empanelment and corporate advertisements, independent digital publishers often find themselves standing outside the very doors that the digital revolution was supposed to open.

Is this the digital future we promised, or merely a new-age system with old-fashioned discrimination?

The issue is not about denying print media its rightful place. Nor is it about demanding favours for digital publishers. It is about one fundamental principle: why should different media platforms be judged by different standards when both claim to serve the same public?

Consider newspaper circulation. Government departments and advertising agencies routinely rely on circulation figures submitted by publications. But how rigorously are these claims verified? There are concerns that some newspapers printing barely 1,000 copies may declare circulation figures exceeding 20,000. There are also questions about publications claiming multiple editions when their actual operations may not support such claims.

If these discrepancies exist, why are they not being investigated with equal seriousness? Are the relevant records maintained by the Press Registrar General of India (PRGI) regularly cross-checked against actual printing and distribution? And if declared figures are accepted without adequate verification, who is ultimately accountable?

This is not an indictment of the entire print media fraternity. It is a call for credibility. If circulation determines advertising eligibility, surely the figures must withstand independent scrutiny. A number printed on an application cannot automatically become the truth.

Now look at the treatment of digital publishers.

In Odisha, the government requires digital news portals seeking empanelment to record at least 1.25 lakh website visitors during the preceding six months. Ensuring genuine readership is reasonable. But is a single numerical threshold an adequate measure of a news organisation's credibility, public value and journalistic contribution?

A smaller portal may have a loyal readership, publish investigative reports, expose administrative lapses and raise questions that larger platforms sometimes hesitate to ask. Should its contribution become invisible simply because its visitor count falls short of a prescribed number?

Why is digital readership subjected to such stringent numerical scrutiny when comparable questions about the authenticity of print circulation deserve equally rigorous attention?

Has the number become more important than the news?

The corporate world presents another uncomfortable picture. Independent publishers often find that advertising decisions appear to depend more on personal equations, institutional influence and established brand names than on readership, credibility or journalistic performance.

There is a growing perception among smaller publishers that access to corporate advertising is not always determined by objective media value. Publications that raise uncomfortable questions or report critically on corporate practices may find themselves treated less as independent media organisations and more as inconvenient voices.

Even requests for modest goodwill advertisements can go unanswered, while established platforms and influential media personalities continue to enjoy greater institutional attention. Naturally, every company has the right to decide its advertising strategy. But should those decisions be guided by transparent media plans or informal preferences and the perceived influence of particular journalists?

Journalism does not run on goodwill alone. News portals must pay reporters, meet travel expenses, maintain technology, purchase hosting services, invest in cybersecurity and sustain daily operations. Editorial independence is an admirable principle, but it cannot survive indefinitely without economic support.

Should advertising be a business decision or an unspoken reward for favourable coverage and editorial silence?

Government and corporate houses must understand one thing: independent journalism is neither an extension of their public relations machinery nor an obligation to publish flattering narratives. Its responsibility is to inform citizens, question authority and report facts, including those that powerful institutions may find uncomfortable.

There is a practical way forward. Digital news publishers registered under MSME, subject to verification of genuine ownership, operations and editorial credentials, should receive due recognition as legitimate media enterprises. Such recognition need not automatically guarantee advertisements, but it should end their institutional invisibility.

Empanelment and advertisement allocation should be treated as separate matters. Reasonable criteria such as verified readership, audience engagement, geographical reach, publication regularity and journalistic quality can be considered. However, print circulation and claims of multiple editions must undergo equally stringent independent verification, including checks on actual printing and distribution.

Digital media assessment, too, must go beyond raw visitor counts. Returning readers, engagement, original reporting and public-interest journalism deserve consideration. Above all, government advertisement policies and corporate media allocations should follow transparent, publicly accessible criteria, backed by an effective grievance-redressal mechanism.

Most importantly, editorial independence must never become the price of institutional recognition.

Let there be no misunderstanding: digital publishers are not asking for charity, preferential treatment or guaranteed advertisements. They are asking for a fair opportunity to compete, operate and survive through honest journalism.

If a newspaper claiming circulation of 20,000 can seek institutional support, why should a genuine digital news organisation be denied basic recognition simply because it has not crossed an arbitrary traffic threshold?

The government and corporate sector must confront a simple but uncomfortable question: Are we supporting journalism because it serves society, or supporting media organisations because their numbers, connections and influence make them convenient?

The future of journalism will not be decided by whether a story appears on paper or on a screen. It will be decided by whether those who publish it are allowed to remain independent, credible and economically viable.

It is time to move beyond celebrating Digital India in speeches and ensure that genuine digital journalism receives the recognition, support, and rightful place it deserves.

 

Contact: 7978664134 (WhatsApp)