When paid content begins to look like news, the issue is no longer merely about advertising but about the credibility of the media
— Dr. Satyawan Saurabh
Every piece of content published on the front page of a newspaper creates a special sense of credibility in the minds of readers. This is why, when a full-page advertisement supporting a controversial individual or organisation is published and presented in a manner that resembles news or factual investigation, the issue goes beyond advertising and payment. It becomes a matter of media credibility, editorial judgment and social accountability.
On September 12, 2026, a full-page advertisement related to a ‘Dera’ was published in the Delhi, Mohali and North India editions of The Hindu. Reports also emerged that a similar advertisement was published in the Delhi edition of Dainik Bhaskar. The headline of the advertisement was—“What is Dera? Facts vs. Fiction.” It presented several claims in support of the Dera and its chief, who is currently imprisoned, as well as arguments defending the organisation against cases pending against him.
After the controversy intensified, The Hindu published an unconditional apology on its front page on September 13. The newspaper described the advertisement as “objectionable” and “highly objectionable” and apologised to its readers. On September 15, the newspaper also stated that it would not raise a bill for the advertisement and did not wish to derive any commercial benefit from it.
This raises a larger question about media responsibility. If a publisher itself acknowledges after publication that certain content was seriously objectionable, the natural question is: what kind of scrutiny and evaluation system was in place before the content was published? Institutional separation between advertising and editorial departments is necessary, but does that separation alone completely free a newspaper from responsibility for the social impact of published material?
The issue is particularly serious because the advertisement was not simply promoting an ordinary product or service. According to available reports, it presented a particular side regarding legal cases involving the Dera chief, allegations against him and the organisation’s social activities. The advertisement also presented figures related to the Dera’s campaigns involving de-addiction, blood donation, tree plantation and other social activities. There appeared to be no independent verification of these figures within the advertisement.
Here, an important distinction needs to be understood. Every individual or organisation has the right to present its side. Newspapers also have the commercial right to publish advertisements. However, clearly identifying paid content as advertising and informing readers that its claims belong to the advertiser is only one part of a media organisation’s responsibility. When the same material appears prominently on the front page, directly beneath the newspaper’s name and reputation, with news-like headlines and statistics, the question of its impact on readers naturally arises.
The disclaimer accompanying the advertisement is also an important aspect of the controversy. The relevant publications reportedly stated that the newspaper had no editorial or journalistic role in the creative content of the advertisement. Nevertheless, it is natural for media experts to ask whether a disclaimer alone is sufficient, particularly when paid content is given highly prominent placement and its language appears similar to news reporting.
According to photographs and reports that emerged on September 13, the same advertisement was also published on the front page of Dainik Jagran. This fact alone is not sufficient to reach a final conclusion about the editorial policy of any newspaper, but it does raise an important public question: Should major newspapers have clear ethical criteria for deciding whether sensitive advertisements should be accepted?
This question is not limited to Dainik Jagran, Dainik Bhaskar or The Hindu. Any other newspaper could face a similar situation in the future. If media organisations simply end the discussion by saying, “It was an advertisement, not news,” the line between advertising and news could gradually become blurred for readers.
The greatest asset of journalism is the trust of its readers. Revenue from advertising is important because newspapers need financial resources to operate. However, maintaining a balance between commercial requirements and public credibility is equally important. This is particularly true in cases involving court proceedings, serious allegations or questions related to convicted individuals, where additional caution may be expected regarding the language and presentation of advertisements.
There could also be a practical way forward for the media. An independent pre-publication review system could be established for controversial or sensitive advertisements. Special approval could be made mandatory for publishing such advertisements on the front page. In advertisements containing factual claims or references to judicial proceedings, it should be clearly stated which claims are being made by the advertiser. If a court judgment exists against an individual, the advertisement should not conceal that fact or create a misleading impression. And if a serious error comes to light later, readers should not only be offered an apology but also be informed about how the mistake occurred.
Questioning the media is not anti-media. Rather, the essence of independent journalism is that accountability should be demanded from everyone—including those in power, governments, political parties, business organisations and the media itself. Just as journalists demand transparency from governments, readers can also demand transparency from journalism institutions.
The Hindu’s decision to apologise and not accept payment for the advertisement is an important fact in this debate. But it does not end the fundamental question. The question is how such material reached the publication stage and what institutional mechanism will be established to prevent a similar situation from occurring again.
Today, the need is for a broader debate on media ethics rather than simply putting one newspaper in the dock. Advertisers have the right to present their side, but readers have an equally important right to know whether they are reading news, an opinion or promotional material published in exchange for payment.
The front page of a newspaper is not merely a sheet of paper. It is the face of credibility earned over many years. Therefore, every piece of content published on it carries not only an economic consideration but also a social responsibility. Accepting payment to publish content is not, by itself, a violation of journalism; the real question is how responsibly the publisher deals with the nature, presentation and potential impact of that content.
Media freedom is essential, advertising is necessary, and the financial sustainability of media institutions is also important. But above all stands the trust of the reader. If that trust is weakened, the greatest loss is not that of a single advertisement, but of the credibility of journalism as a whole.
An advertisement may be published and a particular side may be presented, but the trust of the reader should not be compromised. That is the true accountability of the media.
(SDNA)
Dr. Satyawan Saurabh, PhD (Political Science), is a poet and social thinker.