The Devil Wears Fine Print, or why Indian journalism needs protections

For the free-falling news business, The Devil Wears Prada 2 offers a glimpse of the solution to keep good journalism alive

David Frankel’s The Devil Wears Prada 2 is, surprisingly, not about fashion but about saving journalism. The sequel to the 2006 superhit set in the world of fashion is an ode to good writing, facts, and bringing untold stories to people. Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) comes back as features editor at Runaway, a fashion magazine. In the first film, she was an assistant to Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), its difficult but hugely successful editor. Only this is 2026. Digital has hit publishing hard. The suits (consultants) are trying to cut costs, staff, features, everything. After much drama, Sachs and Priestly get an investor willing to fund the kind of work they want to do, and it all ends happily.

 

However, real life has shown that getting a big investor to save a publication is, at best, a band-aid solution. Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post in August 2013 for $250 million in cash. He took it digital, made it profitable and repeatedly emphasised his commitment to its editorial stance. That changed in the runup to the presidential elections in 2024, when it broke with tradition to say that the paper would not be endorsing Democratic Party nominee Kamala Harris as President. The staff was cut by a third, and its editorial stance has changed.

 

Other investors who bought local newspapers have done the same — slashed costs and staff, reducing the brands they bought to almost nothing. There are, however, also those that have invested in deepening the quality and spread of journalism, like John Henry of Fenway Sports Group, who has done so with The Boston Globe, which he bought in 2013.

 

The news business has been in free fall as readers shift online but revenues don’t. From about $60 billion in advertising and subscription revenues and 60 million copies sold in 2000, the US newspaper market is down to $20 billion in revenue and 20 million copies sold in 2022. Around a third of global news consumers use Facebook (36 per cent) and YouTube (30 per cent) for news every week, according to the 2025 Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute for Study of Journalism. Instagram and WhatsApp are used by around a fifth. More than half the sample surveyed (58 per cent) remain concerned about their ability to tell what is true from what is false when it comes to online news. This is highest in Africa (73 per cent) and the United States (73 per cent), and lowest in Western Europe (46 per cent), says the report.

 

The business and consumption model for news was disrupted by the internet and then by streaming and short videos. And there don’t seem to be any easy answers. Many serious publications have morphed into doing a lot of clickable stories on lifestyle, food and celebrities instead of hard local, regional, or national news. These are important to survive financially in a market where social media platforms and short video apps are the main sources of news. But for any democracy to function effectively, good journalism that informs people about what is happening is critical. But it does not pay as much as it did before. This has meant losses and the distress sale of once iconic brands. This lack of informed opinion and the dominance of big-tech in news have meant ghettoisation of audiences. It shows up in the crazy amounts of polarisation the world sees.  And this is why The Devil Wears Prada 2 may be a good watch, though it gives only a glimpse of the solution — get a good investor who believes in it.

 

The second part — creating an ownership structure and a scaffolding of checks and balances have proved to be key to creating a news brand that can invest in quality journalism and is editorially protected. The Guardian is owned by a trust that was formed specifically to protect the left-liberal journalistic values it stands for. The BBC is financed by a licence fee that UK citizens pay for owning a TV set. The Economist Group is owned by a clutch of investors that include Exor (an investment firm owned by the Agnelli “Fiat” family), the Cadbury and Rothschild families and  employees, among others.

 

“The company’s constitution does not permit any individual or group to gain a majority shareholding, and no shareholder can exercise more than 20 per cent of voting rights. The editor is appointed by trustees, who are independent of commercial, political and proprietorial influences. This structure ensures that The Economist can take an independent view of the world — free to challenge conventional thinking and concentrations of power. Its role is to inform, not to serve vested interests,” says a section on the brand’s website. You may not agree with The Economist’s point of view at times, but it does a stellar job of informing one on world events and trends.

 

“FT (Financial Times) is hundred per cent owned by Nikkei, which is hundred per cent owned by its employees. Therefore we are able to take a long-term view independent of corporate pressure,” said John Ridding, chief executive officer of the Financial Times Group, to me in a 2015 interview. Whether it is not-for-profit or corporate, the ownership structure and what checks and balances are in place help good brands sustain.

 

India, with its over 400 news channels, hundreds of newspapers, and many news sites faces the same issues. Many media researchers worry about “corporate ownership.” But almost all media globally is owned by corporations. In fact, the newspaper revolution in India began with benevolent companies financing newspapers, such as The Hindu or Malayala Manorama, among others, during the freedom movement.

 

The ownership by a company is not the issue. What is needed is an added layer of protection to fund and sustain good journalism.

 

@vanitakohlik