Media Framing and National Interest: Hype vs. Substance

The announcement of an India–US trade deal by President Trump and Prime Minister Modi was instantly transformed into a media spectacle. Headlines screamed “historic”, television studios broke into celebratory debates, and social media timelines overflowed with triumphalism and political point-scoring. In the age of 24×7 news and instant reactions, such framing is almost predictable. Yet, when a major bilateral trade pact is reduced largely to political drama, the deeper economic realities risk being overshadowed. For a country like India, where trade agreements have long-term implications for livelihoods, competitiveness and policy autonomy, this imbalance between hype and substance deserves closer scrutiny.

A striking feature of the coverage has been the personalization of the deal. Much of the media narrative revolved around optics: the chemistry between the two leaders, the symbolism of handshakes, and the domestic political messaging it serves in both capitals. While leadership diplomacy undoubtedly matters, excessive focus on personalities turns a complex economic agreement into a political event rather than a policy instrument. Trade deals are not trophies to be displayed; they are frameworks that reshape markets, industries and jobs. When coverage privileges political theatre, it dilutes public understanding of what has actually been agreed.

Equally notable is the selective emphasis on headline numbers. Media reports enthusiastically highlighted promises of expanded trade volumes, ambitious purchase commitments and tariff reductions, often without unpacking their assumptions or feasibility. Rarely did prime-time debates ask whether such targets are binding or aspirational, over what time frame they apply, or what safeguards exist if global conditions change. The distinction between announcements, memoranda of understanding and legally enforceable commitments was frequently blurred. As a result, optimism replaced analysis, and expectations were inflated without adequate context.

More concerning is the limited attention paid to sector-specific impacts. Trade agreements create winners and losers; this is an economic reality, not an ideological position. However, media coverage largely celebrated aggregate gains while glossing over distributional consequences. Which Indian sectors stand to gain most from improved market access? Which domestic industries may face intensified competition from US imports? How will farmers, MSMEs and workers be affected in practice? These questions demand granular reporting, yet they struggled to find space amid headline-driven narratives.

Another area where substance took a back seat is non-tariff barriers. While tariff cuts are easy to communicate and politically attractive, modern trade is often constrained more by standards, regulations and compliance costs. Media discussions rarely examined whether the deal meaningfully addresses issues such as visa regimes for professionals, data localization concerns, agricultural standards or dispute resolution mechanisms. By focusing narrowly on tariffs and trade volumes, coverage conveyed an incomplete picture of the economic reality.

The framing of the deal also reflected a broader tendency to equate alignment with national interest without sufficient debate. Strategic convergence between India and the US is frequently presented as inherently beneficial, and trade agreements are framed as extensions of this geopolitical logic. While strategic partnerships matter, economic policy must still be evaluated on its own merits. Treating trade as a geopolitical gesture risks subordinating domestic economic priorities to diplomatic signalling. Media narratives that conflate strategy with economics reduce the space for legitimate questioning and dissent.

This is not to suggest that positive developments should be downplayed or that scepticism must dominate coverage. Rather, responsible media framing requires balance. Celebrating potential opportunities while rigorously interrogating claims, timelines and trade-offs is essential in a democracy. When economic journalism gives way to political cheerleading, citizens are deprived of the information needed to form informed opinions.

The consequences of such framing extend beyond one deal. Public understanding of trade policy in India has historically been shallow, often shaped by episodic coverage rather than sustained analysis. If every major agreement is presented as a “game-changer” without follow-up scrutiny, accountability weakens. Governments face less pressure to explain outcomes, course-correct policies or address unintended consequences.

Ultimately, the national interest is best served not by hype, but by clarity. Media institutions play a crucial role in translating complex trade agreements into accessible, accurate narratives. Doing so requires resisting the pull of political drama and investing in economic expertise, data-driven reporting and long-term tracking of outcomes. The India–US trade deal may indeed hold promise, but its true value will be measured not by headlines or handshakes, but by how it reshapes economic realities on the ground. It is this substance not the spectacle that deserves sustained media attention.