And? Why would you not be pro your own government? Should the media be against the government that people elect and which protects people's rights? Should the media be pro foreign governments and agencies?
The same freedom that allows the media to criticize legitimate concerns when it comes to the government also allows hostile foreign interests to amplify minor issues or manufacture fake ones to take down the government and install one that they can control from the outside, often to the detriment of the country and the citizens. So, my theory is that the countries that will succeed over the next decades are the ones which can protect themselves from foreign influence, by kicking out foreign interest groups, "aid" agencies, investments, apps, "news" sites etc. which India is doing. The obvious side effect will be that legitimate concerns and legitimate organizations which are detrimental to the establishment will also be suppressed. But I don't think there is a way to not do that.
You put scare quotes around both aid and news. Neither of these things are inherently bad.
Misinformation is the threat, not simply foreign information.
Government control of media is not a remedy to misinformation. In fact it is frequently a source.
You seem to be espousing an isolationist strategy but the genie is out of the bottle. Any country that tries to pull back from the rest of the world will suffer in comparison.
Well, China has greatly benefited from doing exactly that. They greatly regulate and control foreign influence while they exert their influence every where they can. India is a big rival and they have been funding everything from the Naxalites (the underground Indian communist organization) to mainstream parties, organizations, media, universities... whatever they can which gives them political advantage.
For example, like Yuval Noah Harari mentions in Sapiens, agriculture was not necessarily good for individuals. But since it allowed long term storage of food (in the form of grains), it allowed for stable habitats which grew into cities and nation states. There were still tribal people for a long time (there still are) who didn't adopt the technology but they were increasingly at the mercy of those on the other side.
We've seen the same with other technologies, like powerful weapons in the last centuries.
I think, in the new information age, we're headed to a similar trajectory with this new set of propaganda methods and defenses. Those who don't incorporate these new technologies into their systems will be at the mercy of those who do.
1. Just because they did it and were successful doesn't mean everyone who does it will be successful. They did a thousand other things which will never happen in India. Like being a technocratic society which punishes corruption quite publicly.
2. Just because they were successful doesn't mean that is the only way to do it.
The powers that be protects people's rights, until they don't, and you don't want to be the proverbial frog in the pot coming to a boil.
However, I don't think we have a choice. At this point, the only two choices seem to be either to be governed by a tyrannical government fueled by national interests or a tyrannical government controlled by foreign interests.
I believe in decentralization of power, a structure where the governed are closer to those who govern them. I think this leads to people in power having more skin in the game.