 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. India is the largest democracy in the world. Actually India is the largest democracy in the history of the world. In May 2019 when the election took place, for the first time, almost 900 million human beings had the right to vote for electing a leader of a nation. This has never happened before in the history of this world. And in the world of democracy, India is the best student. We say what we want to say, when we want to say it and how we want to say it. The gentleman before us was speaking about how it took so long to build the bridge in Bombay, the sea link. And it takes minutes in China to do something. Well ladies and gentlemen, China does not allow its citizens to vote. We vote regularly in this country. It's a huge achievement for a country of 1.3 billion people. And in this democracy, one of the best things is the media. We have all kinds of media, we have all kinds of anchors, we have all kinds of channels. And 24-7, they take a position. They tell us what is happening, what we need to know. And so many of our opinions are based on this. Since the Pulwama attack and the Balakot strike and the 2019 election and now the upcoming visit of the US President Donald Trump to India. Television has yet again evolved to a different level, especially television news. I must thank the business world of having given me the opportunity to present before you some of the finest news anchors in this country who are normally not panellists in their own debates. So here I have a chance to grill them like they grill the other debaters. We are going to discuss a very important issue today and that issue is objectivity in news television. Does news television at some stage become propaganda? Does it become a tool for a political party to send its message? And even more, you know, going beyond that. What is the role of a news editor or a news anchor today to take a side or to remain consistent with the editorial policy of a network? We have had a preliminary discussion and we have very strong opinions on all of these subjects. But I'm going to start with the only lady today on the panel, Ms. Palke. You've had experience in multiple channels and now you're running beyond. Where do you think is Indian news networks as far as objectivity is concerned? I think objectivity is in short supply. I have to admit in the Indian media or media anywhere in the world. With the changing dynamics, with news and information, there's a glut of information. There was a time when it was said that if you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you read them, you're misinformed. Today, information is available online. And if we speak only about television news, I think people don't come to you necessarily for information. They come to you for validation. And so every channel has devised or every anchor has devised for himself or herself a position that he or she takes. And then people come because people want to hear what they believe in. And so, yes, you could say that objectivity is not always respected. But at the same time, I believe that the viewers have the ability to differentiate what is objective and what is propaganda. And beyond a point, all news tends to become propaganda. It depends on what headline you pick, how you phrase it, what adjectives you use. So it's, I don't want to paint this with broad strokes, but I do want to say that yes, objectivity can sometimes be compromised to take a stand. Mr. Rohit, what's going on? Some networks are propaganda, some are still a little objective. I'm not here to insult anyone. And I'm not here to clean anyone up. No, but you have to answer the question. I'll tell you later. Please say it later, nation wants to know or not. So I'll read it later. I'll tell you a small story. Usually, when I interact with viewers, I interact with stories so that things get easier. There was an elephant in a village. And the villagers saw the elephant. They were talking about the elephant. We saw the elephant. There were five people in the village who didn't have eyes. They were blind. They also wanted us to see the elephant. So how would they see it? In some people, he said, it looks like a stupid tree. In some people, he said it looked like a pipe. In others, he said it looked like a bush covered by a tree. In some people, the second leg looked like a worm. So they argued over this and that. So, a good man like you was talking to people and he was like, why are you fighting? We saw the elephant and we felt the elephant in pain. So he said, boss, you are all right in your place, there is nothing wrong with you. But the point is that you are all looking at him in a different way. Bring everyone together. When you look at them together, you will come to know how the elephant is. So what is the work of a news channel? Is it the work of a news channel or is it the work of a news presenter? That there is also a fact, there is also a fact, there is also a fact. He has brought the sound, he has brought the pitch, he has brought the tongue. He has brought everything. He has brought the voice and kept it in front of the audience. So he will be called objective. And if any of them miss a part of it, then the other people who have seen any part in the other corner will say, no sir, this is not an objective, this is a lie. It cannot be a lie on its own. It is not necessary. Nowadays, in the newsroom, the word they have used is a dynamism. One thing is missing from you, it is somewhere in the other corner. It can happen that you will get it after a little while. But in that little while, if you have made a hasty decision to make, then people will say that you are not objective. You are on one side. But there is one thing, you are talking about elephant. Some people say that elephant was not a tiger. Sir, for them, I cannot say anything. If you tell elephant a tiger. No, but this is also happening. Sir, I feel that this is a little elephant that you are saying. You should call elephant a tiger. They will say that elephants can raise their weight a little. They can raise their small weight. But they will say that elephants can raise their weight a little. They can raise their small weight. But they will say that elephant. They will share the elephant. Sir, this will be unfair. I mean, all the blind people are sitting in this country. Mr. Bopayant. I feel that this subjectivity debate, which you should not only connect with the media, if you look at it in a social context, then I believe that there is nothing called objectivity anymore. Anymore. Was there objectivity maybe 15 years back? Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. I think that what has happened is that with this advent of social media, I will tell you a story. At the time, I am talking about 10 years back, when Twitter was beginning to enter into news rooms. So our morning news meeting, our editor started to see that he was getting angry and angrier by the time he would come to the meeting. So he started asking me, boss, what's happening? Why are you losing your cool? This is going on on Twitter. This is going on. This trend is going on. Now, in the pre-Twitter era, the same editor would come. I would think in terms of, there are 10 reporters, what is their story? What is not happening in the whole country? So what has fundamentally changed, which has led to this debate between is there objectivity or is there no objectivity, is that social media has taken complete control. Hashtags. Now, the moderators have said many times that our hashtag is this. Now, there are so many anchors sitting here, it doesn't matter. Hashtags doesn't matter. So the editorial that used to be in the newspapers, now those are the basic news. What has happened? And I am sure you will bring this subject up later. What has happened is that the business models, the financial models of conventional news platforms, and it's applicable whether it's print or it's television, journalism today, real journalism, in terms of uncovering big stories, in terms of doing final scrutiny of data, which I think is the biggest problem. We just don't know which data to believe today. The government suppresses some data, or the data that comes up, there are many questions. There are some online platforms that are doing scrutiny. At least I don't remember whether there is a platform in TV channels or a platform in big newspapers, where you can scrutinize the data of the government. And the reason for that is that at least across the board, I don't see investments being made in terms of reporting talent. I don't see investments being made in letting people just go and do stories. In 2002, I remember, I was five years younger, and I was in a different organization. I was given an ambassador car and a cameraman. For one full month, there were no U.P. elections. There was no Obi-Wan. There was a center in Lucknow, and there used to be resets in that time. They started something from a private company. I would just travel because I did not have this pressure on my head, that I have to deliver something by the end of the day. Those days are now gone, long gone. There is just no money to be spent really on an extensive, massive ground report when it is possible. This is why the objectivity is ending. But you are competing with Twitter at one level, and the business model at another level. Just look at our friends here. We promote our program on Twitter more than anyone else. This is my hashtag. When I take a meeting with my team, our discussion is what should be the hashtag. What should be the hashtag of our coverage. That is the discussion. You are not the only one. The U.S. president also does that. This is why I am saying that this debate therefore needs to look at why it has happened. There is another challenge. Let me show you something on TV. There is a WhatsApp university. And the WhatsApp university is telling you something else. It has rewritten the history of India. Now many people have graduated and done a PhD in that university. How will you deal with that? That is fake news, really. That is the challenge. The real problem is that the ability to do a finite scrutiny of data today is impossible. Say when the government, when the party in power will say that I have created a number of jobs, but a member of Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council will come out and say that this data which will give you an accurate picture is being suppressed by the government. So how do you come to a conclusion? Either you make it an agenda and run it. It doesn't work. We can discuss that as well. My real problem today with our industry is that I just don't see anywhere. I just don't see hard reportage taking place. I don't see any attempt really being made to get hold of stories which we do not know of. What are we selling? We will do some things here and there. We keep doing that. But this type of reportage, the fake news you are talking about, is very difficult. So, Mr. Sumit, you agree with that? Thank you. I would like to say two or three things. The discussion so far. First, you talked about WhatsApp University. My objection is that you should at least sit on this bench and talk about it. I am saying that. If it was a university, it was a cut-axe. It should be cut-axe. So, we didn't call it a university. You asked how the WhatsApp University runs on so-called things. We can save it from that. I have a crude idea. Because we are all worried about WhatsApp. We are more worried than happy. Earlier, we were happy. I think we all will agree with that. I am telling you my opinion without all the other panelists' wishes. WhatsApp should be paid. The first thing. It shouldn't be free. You are writing your own message. You are sharing it on Facebook. No, I don't have any problem. I want there to be censorship. Because the university that we accept and propagate in people in every way, it is making more or less profit. The first thing is the original content. It is of X rupees. The forwarded content is X into 5. And the forwarded pictorial content is X into 100. If we are going to do this, I feel that when the money comes out of a person's pocket to forward, which is treating diabetes in free, which is taking it to Baba in free, which is telling us about the scheme in free, which is changing the history of India, I think that is when you know the value of that. Let's be real. Why not? Let's make it a voice. I think they have valuation which is in billions of dollars. We are not going to do that. Dr. Lal, we are doing what he wants. He wants more subscribers. And more subscribers can be found in India. What Sumit is saying, Sumit is at his level as a news platform. We are at our level as a news platform. We are sitting in front of him. He is at his level as a news platform. We are trying to fight this. There is a lot of news channel of this country which is an IFC certified fact checker. As a news channel. And we check 500 stories in a month. Usually. If there is a lot of pressure, it may be 600 or even 400. We check 500 stories in a month, in which we try to tell that the WhatsApp you got, the Facebook you shared, or the message you are sending, this is a fake story. This is the truth. The problem is that now you have to combine and create a model where he only does fact checking. And in the name of fact checking, he doesn't become a sharpshooter, as if something has already stopped. That he will do fact checking on one side and after that he will start sharp shooting. So you need to apply a layer there too. We do it at our level but there is a limit to it. How to reduce it, how to stop it. You need to worry a lot about it. One thing, I live in India for half a year I come to India, I watch TV. When I watch news channels, I have a strange feeling. There are some channels that have become pure entertainment in the matter of news. In them, there is only Shor Shrava, you can call it that some channels are misbehaving. Some people will lie in their studio and you don't agree with them. If you don't agree with them, then you can talk to them in any way. This is permissible. Anil ji, you have had a lot of experience in this business. You should see the Zee business for this. I think there will be only one channel that doesn't debate any political issues. And we don't have this situation or problem here. But the point is that if you take a line in your editorial content and then you go on that line, then you can see the clear views. Now, the people who like it will say that this channel is the best. And those who don't like it will think that this is their propaganda channel. This is easy for us. As it is a business channel, simple things. We cover the issues of business stocks and consumers. If we are biased for consumers and raise their voices, if we are recommending a stock and if our viewers are making money then we get it. But how do I recommend a stock there? Or if I am giving my news content then how do I say it? I have a viewpoint. I can say it in a firm way. Secondly, what is my aggression? Where my aggression comes and I want you to listen to it, that is the problem. Secondly, look at this stock. Fundamentally it is very good. This is the news. These are the facts. But secondly, if you don't buy it, then your world will be destroyed. If you don't listen to me and don't accept my viewpoint, then you are a fool. This is the difference. So this is the difference. I have to edit it. There is one thing. Emotion. As a news anchor, all of us are human. Emotion should not come and should not come. I will give you two examples. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Walter Cronkite, who was a famous tuner on TV, and he gets news that this happened. And he showed emotion. And that was appreciated. When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, you had emotion of a different type. India wins in a match. Of course, we like it. But every day to bring that emotion, every debate to bring that emotion, and to bring such extreme emotion, bringing emotion and bringing emotion is a big difference. Yes. So news anchor can dance in the studio. I am a human being. So today... I am happy if I get emotion. If my market life is at a high, if my sensex is at a high, and if I jump, I get emotion I am not bringing it. Where you try to bring it, there is no problem. You act there. I am a human. Your question is taking a little bit in a different direction. The emotional part of the discussion, this question you can level any allegation against anyone here on any news platform or maybe for right reasons and those allegations would be true but you should think that if everything is so bad then why does the news channel get advertising? There are some very you know powerful people across the world who are all big advertisers if everything is so wrong and I have asked this question to myself as well if we are all hatred peddlers then if we are hatred peddlers then why do such a big corporate world, such big media agencies, why do they do that? I have asked them many times the truth is that nobody gives a damn right and every Thursday you get a TRP and I am sitting with Mr. Anurag because I am upset that this kind of platform you should use it maybe to figure out this beast called TRP. I ask all of you here to tell me that you have ever met a person in your life who says that I have a TRP meter in my house anyone can tell me. This is a corona debate and it should definitely be a panel. So therefore, why is all this argument that there is objectivity, subjectivity, there is misguidance, what is it? What is it that is supposedly being sold? And is it supposedly being sold? Is it being bought? That is why it is going on. This is the same thing that you will remember in Bollywood in the 95th to 90th century when Shreedevi and Jeetendra Ki came into some films. It was a big hit. So every film's plot was the same. There was a problem with the news channels and the plot was not moving forward. I think this is also a period of disruption. People spoke about WhatsApp University. I beg to disagree. Who are the people who are sharing things on WhatsApp? They are eventually our customers, our audience. All this while before the event of social media, journalists were the agenda setters. I will decide what is the headline today. And the difference between the editorial and the story was never there. The moment you decide what is the top story in your show, what is the front page headline in your newspaper, that too is an editorial decision. Right? What will you show as an eight column story and what will be buried in the 10th page is also an editorial decision. What is written on the opinion page is not the only thing that is an editorial. So when your viewer is setting the agenda, then journalists feel a sense of discomfort. And how bullying is a big deal. It touches people's lives. But a traditional journalist will tell you. So WhatsApp University, instead of denigrating it, I'm not saying pedal fake news or pedal things without fact checking them. But we have to understand that this is what our audience wants. Maybe it's time for us to reorient ourselves and figure out what real news is for people. We must fact check, but we must also present what our viewer wants to see. That's a very deep question. What is real news? But before we go to that, Rahul ji, your view will be... I would like to go a little back and talk. See, after the print, when the private TV started, so we used to go to the field and do the reporting. So what was our hope on us? Our hope was that we were showing everything wrong due to very sharp news. This was our hope for the print. After that, now it's social media. Now we need to talk to the social media on TV. So there's a phase in which the TV is changing. First, there was a phase when the pure news had started. Then there was a phase when we started showing ghosts and spirits. Today, the phase has gone a little to the side. That we are sitting on the prime time. The cheerleaders who have become X party or Y party. This is a little bigger problem. Because a little earlier than this, from a very high point where the private channels were very small, and the activities there, whether it was the blackmailing, or the activities of talking to someone, they caused a lot of damage to the credibility of the TV channels or the journalists. And what we are doing today is probably causing more damage. The people's trust has arisen a lot on us. And they don't believe that we are independent journalists, and we show very clear, pure news. And this reflection is also that when you are showing a video or some news, I think it would be better to give you an example, that the Rajya Sabha TV, because there is a channel about which it is said that it is a government channel, but it is not like that. It is under the Parliament of India, and there is no need to give any special treatment to the government. There on YouTube, we are really good at YouTube. More than 40 million of our subscribers are watching us. When we did a program on the phase the last few days, what were the comments like? The comments came, now this is RSS. These people have completely become Congress and left channels. Where are these comments coming from? From the viewers' point of view. And these people have become against the government, and how can they do this and how can they run this. What are the comments like? Then we will go ahead and create a video on Gold Worker. When we do that program, it is said that this channel has become the RSS of RSTV. Now what are these BJP's? So these comments, I am not saying that these are wrong comments, I am saying that these people's reflection on you is based on their beliefs. Their belief is broken, it is their reflection. And this is the need to think about the beliefs, how much it is necessary to handle them. Sir, I have a question. Please tell me. I don't think it is wrong. You and I can talk about a generation, when we were watching TV, you people were writing on TV in India. Today, when we are sitting here and discussing that there will be a cheerleader at 9 PM in the night, Sir, is it because we are talking about cheerleaders, that he is getting caught or that he is telling? Earlier, the people who were doing it, they were not telling, suddenly one day there was an extinct operation, we found out that the minister is deciding in the newsroom. Then we came to know that the news that you were getting was not news, it was something else and you were going to eat it. So who is responsible for that? Who should we consider responsible for that? And if that is a legacy, then where will things go ahead? Or is there a phase to consider it? There are many phases, this phase will also pass out as you said. Okay, you said that your main question is what examples have we set for the next generation? When I came to the newsroom on TV, the example was that when you go to a press conference, you will not get the gift you get there. Our motto was that I will say one thing in the press conference, that I used to be in star news, I was an input head. And we were doing a news in Mumbai, in which I was telling a news about a politician, I was telling him that this news is true. And he was telling me again and again, confirm it, confirm it more, confirm it more. So the position where I was, he was telling me what is the religion of the editor. And I was telling him as a reporter, what is the religion of the reporter. When these things break, then these things happen today. When we consider the journalist, these are my views, maybe not yours or someone else's, that we are opinion makers, when we start giving opinions, then the other form of the journalist shows us. If we give information and think that Janata is so sensible that she will make her own opinion, then maybe we are more important to the journalism. I would like to ask one thing. Actually, the journalist is a mirror that we all want to show to others. We don't want to see ourselves in it. That's the biggest problem. We have to do the face of this mirror, and what Rohit is asking us, I said when we were outside drinking coffee, you asked me what is the next 5 years. I repeat, I just said that it has been spoiled, it has been spoiled. For the next generation, we have to try that it is not spoiled. Wherever it is, it will stay there. I don't know whether we will improve or not. I will tell you a very good thing. You said that Janata is also sensible. I am seeing a new thing. The protests that we show, I was surprised, the other day when I realized that I was speaking to a reporter of mine, I suddenly saw that he didn't have a mic ID. He didn't have a mic ID on the mic, so I was surprised. I asked him, why aren't you using the mic? He said, if he doesn't do it, then you do it, then it leads to a certain commotion. I felt so bad. I was on the tweet that I had never seen this in my career. The mic that we use, our reputation, our proud image, if you use it as an ID, my face is my ID. I will use it as an ID. So if we don't do it, Janata will do it. But one thing I have seen, extreme ideologies or extreme hate speech are mainstream through media. We cannot do something like self-censorship or like other kind of networks. That something is wrong. What do we need to show it 25 times? I will answer that as well. There is a very straight-forward law in this country. There is law for everything. There is also the broadcasting of the industry, there is broadcasting, right? There are our watchdogs. In one or two cases, one big channel or a big anchor has passed a stricture. Channels have refused to agree with it, So what happened is that every problem can't be solved by law, we will have to bring that to ourselves and until the real crux of the problem is TRP mechanism, this is a flawed mechanism. As long as this flawed mechanism and stakeholders who are benefiting from it, they don't want to get involved because business goes on like this. As long as this mechanism won't be solved, we will go in this direction. Good thing is that you are saying that you can fix TRP's mechanism, at least you are not saying that you stop watching TV. There is no TRP in Jindeshwam, there is a subscription model. Tell me one OTT platform that is making money. None of them are. There is no subscription model in this country, people don't pay for news. You show crime. So the answer I gave them is still relevant. If we show crime for TRP, for our viewers, for which we get ad revenue, maybe 50% is wrong, we show crime, anything. But the 30-40% is right, it is very important. Because if I didn't show that 50% wrong or wrong so-called, then revenue will not come, channel will be closed. And after that I will show right or wrong. So we should also think about what are the helplessness of TV. And it is not that some news channels are wrong. If this was the case, you wouldn't be watching Dine and Nagin, which is TRP. So many people are sitting here in this hall, ask them, what will they buy if they start getting the amount of news? Because they get 1.5 rupees, that's why you buy. The day you get 25 rupees, half the circulation will end. Similarly, if you have to buy the channel that runs on expenses, then half of the people will stop watching and we will come to everyone's home. So the subscription model should go that way. But it is not going. Nobody is ready to pay, but they want to tell us journalism, which we should be doing. But fact-checking and news-gathering is costly. Many people say that you are a journalist, that you should bring the truth forward. In the olden days, the environment of my country was not like that. If I have to leave from here, I have to go on a flight, I will feel like going to a hotel, I want a car. So it's an expensive business to be in. And I have no hesitation in saying this. It's business, it's not charity. People expect the results of a charity, but it happens to be a business platform. Until you see the business platform as a business, you will still be in it. And most of the media stocks are listed on exchanges. So every quarter we ask questions, how did you perform? And if it's not a performance, then we will grill. Why didn't you perform? So that is there. But one point that is most clear is that all the channels in our opinion, even the viewers are divided. So even the viewers have become like this today, that they want news, they don't want news. People who buy news are not saved. There are very few saved. News is a very boring channel, it only gives news. So where you want news, then you don't want news. No sir, it's news. But this is one of my points. As you heard Bhupin, when he started talking, he said that my show's name is Viewpoint. Because people tell him that we are watching news. You tell us your Viewpoint, Bhupin. We have been watching you for so many years. Now we want to know your Viewpoint. The reason is that Sumit Awasthik starts his show on a social media. Sumit finds out his Viewpoint. Even though he doesn't talk on TV in that way. He is objective on TV. There are three parties, so he trashes all three. But when he is asked on social media, that we are here to know your Viewpoint, then he tells us his Viewpoint. This is my platform, I am telling you. I want to add one thing. I am sorry. We think that they want to know our Viewpoint. Or the experts you have invited, they want to know their Viewpoint. The problem is here. The problem is that I as a journalist, do the viewers want to know Meera's Viewpoint? Or the experts I have invited, what do they think? Because they are expert in the domain. I want to know them. I want to give them an answer. There was a small survey in News 18, in which I was in the channel earlier. This question was asked in our group discussions, in different B towns. Do you want to know the Viewpoint of Anchor, or the Viewpoint of the guests? Most of the time, most of the time, they want to know the Viewpoint of Anchor. And the public answered that, I listen to XYZ Prabhakta somewhere else. But I can't hear your voice. What is your Viewpoint? This is the part of the study. There is a Viewpoint of Anchor in Prabhakta's elections. There is a Viewpoint of the channel. This is the survey of the guests. This is the survey. This is the survey like a bark. So... So what? Our currency is the same as today's. You are a human being. Till today, you are also a woman. I used to say the same. The way politics is going, last year and the year before it was said, that why is there the shift to the right? The world over. And a political scientist very rightly said that democracies are becoming illiberal because liberals became undemocratic. That can be said of the media too. There became a cozy club. That club is being challenged. Correct. And so this discussion is happening. And I think it's in a positive light. Yes. We were talking about this. Since the time is over, I want to make sure that let us not be completely cynical and dismissive. No, absolutely not. Despite all these challenges which are there, I am very happy. I am very happy. There are platforms. Like what Mr.Millan is doing, my compliments to him. He has started a great channel. The data that I am talking about, which I also want to challenge, I don't have any mechanism. People are doing it according to their own needs. At least they are getting screwed. This is getting screwed at some point. I believe that at some point you have made so much pressure on the international media. You are also in that direction. One question from you. You have been asking a lot of questions from us. Time is running out. I can't leave my anchoring. When I am returning to the topic that I am talking about, Dr.Lal, because we are all anchors. We all give our opinions. I don't know about your opinion. If Prime Minister in this country starts a program after 70 years of freedom in Swachh Bharat, is it a propaganda or an editorial content to show that? Please. I think it is absolutely the duty of every citizen to participate in anything, the ruling party or the government that has been elected. And TV networks are also part of the country. So the guidelines being set by the country. There is nothing wrong in it. It is not propaganda from that perspective. You may have strong opinions about the person who is running the country or not. That is separate. Quick question. Last one. Then we will open it for the audience. I have observed a lot of celebrities who are primarily celebrities in the movie space or some other space. They have overnight become experts on almost everything from intellectual intelligence to zoology. And whenever there is an issue with the TV networks have, they go to some celebrity, some filmmaker and he has a well thought out of opinion which is totally wrong, but he is imposed on the public. Is this justified? I think we are a country that has a lot of conversation and debate on chai stalls. Everybody in India is an expert. You can ask the person who is making your tea, who can ask your maid, she will have an opinion on who should you vote for and who you shouldn't. I used to live in a society of journalists. Somebody came to deliver pizza. The lady asked the pizza delivery boy, who will you vote for? He answered and someone said there was a full discussion on why a party should be voted. Celebrities are faces, that is why they sell. Everyone in this country has an opinion. Same thing. We are living in a time where big journalists of the country happily tweet in the evening, I was in a taxi and I spoke to a driver and the driver told me that he was going. And he decides that now I want to take the opinion of the country in this direction. Same thing. So when everyone can give their opinion, then everyone's opinion is taken. Then what is the fault of a film star? If people want to see Sumit Ji's show or Ruhi Ji's show, they want their opinion. Similarly, they want actors too. The public face, the public figure, they enjoy listening to their opinion. If you ask, it is possible that we have to ask 50 actors, let's make it 40, let's make it 45. We will give them 5 opinions, we will give them their opinion. I have so much to say, we will show the opinion of the actors which is of no use in your opinion. Don't listen to their opinion. We are living in democracy, reject them. Our problem is that we all give our opinions. We don't know how to say no.