 So what's new? The internet, the spread of the internet has coincided, say, over the last eight years with the Great Recession. And the flows of funds which advertisers and those who pay for marketing services have been constrained and as has been pointed out, this has disrupted the revenue models of traditional media organizations. Just a few numbers to tell you how dramatic this transformation has been. Until 12 years ago, 2004, there were more television sets in India than telephone lines, something which a lot of people don't know. Today we have a situation where in a population of over 1.25 billion people in this country, we have about a billion SIMs, SIM cards, subscriber identity modules. In most parts of urban India certainly, there are more SIMs than human beings, including the city. And we have roughly about 750 million odd handsets, mobile handsets, of which some would say a fourth, some would say more than a fourth, about 250 million odd mobile handsets are smart. That means you can access the internet. You are often smarter than we imagine. They spell words for you and they take you to all kinds of places. And very few of us could have imagined how dramatic this transformation would be. I mean, there are about roughly 7 billion people on this planet on any given 24 hour cycle, more than a billion WhatsApp messages are being exchanged. And even as we argue that maybe half the population or close to half the population of the planet still hasn't used the internet, the fact is about half the planet has used and will continue to use. And even the half which hasn't been using it, they are getting impacted by the internet, whether they like it or not. So this has created its own set of problems, including the fact that what Rameeji talked about, that pornography is no longer something furtive or secretive, it is the biggest business on the internet. It's available literally at the click of a mouse. When a professor told me, how do I tell my eight year old what a porn star is, I said, I really wish I could answer that question to you. But the internet has changed human societies, changed our society in ways in which very few of us could have imagined. As has been rightly pointed out, let's speak specifically about some of the new aspects of the media in India. As has been rightly pointed out by Sukumar and others, the numbers don't really indicate the real picture. When you have 100,000 publications registered with the print, with the registrar of newspapers of India. But you have one newspaper, The Times of India, which is the world's most widely circulated English daily newspaper, one out of two English newspapers sold in the countries in addition to The Times of India. You may have hundreds of radio stations where we are arguably the only democracy in the world, or we call ourselves a democracy, where news and current affairs on radio is still a monopoly of the government. I mean, to think that in 1991, we had one broadcast and today we have something like 900 broadcasters that have been given permission to uplink or downlink, including 300, which claim they are news and current affairs channels. Amitabh Bachchan considered that live breaking news, Nag Nagin ka Shadi just picked up, Arnab Goswami is resigning from Times of India. He might tie up with Rajat Sharma, you know. News on the trot as we go, we are getting bombarded with the huge amounts of information. I mean, it's not that people have stopped reading, but fewer and fewer people are going to read on pieces of paper and more and more people are going to read on screens, whether it be handheld or on their laps or on desktops. This is the new reality of the world that we live in. And she's absolutely correct. We don't have anything called regulation. We have anarchy. We have half a dozen statutory regulatory bodies. And I don't need to elaborate on their state. Central Board of Film Certification. We have the Prime Minister's propaganda is heading it. We have the Press Council of India to describe it as a toothless tiger would be very charitable because, you know, even a toothless tiger can scare somebody. You know, they're scared of that tiger, but the PCI can't scare anybody anymore. I used to be a member for three years of that council. You have the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. You have also the TRAI, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, when suddenly the rule book is shown to them and said, you know, you can't have so many advertising in every yard. Everybody goes to court saying, you want to kill us? You know, we are in a mess. You want to kill us now? So we have all these statutory bodies. We have something called the CERT, the Computer Emergency Response Team. We also have self-regulatory bodies, the BCCC. We have the News Broadcasting Standards Authority, but we actually have effectively regulatory anarchy and chaos currently prevailing. There have been number of reports that have talked about the need for having restrictions on cross-media ownership, but these have not been implemented, including the recommendations of a parliamentary committee and official report with the government had put together. You know, the jingoism is something that I'm sure Hartoche and others will talk about it. Some of our television anchors have become akin to lynch mobs. I mean, they behave like lynch mobs. They are being for the blood of even their own fellow journalists. They want to put them behind bars, you know. How different are there from vigilante groups who want to lynch somebody because you don't like their religious beliefs or you don't like the meat that they're eating? So why have we descended to this level? Why has this race to the bottom reached the stage? We always had corruption in the media. We always had advertising being masqueraded as quote-unquote news. Sukumar talked about freedom of expression. Who decides what is a reasonable restriction on the right to free expression? But with corruption, we have another phenomenon that has happened and this is happening is the criminalization of the media. I mean, let's not mince our words. You know, the media has been talking about the criminalization of politics. We should now be talking about the criminalization of the media. Some of my fellow journalists have spent some time behind bars. If you like me, I can name them for you. Whether they should have been there or not, it's a separate matter. They've been the heads of television channels. You know, they're not small fry, some petty blackmailer or extortionist. You know, they've been heading television channels. We have the head of a television channel who is a member of parliament, who for the first time his election has been challenged. A first information report has been lodged. I mean, okay, no prizes for guessing his name, but everybody knows who these people are. But the point is, as has been pointed out earlier by Mr. Nihal Singh and others, we are in this mugs game called TRPs, the television rating points, which are a farcical. So Kumar pointed out about NDTV. There was criminality. There was a former agent of the FBI who NDTV accessed a report which says that you're actually briming people to, you know, fudge the ratings. That's because you have a very small number, a sample, trying to, you know, focus on urban areas, upper middle class areas in trying to ascertain viewing patterns across a very diverse country. You don't have those people meters to figure out who's watching what in the hundreds of thousands of villages. But even this system is not only inadequate. It's corrupt completely and criminalized. So there are people who are actually briming people to fudge those ratings. And this has been happening for a long time. You had one monopolist called TAM. Once that ended, now you have another monopolist called Bak. You know, so these are the new ways that we are seeing the way things have been evolving in the media in this country. I don't want to, I'm through. I don't want to sound excessively optimistic. Yes, I mean, there's good reason to believe that there's a lot that is wrong. But just as one section of the media in India has become corrupt and criminal, I am happy to tell you there are people including here, my esteemed co-panelists and many others who still believe that the media has a role to play in a democracy in holding truth to power in playing the role of an antagonist and playing the role of an adversary. The only thing is we need that public support. Across the world, those models for funding investigations have changed. The models for funding articles, documentaries, which take positions which are critical of those in positions of power and authority have changed. The notable example being the ICIJ, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalism, which talked about the Panama papers, among other things. So we have to look at how we can make such journalism sustainable. Is it only philanthropies and trusts? Is it crowdfunding? Is it public support? These are the questions I think that we need to debate. Thank you very much.