 And obviously we've been going through a period where concerns of what can be reported, what is in the national interest, what is not in the national interest has brought about concerns about what journalists are doing, what media organizations are doing. 1984, November 1st, we are 33 years away from it. It was one of the most shameful periods of Indian journalism, not that over the subsequent 10 years of how the violence was covered and how the government was actually held to account it wasn't. The questions that we are seeing today, through the 80s and the early 90s and I've studied the reportage of that period, while the probes in Delhi were going astray were being manipulated by the government were being thrown off, much of the media preferred to look away because at that time it would be anti-national to see the six as victims of something that had been perpetrated because there was violence in Punjab, there was separatism to be looking at these issues. It was never explicitly stated but it happened. So we are not in a new paradigm, what has happened is that we've seen phenomenon occur, the scale is much bigger and I think the question we have to look at it, why are we, where we are now. It was not as if we can go back to some golden age which did not exist. There was a certain kind of editorial bias that exists simply because a lot of journalists like to second guess what people in power want, whether it is the editor, whether it is the owner, whether it is the government of the day. Then I was in Tehalka where I saw myself how an early promise deteriorated very rapidly. The problem with that was I think a huge number of people in civil society knew how wrong things in Tehalka were for almost six or seven years before they called it out. Advertisers had started walking in when we had stories on them. The stories would get killed and the advertisements would appear on the front page. I was personally witness to it before I left that organization. I've seen what happens when we built our own biases which are editorial, I've seen what happens when we built our biases that have to do with advertising, then we have biases to do with ownership. And I would suggest that far more than even the question of advertising in the context of the Indian media, it is today ownership that is a real problem. The owners are in a position where they are following their influence for various things. Their closeness to government and big business is actually what is controlling media mostly today. This government is uniquely placed to exploit a scenario that already exists in journalism. And these are the problems that today we are facing time and again. Either journalists themselves are second-guessing themselves. See because for all that we may talk about jingoism, the fact is yesterday we saw one of our most jingoistic channel. A few days ago Gaurav Sarvanth had a military jacket and he was talking about surgical strikes. But yesterday when evidence came up in front of that channel of an encounter kill, that channel had to run with that evidence. It is almost impossible in that race to completely suppress evidence that comes about. Most of the times what happened with the surgical strike? It was a situation where we did not have people on the ground. We did not have any way of knowing what had happened or not happened. It was easy to control the media. What I am saying is that in this case it was an anonymous video shot by somebody. In another case it may be a small media house that has carried a report. For all our problems, for all our concerns with big media, occasionally as long as what Paranjala was saying, there are ways in which we can get together, create pockets of information and put them out. There will be ways in which we can go and make a difference. But on the larger scale of things the problems I have outlined are exacerbated by this government, its ideology and its leadership. And I do not see any easy way of breaking it.