 The way this business works and can work for Indian company to go global is that the same content is amortized many times. You produce a lot of featured content for which people are ready to pay and there is no journalistic compromise out there because you are reporting about a hotel, about a tourist destinations, about a product and services. Third, the subscription revenue is very, very good. Provided you have people who are ready to subscribe you thinking that you are unbiased. For a long time, people in Middle East thought CNN is unbiased, but the CNN view of the world, of our world, which is not true. Going in favor of RT, I think most of the Indians believe the RT's outlook to the CNN problem. Most of the Indians believe like that. It's certainly very articulate. Yeah, very articulate. They're fun to work. However, yeah, they're fun to work. However, it does not work because the voice of the CNN or the BBC in manufacturing consent to what the Western world wants to do is far higher. If an Indian company goes, and as you rightly pointed out, that we have not been a colonizer, but we have been doing business with the rest of the world for over 10,000 years, right? So we know our view of the world would be probably more pluralistic than the what the international channels are currently beaming to. Very, very interesting. And that is vitally more profitable because more and more people would be able to accept the Indian viewpoint than the current existing channel with all respect to RT. And the most interesting takeaway from our Vinash's statement is that international broadcast without borders is less about popularity in the conventional TRP sense of the term, more about credibility. So the credibility in the branded will itself attract advertisements or sponsorships. That is a very interesting angle because, you know, as they say, sometimes good economics is good politics. So sometimes, hopefully, good journalism is good money. Rohit, you're hopeful on that? I think there isn't a way around it. I do not know anything else. So the network that we're building is based entirely on that concept that I think we do not have something to sell just as India. I think we want to go out and produce a network that is viable to start with and be a multi-platform. And we want to build a network that really makes sense for a lot of people. Which reminds me, Breaking News, is there a brand name yet? Wow, I will tell you in a few months. Stand by. Thank you so much for all the panelists. Anna and Avinash and Dr. Rawad and Saurabh and Rohit for making this interesting. I do think there is room for a question or two from the audience. I don't see faces in, you know, we feel like I'm on the Oscars stage or something. We'll take just about two questions. Requested to please raise your hands and identify the company that you represent and the panelists that you would like to ask your question. Before we do have, I have a couple of questions. Avinash, you said, of course, you'd be talking about, you're the person on this panel who knows about the business of news. And you also understand how important it is to have an India perspective on a global platform. And you also mentioned that in terms of economics, it may be, you know, kind of challenging. How, what is the solution to something like this? And maybe then I'll ask Anna to kind of validate how Russia TV kind of countered that. See, globally, the format of broadcast is very different than what currently exists in India. Any international channel, if that's exactly what I said that if your viewpoint marries with the kind of opinion that people are carrying, there are high likely chances that people will subscribe to you, but that revenue would not be sufficient for you to run the channel in that market. And hence, in the rest of the market, all over the world, particularly in Europe and America, where the cable distribution market is far more developed than in India, you will have these cable operators selling local advertising and catering to the local consumer. While the feed is international, the advertising is very local, and that's how this model is going to work in the rest of the world. It is not going to work from advertising being feeded either from Russia or from UK or from India. So can we expect ABP to get into this scenario soon? We have no such plans right now. No such plans. And how did you, how do you manage to stay afloat, Anna? Well, we're publicly funded, which is actually very interesting to be here and to hear criticism of just the model of paid news because I don't get to hear that a lot from a lot of the criticism, rather from a lot of the events that I go to because normally there's criticism of any kind of state subsidized funding versus the private model. So it's actually very illuminating. But the reality is news is expensive. There is a way to monetize it. RT does some of it, but it's basically it's a drop in the bucket. We're not an expensive operation. It's actually, we have a budget that's much smaller than a lot of our competitors. But at the end of the day, I'd say that there is nothing wrong with publicly funded international news organization because we are providing a public good. It doesn't necessarily have to be within its own kind of national broadcasting landscape, but on a larger scale, the audience doesn't need to buy into your point of view as your one point of view, but yours completes the much broader kind of spectrum of points of view and you really just need to trust the audience and we're serving the audience by providing a real diversity to the news offering. Right, thank you. Which reminds me, BBC is public funded and CNN also, if I'm not mistaken, in its early days before it became part of Time Warner, did get some seed funds. Rohit, how about you? I can just go on and on. Any questions here? Rohit, what do you have to say about publicly funded news organizations and would Z have an intention of getting into something like this? You know, I worked for publicly funded broadcasters, but then the line between the church and state was very, very harsh. It wasn't a soft line. I worked for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When came Iraq, the CBC stood against the wishes of the government of Canada to go into Iraq. And so if the public broadcaster can maintain its credibility, can maintain its independence, yes, sure. But if it becomes just a mouthpiece, it's paid news by the government then. By the way, that's how Justin Trudeau got elected. And that's how Justin Trudeau got elected. Yeah, absolutely. You know, it's very important. Public broadcasting can play a big role, but those countries have to do it. As far as Z is concerned, do you think they can come into the picture? I don't think a network like ours would ever go in for public funding. I think we believe in staying on the track we are and we want to be global. We want to make sure that we reach out to as many parts of the world as we can. Thanks, Rohit. And before I go to Rishi from Milap, who's been handling the international news for his newspaper, one last question, Dr. Awad. You mentioned about Al Jazeera shutting down. Of course, we all are aware of that in the United States. And you also mentioned how they have a biased perspective about what is happening in the Middle East. So what, according to you, made them shut down considering that they had popular opinion going there? I think they are the better person to tell you because definitely they will not tell you the inside story. But from the way they gather the news, the way the intention of building a public opinion has really created a kind of worries around the world because the problem that people don't understand the language we speak, the Arabic and the English. So what you see in the English, it's far much better than any other channel. It's a big challenge. They have, you know, you're having a person like Al Jazeera, the Amir sending $100 million annually to a channel to run. I mean, Al Jazeera correspondent, he used to get $1,000 per day in Afghanistan. I used to get $50 on my channel. So you see the difference. So this is how it is carried on, that they have an agenda. And that agenda is worried the American. Many of the Arab countries stop them also because they had an agenda. So that's the whole point. Is she? Yeah, my question is actually for all the panelists. Where do you see the future of news broadcasting going, especially with news curation becoming the new thing now? Even in terms of video now, with smart TVs coming in, news curation is the big thing. Actually, you can actually choose what kind of news you want and the sources will automatically be defined by that curation agency or the company which is doing it. So how do you see in this kind of a scenario the future of news channels, et cetera? I can tell you in one tweet-like sentence, for all you know, the algorithm might be the future editor-in-chief, you know. But you know, ultimately, it's coming down to choices. But I still feel that social media will drive people towards some common ground, because human beings like to stay connected as a community. So we will have a churn in which some credible brands will emerge, in which algorithms may offer choices, but some faces and some voices will remain brand names of credibility. Can I just add? I think you cannot take away the human connect. So while as he rightly said, the algorithms and technology, yes, will be the defining power or force, but you will have those journalists who can actually pick that curated content, which is the right content, which is going to go viral, which you think that is relevant for your core audience. That is not going to go away. I think that is the key. Okay, I have, you know, globally, even after 15 years of multiple conferences all over the world, saying TV is dead, TV is still alive and kicking, and television, increasingly after the invasion of digital medium to communicate and mix people, television will always, live television will always work. So live news and live sports will always be watched on television. Even if you want to watch JNU protests today, you will go to YouTube if you have not watched it that day and you have already not known what happened there. But if JNU protest is happening today, large number of people would be going today on the television channel to watch it. So live television, I think will continue, live news reporting will continue to flourish. And to give you an example, another example from United States, which is a far more developed market than anywhere else in the world, as far as television is concerned, Fox News today delivers 20% of the top line of entire Fox network. No news channel in India contributes that amount of money in any of the network. And that's where the future is. That also explains Donald Trump. That's all. Here is my challenge with curation. One of the biggest problems with armchair journalism, not being out there reporting the story, is you'll always get what we call a homophilist story, which means you always want to sound exactly like the other guy you heard it from, which means you've not gone out yourself. And that whole idea of news, curation also then involves aggregation. And this aggregation in itself is gonna kill the business in many ways. People won't be getting out there, spending the money to cover news. At some level, we all must take responsibility and say this curation based on aggregation is not the model going forward. It's going to kill the quality of content you're gonna get. You will not get independent views and that's not the way forward. There's still some job for journal editors to do. Can I just, sorry, Anna. It's a very important, very important question. I think this is the crux of the problem. We traditionally, all tradition broadcasters have not really transformed ourselves into the new media. What you are seeing today has been built up 20 years ago. In the 80s and 90s, this is the result now. What Rohit is starting a program, it's a novel, it's a challenge. Where you will have a broadcasting without borders or a global network, it's a very well work in case. You take in consideration the new generation of this youth people who are the potential population and have knows the value of technology. If you implement it in the old traditional way, you have to find the mechanism to make it public and to make it more popular because news channel, anywhere in the world, it will be doomed unless and until you have the people who contribute and basically nobody wanted to pay for the news. Everybody wanted to pay for a soap opera or something on the other. That's why the other channel entertainment channel makes money, but news channel closed down. And I think in India, which is quite interesting to see, it's a revolution. You have thousands of channel coming up, but down the line in the years to come, there will be lots of segregation. Many will combine together. Many will be out of the scene. But at the end of the day, it's a healthy development and we need to build up now a foundation for the next two decades how to see the news will be in everybody's hand. Thank you, Dr. Awad. Okay, but two channels that are representing here on the panel, Z and ABP have no plans to go global at this point in time. Let's take a dipstick survey, right here. Z is here with a global agenda. Oh, channel is global. You are going to go global as an individual this week. Just to play my job. No, no. It is extremely heartening to know that because the last time I asked you that question, you said that Z is not some... No, no, no. I think there was some... They have been keeping their plans on the wraps if I may come in. Okay. But their agenda is...