 Thank you so much, Ms. Sangh, for joining us. You know, again, a month back we celebrated the, you know, your journey in the TV journalism world lifetime achievement award. I want to start with that one question that when you look back at the journey and how TV has evolved over a period of time, what changes do you see in the biggest shifts in the newsroom that have occurred over, you know, maybe a couple of decades? So, I mean, that's a long journey. So I think what has changed in television newsrooms, I think the most important change has been that journalism is no longer limited to one medium. So I think, in fact, when we talk about television news, I think we realize now that news cannot be put into the boundary of the screen you're watching it on. And I think the best news stories are the ones that transcend that. So, for instance, the screen or the TV, in a sense, can be a front page of a newspaper. It can be the home page of a website. And it can be your mobile screen. And it could be a television screen, but is it cable or smart TV? So I think those are the different challenges. But I think what remains essential is the core, which is what's the headline. You'll find that any good editor, you'll come and give them a brief for a story and it can ramble into 10 minutes. But any good editor will cut you short and say, what's the headline? And I think that's really the point of it, that what is the one piece of information you're giving the viewer, the reader, the online, whatever netizen that they don't know already. And I think if your story doesn't have that, you need to go back and try again. So I think that's really different. But I think the various things you have to compete with being a video journalist, being a print journalist, being a television journalist is very, can be daunting for newcomers. But I think if they realize that basically it's about the basic, how good your story is, that would help. And that's the biggest change you're seeing in newsrooms around you now. That no newsroom is limiting itself anymore to being just television or just print or just digital, it's integrating. So you'll hear integration and convergence as the big buzzword now for the next years ahead. You know, one other thing that we often hear about television is that television is toxic, there is no news. It's just an amplification medium. How do you respond? I mean, how would you respond when people label television as these? I think the biggest enemy of television news has been television itself. So I think I do have to say that I would agree with many people who feel that there is some element of television has become toxic. It began with what was quite new to Indian television about, say, 15 years ago, the talk format. And when it began, it was exciting. It seemed to be a situation. And at NDTV, we were lucky that we had a situation where even the prime minister had joined to debate once on the big fight. We had Mr. Arun Jaitley and Mr. Kapil Sibal who often would agree to come and debate with each other on any of our shows. So those were times when you had people of political gravitas and intellect which would have very strong opinions of their own but would also have the dignity and the intellect. I think, again, this boils down to the intellect of listening to another person's point of view, of accepting that this person who is debating with me is not necessarily someone who is my enemy. But I think after talk TV evolved or we had an outbreak of channels and very different politics at some point coming in as well, that it became about a political enmity and that I actually won't confine that to politics. It became about who scores the most points. My point of view is better than your point of view and it's who can shout louder. And once that fueled into what I would really say is toxic is a toxic TRP system, it just became worse and it spiraled out of control. So I think that is a problem television news has faced. It's a problem television news has to fix. I think there is some realization of that happening now and I hope there will be a change and the change will come really from the people who are watching when they say that we feel this is not what we want to watch on our screens. I'll ask you two more questions. I want to throw this forum open. What is your view on ratings? Well, as you know that NDTV's exited ratings, I mean, it's not necessarily a permanent decision but we do feel that the ratings have limited journalism and I do think that this I've said earlier as well. I think journalism because I mean, again, I don't limit to television. I think journalism is something which is at the end of the day for public interest and you cannot have public interest being rated in as if it's a Bollywood film at a box office. At the end of the day, it's not only about what you feel that people want to know but what they should know. So I think, and that again is where I think the roles of editors plays a very important role in a newsroom or in any newspaper or any online site because eventually when you, why would you watch say NDTV or India Today or Times Now was another channel? You're watching it for an editorial point of view. And I think that is something which is extremely critical. I think that's what separates one TV channel from the other. I think that is what had for NDTV was a major differentiator. So I think the TRPs kind of flattened that out. It became all about entertainment and it became as is the toxicity, I think was linked to TRPs in many ways. But I think that hopefully will change. Again, I feel in TRPs, it cannot be a monopoly system. You cannot have a ratings agency which is just one for such a, it's a multi-crow industry. So you need to have more ratings agencies and you need to have much, much more transparency. I mean, the same standards we demand from politicians, from government is the standards we should demand from agencies which say that they determine what India watches. I mean, as I think Sukumar, at the point there's no one India and no one agency can determine what India watches. Absolutely. My final question, recently we saw this banning, a by-courting of 14 anchors and there was a lot of backlash on that. Do you think that is, there could be a better way of dealing with a non-cooperative media or I mean, there's a better way of doing this than by-courting anchors? No, of course. I mean, firstly, why should media be cooperative? In the sense, no, no. Not in that sense. I mean, they could have done it in a different way, yes. I absolutely am against boycotts in any form. I said, I do feel at the end of the day that we do have courts, you do have other ways to address if you feel an anchor is crossing a line. I mean, I don't support boycotts in any form of any anchors. Okay, let's open this to some questions, okay. Those who have not asked questions here, please. Yes, please. Good morning. I will also mention, TV is being toxic. Do you think digital media will replace one day TV media? And second question is, you talk about convergence, TV media, digital media. Is it because the TV is being taken as toxic elements to the TV media want to attract digital media audience? Or they are, I mean to say, are they forcefully doing it? Or they want to explore in that section also? See, again, when we say TV, I don't want to generalize. I don't think all TV is toxic. I'm part of a television, I'm very proud of it. But I do think that there were very toxic elements which emerged which we need to fix. And we need to fix it urgently before viewers lose faith in the medium. Television and, I mean, toxicity sadly can transcend any medium. So you can have digital media which is toxic. What worries me about digital is the fact that I think we're creating many echo chambers. People will watch only the anchor they like or the view they agree with. And I think that's really, really dangerous for any democracy and especially there's only young people for young people. Because this is the time when you need to explore, when you need to explore different ideologies where you need to look differentially in fact and fiction. Really, that has to be the key thing. Now if you're listening only news can't be a playlist. So it can't be just what you'd like to hear. And I think that that's one of the issues that with YouTube that we see many, many journalists who have extremely loyal fan following. I mean, it's almost like political fan followings and they will follow them. And if anything is said by that journalist, it is truth whether it's X or Y. There's no challenging. You have to have the same challenging perspective whoever you're watching. It can be somebody who's very senior. It can be somebody who's very junior. So I don't like that thing of digital where it's become about that you don't need editors, you don't need two points of view, you don't need three points of view, you need only my point of view. I think that is something which is in digital is not great. In fact, young people should use digital to listen to a diversity of views, especially views you don't like because that makes you think. I have one further question. Ma'am, it is said that at least in digital media there is clear cut he's from left, he's from right. But in frontline media or you can say in TV media, there is an envelope. That envelope is covering that he's not from any side but they are biased, it is a type of allegation. Do you don't think that this differentiate between the digital media and the TV media? I don't think so. I don't think that you have to declare allegiance. Why does it have to see every person in this room will have a personal bias? They will vote for someone or the other. The point is that are those biases reflected in the professional work? So I think that's, I mean, it can be anybody, it could be a journalist of course, but it can be somebody who's a doctor, it can be somebody who's a policeman, it can be someone, do those biases reflect the professional life? Can the viewers see the bias? That's the problem. If the viewer feels that this person is biased because of his personal views or personal affiliation, that is an issue. But hopefully viewers are smart enough to know and if they feel and we've seen that also that if there is some journalist who's seen as bias, there is a backlash. So I don't think that will change on digital or television or that in digital it's all right if the person declares allegiance. The point is journalists should not have political allegiances in their professional lives. Personal allegiances, of course, many journalists have it. I'm added to a politician. So that is a separate issue, but the point is does their work reflect that? Thank you ma'am. Okay. Okay. Anand, our colleague from Samacha for media, yes. Hello ma'am. Hello. Anand Parashar from Samacha for media. Ma'am, the challenges that are currently facing TV are from social media and digital platforms. One thing that comes to mind and it seems like the news channel is not that serious because it's fake news. Because in social media, things are spread very quickly. And in TV, there are many big programs, there are many big interviews, their small clips are viral. And until there is a clarification, it is reached to millions of people. So in this direction, how is NDTV working? And in the coming days, how are we going to face these challenges? In editorial, how do we face these things? That at least not with NDTV programs? No, that's a good point. Actually, most of the NDTVs are fake surveys that come from opinion polls. That's really because of the NDTV credibility in that area. So usually, the focus so far has been on fake news in the newsroom. So you know how to make sure, because especially as you know that often viral videos come. So straight away, the newsroom wants to put it on air that this is an earthquake somewhere or this has happened here. But we have seen in some situations, especially in 10 situations like riot situations or communal situations, putting fake videos on air has very, very real consequences. So our real focus has been on how to fix fake videos, fix meaning make sure that they don't get on air. That has been our big worry. We haven't really looked at whether NDTV clips are being misused on digital media. As soon as we get to know of it, of course, we issue statement, legal rights, but it hasn't been a major focus yet because the big worry has been how to stop fake videos from going on air. Okay, yes, please. We have 10 minutes. So yes, we are going to go. Ma'am, one more question for you. Anandji, sorry, offline. Good morning, ma'am. So my question is that TV media is heavily burdened by advertisements. So whenever we see a channel reporting something, most of the screen is covered with advertisements. So the anchor is at the top of the corner. He is not very much visible and everything is covered with advertisements. So how do you perceive that? I mean, what are your point of views? I mean, that is an economic reality. I think Sukumar will agree with me on that. We all need ads to pay salaries. We need ads to have budgets, news budgets. We need ads for various reasons. So we all tried to be creative about it, so it doesn't actually interfere with the content, but I agree that in some places, it sometimes covers a huge portion of the screen, but it really is something that is an economic model, which until it's fixed, or until we come up with alternative ways. I mean, one way, of course, is subscription, but most people are used or prefer to see their news free. So as long as that is happening, the only model of revenue is actually through advertisements, so there's not much choice left there. And you also see sometimes so many panelists and speaker at a different forum said, this is the Ravan School of Journalism. Anyway. No, the Ravan School is one of the many heads. Many heads, yeah, that's something. Sir, sir, wait a minute. I'll come to you. I'll come to you. Hello, ma'am. This is Pankaj Sharma from Samarcha for Media. A small question, ma'am, whether it's an artificial anchor or it's an anchor in the newsroom, their use is increasing. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. AI anchors that are currently used in newsrooms. So what do you see as an anchor in the form of a challenge or an anchor in the form of an anchor? What do you mean by that? No, I think it's interesting, but I don't think an AI anchor can ever replace a real anchor, but I think it's interesting. It's an interesting model. It's an interesting gimmick for now. Let's see how it unfolds. AI, of course, can be used in newsrooms, but it has to be used in newsrooms. But I think it needs a human intelligence as well for the editorial decisions. So, I mean, of course, I think I'm sure it can help in maybe compiling lists and news lists and things like that. But I don't think AI anchors is something we really need. Finally, we've made it for entertainment. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Sonia. I'm a student of Dheeraj. I'm a student of IMC, New Delhi. My name is Dheeraj Kumar. This is a headline from WIRE. I'm it's a Danish takeover. Senior journalist Ravi Kumar resends from NDTV. So, my question is, how far change in ownership of media channels affects the content of news channel? I don't know if I should answer that or you should answer that. All right, let's go to the next one. I just say for any brand, of course, the biggest bonus is credibility. And I'm sure that any management will be looking very carefully at that aspect. But ultimately, the decision of the judge of credibility is not the person in the newsroom, but all of you. Yes, ma'am. See, I think it can be used almost. It will be used much more in a conveyor belt way. So, I think there will be that element of it, of course, that it is efficient. There's a speed. So, it will be incorporated into newsroom operations. But I still believe, and maybe I'm old fashioned, that in journalism, it is the individual which makes the difference still. I mean, all of you will have individual journalists, individual bylines, individual stories, which is something which is really premium. And I think in a world where AI can replace a lot of things, I think individuality is something which hopefully isn't, I know it's on its way that AI can even mimic individual characteristics, but the original will still be better. So, it will be a challenge. It will be a challenge, especially for young people coming in. But I think that's where it's extremely important for passion, commitment, dedication, the willingness to go the extra mile for young people which will prove crucial now. Hello. Ma'am. You asked. Yes, yes. So, we are waiting for our honorable governor. He'll be here in next 10, 16 minutes as said. So, we can stretch it. Okay. Hello ma'am. We can get our Sukuma Rappas as well. Yes, sir. We can get other people out. No, no, that will be actually. Sukuma, don't relax. Let's get, please, I was in fact thinking if we could do now an open forum, since we have 15 minutes, I would request you to join us, sir. You had lots of people. Can we get one more chair? Yeah. Yes, please, yeah. I just wanted to say something actually, which I know, Roehler kindly asked you for a keynote, which I didn't have time to do. But one thing I think which we need to look at very seriously in the next years ahead is the democratization of newsrooms. I think we've seen that it's happening in politics. It's happening in society. But I think in media newsrooms, especially English newsrooms, we have failed on that aspect. And I really do feel that this is the time when we need to look self-interest-spec on how we reflect the aspirations of rapidly changing India with its opportunities and challenges and see how we get the voices and the journalists to be much more representative of that India. I think we still find in newsrooms, especially in English TV newsrooms, business newsrooms, that they come mainly from the big cities like Delhi, Mumbai, maybe some from Bangalore. So I think that is the next big challenge that newsrooms need to face to stay relevant. So I think that's what, and I'm very happy with IIMC that I see students coming from all over. So I'd love to see those applications much more, but not only IIMC, because there are many, many students can't get in to such a prestigious institute. So how we broad-based is something which is very important for all of us editors to think about. Okay, sir, I have two questions. One is, is TRP being purchased? First question, second question. I don't know whether you will be able to answer it or not. Because TRP only in the TV news or the electronic media, not on the print media. I've not seen any TRP on the print media. First question, second question, like in the print media, if you see the first page on the political, second miscellaneous, then third-party criminal crime, and then sports pages are there. Similarly, the TV channels, they should have a menu, sports, tourism, like that, that should be the menu. Oh, this tourism, I can see on that. Health, I will see at that time. Sure, so that's a suggestion. You can get that on websites, on television, it's a bit harder. On TRP is being purchased, well, NDTV is not buying, so that's all I'll say. All right, yes. Hello, ma'am, hello, sir. Actually, my question is that, what's the actual need for opinion or exit polls? Like, is it actual news for the general public or just for the likability factor? Just why you want to ask that, does it influence the general public's interest or decisions while voting? No, I mean, the current form in which polling is done in this country, there's very little, there's zero scope of it influencing the outcome of elections. That was your question, right? Do opinion polls, right? And everyone wants to know who's going to win, who's going to lose. I mean, this is not unique to this country. Opinion polling is like, I mean, it's an age-old, established, universal thing that everyone wants to know. I mean, all over the world. Have you seen the kind of coverage that goes around the US presidential election? I mean, there are websites that spring up with just like do nothing else for an entire year, right? So I think it's legitimate journalism. What I find especially interesting about it is it's become much more sophisticated now. It's become much more broad-based now. There are agencies that are using really high-end mathematical techniques now. And of course, websites, TV channels, I've started using really interesting graphical representations of this. What's not to like? It's good fun. Hello. I see a lot of fans raising with this gentleman here. Okay. I'll come to you, I'll come to you. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Saksham and I am a student as well. So my question was that like, for example, there's a media house which works in like focus on law. So, and if that media is just focusing on digital platform, so what can that little media do exactly to be successful enough? Because there's a lot of competition going on. Sorry. There's a media platform which focuses only on law. So how does it work? Law. How can that work? Yes. Okay. Yes, exactly. And how will they be? Successful enough because there's a lot of competition. For example, you said How can you stand out? How can... Define success. To be recognized. Because... There are two big entities of the sort that you mentioned in this country. Both are very well recognized. Both are, I mean, live law and bar and bench. How do you define success? You can define success in, ultimately, because all of these are businesses. The only way to define success is profitability. Right? So, and I guess both of them are adequately profitable because they keep hiring people. One of them poached my legal editor two years back, which means, you know, they must be capable of paying fairly decent salaries, right? And the thing is, these are niche media, right? And the only challenge that you have with niche media is your definition of success cannot be... Cannot be disproportionate, right? So even if you were to move outside of law, if you look at startups, for instance, there are these websites like Ken and Morning Contact, which do a lot of interesting work, they'll probably be profitable at a certain level, but they're never going to be as large as, let's say, any TV, right? So, yeah, I mean, you just have to redefine your... So your runway is probably a maximum of $8, $10 million. It's not going to be higher than that. And I'm speaking in terms of revenue. I'm not speaking in terms of anything else. So we just have to do that. I think what's interesting with live law on these other things is that they identified a gap in the market. And I thought that was interesting, that they're looking at something, they say there's a lot of interest in it. Media is not really representing this enough. So I thought that's an interesting space to look at, that if somebody's mad, like, you know, about elections, I know people, Prawnoy Roy, the founder of NDTV was obsessed with elections. So it's always nice to take an obsession and turn it into something which people respect. So I think that is very important. So I think in that sense, I'm not a business journalist, like Sukumar also profits, is always something that has to be drummed into me. But I think they've managed to, you know, fulfill their passion or their commitment. And I think that's really something which is quite laudatory in today's world. But for example, like... Are you working with them or are you applying to them? Because then we can discuss that later. Actually, I'm working under law opinion and I'm the CEO of it. Me and my colleagues have started it just recently this year. That's a law website. Yes, a website. And we do also have the print media, but yeah. So it's like, we've just started, we've just taken out the first edition. Oh, forward to you. Yeah, great. Thank you so much, sir. That's great to do that while you're a student. He has one more question, okay? Yeah. So, sir, earlier you said that TV media has weaknesses and one of the weaknesses are that they are not covering the whole nation, the news covering the whole nation. So why not the other media houses do that to cover the whole news? Because I think that this can be a factor for being success. Yeah, I mean, there are enough people who do that. What I was telling you was that typically TV gets obsessed with the big story, right? So previously when you used to look at any news, you had a wide variety of news, both geographically wide and thematically wide, which has now got significantly restricted. So if you look at big stories that are playing out, they're just like one story that keeps playing on loop. And you know, everything else is either not covered at all or not mentioned. Your question is why are the others not doing it? The reason, and again I mentioned this, the reason why TV doesn't go broad and wide in this country is because of an economic reason, right? I mean, it's just very difficult to have a TV channel that covers every corner of this country using, you know, cameraman and videos and everything else. And then, you know, it's just far too expensive. It's far easier, it's much more economically viable to have the talking head format of journalism. Isn't it? It is cheaper. Well, you know, it falls into that same kind of TRP model because again, if you're, I don't know, TRPs are measured by boxes. Now if your boxes are in certain geographies, so Mrs. Bombay will have many more, or Mumbai will have many more boxes than say a Sam. So then it presumed the logic, then translates, you do more news out of Bombay and less out of a Sam. Now if you're going to follow this logic in a newsroom that you only do news which will get more viewers, it is going to be something which will tilt your editorial balance or your editorial width, breadth of your coverage. So I think that is something again, which there are many, many questions about the current TRP model. And I'm a big dissing that when we look at the BBC model and the UK may not be the ideal one, but I do think we need to enter a phase in India where we look at journalism almost as an essential service and then cannot be kept with all the same pressures and pulls of also being a profitable business. There has to be some kind of a rethink on the revenue models. And I think for television especially, the revenue models currently are very, very faulty. Thank you, thanks. Okay, okay. You have asked already one question. Yes, please. Yeah, okay, Mike. Hello. Actually the revenue models are faulty for everyone at this point in time. Hello? Yes, please go on. I mean it doesn't work for anyone. I can't hear you. Yeah, we can hear you. We can hear you. Go on. Sir, I have two questions, sir. One has been asked. Where are you from? Introduction after you. I am Kamle, sir, from AJ, I am C. Sir, I have two questions with me. One has been asked. The other one has been asked. Sir, I have a question. No, no, okay. You are listening, we are listening. He is working, he is working. No, no. Mike is working here. Sir, the question is, sir, that whenever there is a big event in the country, then the new church is going to be seen. Like in the lockdown, when there is a big new channel, there were very few subscribers on YouTube. There were 19 million or 20 million of people. As soon as the lockdown came, now there are 50-50 million. And whatever happens, there is nothing in the public sector. There is something like Seema Hyder's case. That means it is going on for two months. So in this way, I want to know that we are also going to be reporters at the time. There is more competition. So how are we catering that we can financially support ourselves and be able to handle journalism? Both are very complicated. We are not doing such trivial stories, right? You want to answer it, Sonia? So he is saying, like, we run Seema Hyder story for a couple of months and he is at the verge of getting into journalism. How does he save himself from getting into? NDTV didn't cover the Seema Hyder story very much. I was wondering, oh, that's Seema Hyder story, yeah. Like if you go to any, it is a challenge, of course, in media houses for hiring. But I would say that the big issue is if you get a job in a reputed media house, hopefully you would not be covering stories like Seema Hyder all the time. But I know that's difficult. I think in the first two years, just do everything. Do everything, try everything, work harder than anyone else. That really is what is going to make you stand out. The first two years of your journalism life will set your future. So you just have to, at that time, don't say, this is not me, this is not me. Don't just work hard, work hard. Your work will speak for itself and then take a call after at least two years. But give it two years of commitment of passion and dedication and then take your call. And it's very important to also be innovative and imaginative about this. I mean, there is a gentleman here from my organization who's sitting who anchored a page two story and page two stories in Hindustan Times are these gigantic stories on Seema Hyder. We were one of the first newsrooms to cover it and it was a very sensitive story of what was happening. So there are ways in which you can do it. So I think sometimes what happens is, and I often tell people this story from many, many years ago, I will not name the individuals concerned because both are now very famous. So one was a marketing reporter, the other one was a long-form reporter. They used to sit next to each other in my newsroom and I used to work in Mint. And the marketing person got a press release from Pepsi about a new flavor of chips that had been launched. So she looked at it and put it on the table. And then this guy looked at it and said, do you mind if I follow this up? So she said, Mint doesn't cover product releases. So he said, no, I know, but I just want to look at it. So then he reached out to the company. He asked them, how do you decide which flavor to launch? So they put him in touch with one guy who does research on flavors in India. And he did this fabulous 2000 words story on how companies decide what flavors to use for their products in India. So it's just a question of being, so there are stories all around us. Part of your job as a journalist is to identify what is the story and how to tell it. And you are saying that you can also find something that can be a very good story. There's some noise at the back. Can I request everyone to be quiet? And I think if your questions are seen in a different way, then if Seema Haider wouldn't have been in the news, then today in such a big forum, the discussion of the news is not happening. That's the way of looking at it. And sir has already told us, as Sonia Ji also said that, you have to run away from journalism for two years, right? Sir, you said that, right? It will take you two to four years to see that tough life, right? Well, I'd like to take this opportunity. I just received a question and I'd like to quote it. It seems people are seeing more, are being seen more eager to use social media, digital media and short news apps like InShorts. Where do you think the future of print media is going with all this? Nowhere. I mean, like I said, we are the only, first of all, we don't define ourselves as print media, right? I mean, I never say, every time someone asks me, I say I work in a newsroom because we've always done a variety of things. In 2008, for instance, when I was in Mint, I gave every one of my reporters a high definition, handled video camera to shoot videos and post them on the website. Irrespective of whether there is traction or not. I mean, so we, everyone is pretty much a multimedia journalist now. But I think the advantage that print has at this point in time, like I said, is that we seem to be the only people who are investing in journalism and journalists and reporters. Many other newsrooms are not really investing in research. They're not investing in travel. They're not investing in reporters. Their focus seems to be investing in other things, right? And that gives us a natural advantage. It is an advantage that is rapidly drying up because print business models themselves are under challenge. So the question is, how do you sustain a profitable newsroom with revenues coming down? But so print is not going anywhere. First of all, I wouldn't define it as print, right? Journalism is not going anywhere. And I think a lot of us, if you ask Sonia, she's not going to tell you that she's a TV journalist. She's a journalist. Just like I'm a journalist. And 10 years from now, we'll probably still be journalists. Do you mean like politicians will ever retire? Oh, God. I just will take a note from what Sukumar says. I think, again, this whole investing in journalists, and I think that's something that I and Sukumar, of course, and are extremely passionate about. And I think that's why this under 40 is something that we spend our Saturday mornings coming and doing. Because it's so fantastic to see young people who really, I think often, you think, as you asked, young people, nobody cares about young journalists. I think they really are the future and the hope of this profession, I think investing. I think NDTV had become, is still an institute where I know that once they've got the NDTV tag that other television channels have grabbed them within a year at much higher salaries. Yet many of them have stayed on, despite that, because they believe in NDTV. And that's really something which makes us all very happy. And I think the Chief Justice said recently, you can be a good lawyer and a good person. I think that applies in journalism as well. You can be a good journalist and a good person. Our responsibility today is to mentor the next generation. I see so many people sitting here, Tessin, Ankit Priyanshi, many people sitting here, who will go on to do many things. But the point is that the ethical core of a good journalist will never change. That's what we hope good editors can give wherever they are. And that's really, I think, what this whole function about today is. And I think now we should let them have a coffee break. No, one last question. One last question. And we are the Chief Justice, Garmin. One last question. So hi, Sonia and Sukumar. A question on citizen journalism. Can you please introduce yourself? Okay, so this is Anurag Kulstrehta here. Hi, Sonia and Sukumar, we've exchanged some emails also. So a question on citizen journalism. And I mean, why is it that we are kind of, there aren't any forums or platforms in terms of some real happenings and events need to be shared by individuals. And I know most of the channels and you guys look at it more as a topic or a subject. So except for one or two recent platforms like in shorts. So what is it that we can do? How is it we are addressing? Because when you try to reach out to channels, it's not easy. And I've tried myself, including certain stories on crime law and police, et cetera. And when people try to raise voices, et cetera, they bring out the reality. Their phones are hacked and whatnot. So what is it that can be done on that? So citizen journalism, and we just had Elon Musk at the US Mexico border doing citizen journalism. But I have to say that what, the only thing that worries me about citizen journalism is the lack of editorial controls and balances. It had become very popular about five to eight years ago when it became this kind of buzzword and citizen journalism. But there were problems raised with how much of it was on individual interest with the fact that there is no editorial oversight on stories like that. What is the source? What is the motive? What is the reason? It became a bit of a problem, which is not to say that this is, there's been absolutely fantastic citizen journalism done. But I think there is still, we haven't managed to work out a kind of system where there is all the alarm bells taken care of. I'm sure it can be worked out, but it's something that I think newsrooms haven't managed yet. So I'm still a little bit wary of it though. Of course, there are many, many cases where stories would not have come to light or huge exclusive not have happened without citizen journalism. So it's not something which I'm against in any way, but I do think that there are some questions which is why many, some newsrooms stay away from it. Sorry, sorry, sorry. That's it. Oh my God. What do we do with these two questions? Okay. All right. Okay. Please go ahead. Here's another NDTV product. Thank you so much.