 Back in the 950s, it was a different time, a different place, and the media had just come out of the independent struggle, they had that halo, at least the professional part of journalists had that halo being a force for positive change, and the media proprietors had a fairly poor image at that time because they all came out of the Second World War with this stigma of having profiteered through newsprint sales and black market and so on. So in that context you had this Working General's Act introduced, you had significant changes in the legislative framework, one of which at this distance might seem rather kind of odd rather quixotic, it was what is called the price page schedule, which was a way of checking predatory pricing by the larger media enterprises to drive the smaller players out of business. The logic was very clear that the big players had access to the ad markets and they could subsidize the selling price using the ad leverage that they have with the advertisers. Advertising does not qualify as free speech, advertising is commercial speech, so editorial news coverage can claim that protection, but advertising cannot. There are specific circumstances in which it is legitimate to restrict what can be said and how it is said through advertising. 1994-95, that equilibrium begins to be upset by cutthroat price competition and the competition devalues editorial again because it makes newspapers more dependent upon advertising to support the bottom line. This is the competition which we stepped into the globalization era of the 1990s onwards. Now what is the catch here? The catch here is that all these are priced at virtually zero. The information content itself is not valued and the entire bottom line is supported by advertising and through the 90s, accelerating through the early years of this century, you had enormous degree of concentration in the global market for advertising. In 2001, we had a very big debate here in India about foreign direct investment in the newspaper industry because events in the other media were all taking the shape of a future conflict. Things were being done without any form of regulatory process or any kind of policy thinking going on. So you had by default rampant growth of cable and satellite television that was completely unregulated and based upon principles of ownership which till today remain completely opaque. Now if you look at some of the ownership patterns of the major news channels that you can plan upon for your prime time blows of noise and hyperbole, you don't know, you don't know who owns that and whose agenda they are serving. In 2001, after the bitter competitive war between the times of India, the anti-FDI voices got relatively subdued and they allowed foreign direct investment up to a certain percentage of the total equity. 100% FDI was allowed in advertising agencies and in market research. So you were having this small patch of territory called the print media which is trying to heroically hold up the national flag and say we are the last readout of the true nationalist sentiment. All around the territory is being colonized by foreign capital. I think the dynamic of the advertising driven by a fairly compromised and corrupt market research process is driving the destruction of diversity in our media.