 I think digital has changed journalism in two ways, two very fundamental ways. The first is how we distribute the content that we make. So primarily we use to distribute content via radio and television. As the internet came along, increasingly we distributed via websites as well. And now you've got the next generation of digital products, primarily social media and apps, which allow alternatives to distribution as well. And we keep learning about how we can best use them. But it goes deeper than that, because the way you distribute your content starts to shape the content you make, because what works on Facebook may not work on Twitter, may work on Instagram, but may or may not work on the television. And so what we're having to do is approach a story with a number of different mediums in mind and then make informed decisions about what form a story should take in which medium, whether it's TV, radio or any number of different digital arenas. And so what perhaps started off as a distribution issue is now becoming actually completely fundamental to the nature of our journalism. I think aggregation is right at the centre of the digital experience and whether content produces like it or not. Actually what we're all doing on social media is aggregating the things that we want and when we go on to social media to look for stories, for instance, we're looking through an aggregation of content that's been created by our network of friends and colleagues and people that we know online. So aggregation as an activity in the digital arena is absolutely central and it's not going anywhere. There are clearly issues if a website is pulling together a lot of content that it hasn't produced and then presenting it and then making a profit off it, but that's when media regulation comes in. Each country will have its own approach to what can and can't be done. I think the example of Google News is an informative one though. When Google News started a lot of content producers were outraged about what it was doing, but actually Google News survived and now is an essential way of delivering traffic onto content producers' websites. So for me aggregating is central to how people are going to consume news. Clearly you can't have any individual or company illegally making money off someone else's content. That's about regulation but so long as it's within the rules, aggregation is going to be right at the heart of the way that we all consume news but we also distribute it as well. I don't think I would say that a group of two people or five people is going to be a threat to an organisation the size of the BBC. I think what we do at the BBC and what that group of people might be doing are two quite different things. What I think is certainly true is that there is now a greater variety of sources on any story that you are covering. There is big legacy established media like BBC News. There's big recently established media like an organisation like Vice or Huffington Post and then there are lots of individuals who may not even consider themselves journalists but are sharing information that's relevant to the stories that you're covering. I think increasingly the big beast if you like, I don't just mean BBC News are competitors as well, are understanding that it's time to acknowledge the contribution all of those smaller operators are making when we look at my show Outside Source. It's called Outside Source because it combines the best that we have inside the BBC with the best of the rest of the information that's out there and as such I don't see individuals or small groups of people who are producing journalism or just simply sharing experiences and content as a threat. I actually see that as a huge opportunity for us to improve the accuracy and the breadth of our coverage. I'm not sure I'd be so bold as to tell India media companies what to do. I also think you need to be very careful about generalising about revenue models that work. People might be prepared to download a TV show that they want to keep and watch multiple times with their family. If it's news they might not want to download it, they might just want to see it then and there and so if you want to make money off that content perhaps you're going to have to put some advertising around that or apply a subscription model. So I think the first thing to do is don't believe any generalisations about media consumption or any generalisations about business models. There is no single business model that works. There is no single approach to distributing content that works. You've got to look at the product you've got, the best means you have of distributing that content to the audience. Once you've decided that by all means work out how to monetise it but you need to go through this step by step by step and think about the product you're making, the way you want to distribute it, then start applying revenue considerations but whatever you do, don't go looking at other media which aren't like yours and draw in conclusions. This is an incredibly fluid situation and the best thing you can possibly do is look at lots of different examples, try and learn different lessons from different organisations' experiences and then apply it to your own and come up with a unique strategy for you which hopefully in time will pay dividends.