 Looking more into the details that what kind of the issues could be fails by mental health professional while using the media. While interacting with media, mental health professionals have to consider many ethical issues, like social responsibilities. This is very important to understand that we are socially responsible for whatever the content we are producing on media. Then competence. The competence level, whatever it is, should be clearly indicated. Conflict of interest, if there is any kind of conflict of interest, it should be openly declared. The public image of helping professionals. For instance, it is very important that if one public mental health professional is not going to give a good image on media, that may also harm the image of many other mental health professional. So it's a responsibility of one single person to maintain the decorum of their community on the web media. Media portrayal of mental health professional and researchers. Since today we see that a lot of public appearances are shown in different TV channels, in different public and private media sections, where psychologists, psychotherapists, and psychiatrists are invited to talk about any issues. Society clearly benefits when practitioners, educationists, social and behavioral researchers, they actively disseminate relevant information that teaches and enlightens. So it is important that we talk and bring the segments of different society on one page and discuss things from religious, social, psychological aspects so that there is a learning process in society. Yet unfortunately, some within the ranks may fail to inform responsibly or even misinform. But if there are no learners, no experts, then at times talking to them on social media forums, maybe instead of good information, it becomes a source of misinformation and a lot of young individuals, new learners, learn something that is not correct. Miss guidance can occur sometimes unintentionally when the journalist or producers add an interview or interjects in such situations, the data interpretation is frequently incorrect. Let me give you an example. So this is something which at times unknowingly giving the wrong meaning that in a question's answer, its content is not aligned. So this is something which we call out of context, which is attached to a question. Generally, we see the mimicry of politicians on social media. We catch a question somewhere else and attach the answer to something else. But this is something which at times being happened unknowingly. So there because psychology is a very sensitive subject, this kind of copy-paste material may create a very strange kind of situation in which true content keeps going. A misinformation starts going to the viewers. Miss information might be intentionally separate as well. Now we cannot undermine the aspect that misinformation will only go wrong. It can be intentional as well as authors who are also mental health experts and their publishers want to sell more books than a sober and reasons presentation of the fact would be compromised. Now if you want to make a psychological interview, a psychological phenomenon very sensational and produce it, like we are often seeing in morning shows that the content of psychology is produced in a sensational way. I was very surprised to see and you may be as well, when you see that in a morning show, in an exhaustive process, an Amil is sitting with a psychologist who is talking about how this will come out. So this is something which leads the viewers towards a very wrong image of a psychology and a psychotherapy. So we need to be very mindful in producing any such kind of the impact which basically ruined the very content and very purpose of this very discipline which is very respectable and prestigious. Distortions of psychotherapeutic diagnostic and research concepts. Now this is very important to understand that sometimes the portrayal of successful therapy in media focus on trauma and dramatic emotional breakouts in a way that grossly misinterprets the actual process. Here I would like to give you an example of movies and dramas which are different concepts of psychology, different guidelines of psychotherapy and there are a lot of abnormal behaviors in the reference of personality disorders. Basically on its impact, on its drama, on its story's sensational parts, there is a lot of focus on how the psychotherapy has actually helped to negate it. And the true symptoms are also not given at times and the diagnosis given by the help of different harsh, harsh symptoms at times is unrealistic. Legitimate research results when cited by a journalist often seem selected on the basis of curiosity or controversy rather than scientific quality or significance. So keeping the same stance, if we portray these things by giving them the isolated or minor findings like we have presented the four or five symptoms of abnormal behavior and one or two drama or movie makers put them on their own. The student of psychology would be confused to give a proper diagnosis to that case which we saw in a movie or drama. And then how a layman, a person is dealing to that case as a psychologist may also lead towards a very misinformation and towards leading a wrong conclusion. So in those cases, we really need to be very careful to provide all these things with the correct kind of evidence support so that it is a misinformation where the web readers or newsreaders should not.