 Thank you Wow, so What a panel right? It's it's the one of the most power packed panels that I have seen and When I saw that that I'm going to be Trying to I would say moderate the panel so I reached out to a very senior colleague for help and I said sir you you see the panel and what do you think I should be doing? So he said just moderate with your silence and smiles so I'm going to try that sir and I hope I live up to the expectations But very interesting topic isn't it? It's impacting the entire world It's impacting our lives as we live today The age that we are in the news is has become a very different kind of far to Sometimes people use both dangerous words like weapon Polarized fragmented a lot of things and it's affecting our lives from different ways So I'll start by touching that at a certain level and I'll request Sonia to Start the entire discussion with what do you think or what do you feel? How has news changed in last couple of years? Salil was a very interesting time is a media churn is a news churn on right now And I think what's interesting is that journalism actual journalism matters more than ever before What doesn't matter to me is perhaps the way it's broadcast in a sense I'm happy that journalism is being consumed on your mobile phones on your Computer screens at work on televisions. However, it's consumed because that's actually good for all of us as journalists Because more and more people because much more democratic that way So I think we are in a way where news is much more democratic because it's being told is being picked up It's being told in different languages and it's reaching people much more directly than it has ever before I think why journalism is also important today is because we are seeing that more and more people Want to shut us up or shut us down. However, you want to put it But in both ways, I think that shows how much we actually matter I think that's nice because in a sense maybe journalism had become lazy in the years that you know We had become used to perhaps telling a story in a particular way Not challenging and this is not government specific but not challenging what say the establishment gives you whether it's bureaucrats Whether it's a certain politician whether it's an opposition politician I think today journalism is being forced to reinvent largely because the social media to become more than just relaying the news But actually reporting examining and making sure the news we broadcast is credible So I think that's a very exciting time and credibility is really what is going to be the discerning factor for all of us on this panel and in the news world Very nice to hear but I'll pick up on that reporting and analyzing So Priya, I'll come to you for that question Do you think the the real depth? Analysts analysis and and reporting is happening in that manner Or do you think when people say that the tune on to a particular channel for a particular kind of opinion? Is that really happening or is everybody analyzing the way it should be done? Mostly it's the last one really that is happening It's because what has happened was if you just take the turn that has happened is early on when there was print media People were known for the content of their stories their bylines are built because of what you wrote today Your bylines are known off because of your viewpoints What kind of points you spouse and I've noticed in the end of the day What is happening today is people are not watching a channel for a particular topic or what being covered But rather for the personalities that tend to dominate the screen and then you know what kind of points of view they scribe So we also in the age of branded anchors a lot of it has to do with social media also because we've seen because of social media The first news really is broken over there in the In the internet world so what happens then is television becomes a place where you actually Propound your views and instead of news views are shifted to television. That is what is happening right now How credible is social media are people tending to switch back to news which is why you know We have Sonya's program every day, which is doing new shows CNN IBM has also gone into a news format in the evenings So are people losing faith with that viewpoint is something we can discuss But at the end of the day what has television become now is rather a battleground Ground where views are being discussed rather than when news is being given So views are dominating the news. Is that what you're saying, okay? So but but are the views very polarized are there multiple views for the same thing Which is good to have because you should see all angles of a story but at the same time are they very strong and Does that leave the viewer a bit confused what to believe a same story? Probably could be run on separate channels if from a very different point of view and the viewer Who would tune in multiple channels for the same news might get confused in the way in the process? Is that happening is that are we doing justice as far as the consumer of the news is concerned? Hi a very warm afternoon to all of you I think it's very rarely that we get an occasion to discuss news like this with such panelists And I think it's an amazing Program that you've put together coming to your point I think over time what I've analyzed news as being part of the industry which probably most of you are not or are Linked differently. I Believe that certain anchors have over a period of time decided that a certain set of Audience with a certain set of mindset is their target and that is why They are very proud of the fact that they take a stand on subjects That can always be refuted and we can argue on that but news as it is today in Studios, especially those who are just living in their bubbles and never go out in the field Have developed this they have decided that this is my set of audience I have to keep them happy and then they consciously choose to tow that line because I Have over a period of time now Met journalists who say openly that yes, I'm taking a stand and I have to do my journalism with a stand at the stake or Putting at risk the very fact that you're not asking questions equally emphatically from all sides I think that's a very sad part and does leave the viewer confused I think if you openly admit that and we try and work on that Because if you blatantly are proud of the fact that you're taking sides as a journalist I think there's something at risk which all of us have to realize and then journalism will face Irreparable damage. I repeat irreparable damage for each one of us So that's how I see it because it's it's good to be nationalist. It's good to be for the country. We all are But who's ultimately giving you the certificates on the basis of your questions because over a period of time if you do Irreparable damage as a journalist to the very profession What have you contributed if each one of us who are journalists today? I see polarization on both sides. Let me be very clear about this I see polarization on both sides, which is actually, you know Actually feeding each other because you see certain people who are on one extreme You see newsrooms divided and the other extreme wants to prove their point. So they will go to any level So so this extremism of views that's happening within the newsroom I think is bound to leave the viewer confused because it reflects on air It reflects in your stories. It reflects in media throughout whether it be articles whether it be but also taking another 60 seconds Maybe I think social media is the game changer because earlier we were only on air Right journalists were only on air or through their articles. They were writing but with social media people have started tweeting their personal beliefs and Then you don't know if journalism just becomes a garb Because as a journalist You're tweeting your personal views on subjects and then you stop to be issue based You become bias based and that then reflects in your television or your article journalism So I think I see it like that and I'm giving you a very clear and heartfelt Crisis situation that I see from my point of view how we hold this together How we move forward and try and keep our biases within your brains and Do not confuse the viewers. There's going to be a big challenge that we face in the coming times Thank you very much Social media so social media is is a new potent force which is probably Probably, you know as I say we live in programmed lives. So somebody who's running a Artificial intelligence or machine learning program somewhere is actually programming everything what we see what we read what we do Sometimes suggesting and sometimes suggesting with the force With persuasion that you should do this you should buy this all that is happening now now here in the situation You have certain strong views and and at times they are polarized and Which is already a complex situation because same story different polarized views and sometimes Polarized to a certain degree and sometimes very very strongly Strong opinions and then you have a layer of social media where it's for free for all where not only the people who are on the on the in the news news business also as we said tweet and speak in the social media and And and but there are all of us and everybody taking the sides and then there are groups of people who are probably Programmed or were probably only waiting for somebody else to say something it makes a very complex situation overall so what does it do to the overall business of news the credibility and to the viewer who is Trying to understand what really happened. All right. Thank you very much. So Lee You know before I answer your question You started off by saying just moderate with smiles and silence those are the two things you don't see on primetime TV You don't see a lot of smiles. You definitely don't see a lot of silence Right. Look I'm I'm an optimist and I think Ultimately, there's a way that things balance out You said social media is a pain for journalists. I don't think so I think on the contrary what's happened in the last few years You've got these alternate news websites alt news boom live fact checker, which has come I don't know how this is being perceived consumer wise. Maybe they're not, you know mainstream yet but what they've done is put pressure on mainstream journalists they put pressure on editors on Journalists to get your story right. I mean at the end of the day, that's the only currency we have We only have our credibility and if our credibility is going to get damaged Then how do I go back on air and and sell a story, right? And I think it's incredible and I think it's the fantastic thing that's happened if you look at what's happened For example, you know the misinformation that was that was spread around the Kazganj incident, right? It took one anchor to go on social media and it went viral to point out the obvious fact that look the Muslims There were also there to hurl the tricolor. They were there to unfurl the national flag they were not unfurling Pakistani flags or ISIS flags and that's all it took to put pressure on editors on owners on I don't like using words national and anti-national flimsily, but it puts pressure on journalists To stick to the facts. I'm okay with people taking opinion sometimes polarized opinions Get turnies to say this people are not coming to cable news for watching the news anymore They already know at this day and age They already know what's in the news on their smartphones by the time they're back home They know what are the three or four big stories that have happened what they're coming to cable news for is a Reaffirmation a reiteration of their own political beliefs That is what they're coming for and if there's a left view on it and a right view on it I'm okay with it. What I'm not okay with is twisting facts You cannot twist facts come up with alternative facts And post truths to suit your agenda as long as you stick to the facts I don't have a problem with polarized opinion. In fact, the audience doesn't seem to have a problem with polarized opinion. Thank you We we we heard something about segmentation and and that you know Sometimes it's like a typical marketing piece. You identify the target audience and which is the largest audience out there What would they want to hear what stand should I take and you go after that? That's something which was suggested a little while earlier and we also heard that there is a lot of fact-checking happening My personal view on fact-checking is that when you wrap it around With a very strong view when the news which could be factual is wrapped around in a very strong view And opinion then you you can sway either side now if this is happening Sonia, can you help us understand if there is real crisis of faith in the objective truth? Is the objective truth really coming out in all the situations or is it really getting swayed because of these forces? See what what is worrying today and perhaps it will be a turning point for the media Is this whole echo chambers that have been created? I think Anjan and Priyanka as I've also touched on it that if your news channel just become about an opinion Which matches yours and that's why you come to them That's really the problem because you're creating echo chambers Which means people never actually know what the facts are and I think in that sense what our focus very much is on that Look you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts So if you come to us you are gonna get the facts now you may hate NDTV But we want you to watch us because you think that you will get a true picture you get the true facts That's what our issue should be not because you like our opinions or don't like our opinions I think news today will be a blend of facts and opinion and viewers should be able to choose that But not that you can have opinions based on wrong facts I think the worry is that many television channels will first have the wrong facts and then the opinions the facts are tailored to suit Opinions if you know what I mean, whereas we have to be extremely careful to do it the other way around I think hashtag journalism is extremely dangerous to the profession. In fact Often you will find that somehow what comes in hashtags is easy to fit in some commoner ranted to a hashtag But how do you fit in hundred children die and go to put in a hashtag and that's the problem because then when you start Marketing or segmenting and looking at what a 22 plus male will watch which hopefully should be cars and bikes are not the news We're putting out there only but if you're gonna start thinking that women don't watch your news People about 40 don't watch your news I want to look at the 22 plus male and that male will get riled up if you pitch a binary of someone versus someone Hindu versus Muslim Why is it now have to say that I mean I've been in journalism perhaps longer than most of the young people here Why is it that we see Muslim clerics every night on our television fighting with some Hindu fundamentalists is unbelievable It never happened in the newsrooms we grew up in and it actually is damaging to people who are watching it We are creating conflict because it's good for PRPs and that is something I would like to warn against Very very strongly to young journalists as well reporting the news about report when issues that matter its jobs It's a help. It's about education. Those are sexy topics those on topics that hash tag But those are topics that need to be told because that's our job as journalists today Interesting point actually The the the kind of discussion that happens on on jobs Because you know as they say this we have a huge demographic dividend and and I personally have opinion on That that our demographic dividend is almost on the thin line where it is going to flip into Demographic liability all the young people out there with a lot of aspirations exposure to huge Media globally are want to lead a good life and should but where are the avenues and are we doing that? Collectively as a society or are we all and this is not only for the business of news But are we all also spending enough time and focus on on jobs education and health? Which are the three key points, but but keeping on with the momentum here? And I want to do a view we heard this this coming up earlier that Distribution is actually good. It is more democratization So more and more distribution of news through various media is helping the overall thing Do you really think it is helping or do you think that also is driven? And that also actually sways to one side or the other side and the real voice sometimes gets lost Do you think that happens? Okay, two points. I think With what Zaka said I kind of disagree because people have already consumed their news on smartphones could be restricted Maybe to the English viewer, but speaking on behalf of the leading Hindi channel I would say we are telling them what has happened Interestingly with all these all this madness around debates We just have little tickers telling them about the information. So if you can read read if you can't then you don't know the facts Because then it's all opinionated and a lot of people screaming from the windows But interestingly with so many channels the distribution that you talked about I Think it's also very unhealthy that a certain channel has a certain image and they choose to stick to it They drive that image and that is why there are so many channels, which actually And any one of us know this channel. Okay, this is how they're going to talk this channel Okay, this is how good they're going to I think it's very important They also, you know, pull themselves out of it because there's so many Hindi channels that we see which we know Is going to tour this line. So I think that is also a huge crisis situation and it's very important But I think at the end of the day viewers stick to credibility. I just as he quoted caste kanja I would like to quote the Chandra Graham that we had just a few a week back last week Interestingly only one leading Hindi channel was carrying it and archduck chose to completely stay away and not go on air with Five pundits sitting and that worked well for us We were the leaders in those bands. So I think if the leaders decide to stick to news and maybe take that forward it works and Yeah, distribution as you said so many channels works very adversely if you go for an interview They're keep a channel code in a pachas mic or camera. This is that way. It's sad But otherwise, I think you are fine to each one their own if they can survive Yeah, do you really think that? the there is a certain image for every news source now that we have out there and Does the viewer or the reader or the consumer of the news actually know that and if she already knows that and she's going to a Particular source for a particular kind of opinion. She knows already in advance Then is this anything wrong in that? You mentioned something you said objective truth not truth. I far as I you know is Never really objective truth always takes a stand in fact. I can remember James Cameron. He says don't let Objectivity get in the way of truth. So yes, take a stand But the thing is you should put it out there to debate anchors and journalists We all subject to your people at the end of the day So we should take a stand, but when we put it out there, let that stand also be open to debate That's where the argument of Indian and not the intolerant Indian You know, I think Pranav Mukherjee reminded the media of that that is what we are not becoming today We you know, we just want to force opinion on others So I know I talked about newsroom debates where you have one Pakistani general you have a Muslim cleric you have a Saffron clad person perhaps with an RSS background and then you have maybe a left liberal in a tweet quote per fellow keeps getting yelled at And if you know, they've also anchors have this way of controlling the mics, you know, they've silent your mic So this is not what we want. We want opinions. Yes, it's okay. I think it's fair enough Yes, as Zaka said, you know people are coming there for your views So yes, give your view out the anchor can be biased But I think he should let other people also air and you know Let him argue is bias out and not shut people up not bully people up the anchor as a bully the Akhara at the prime time That's what we are upset about So so my question, I'm not sure if I got the answer my question still remains Do you think if the viewer is tuning in to a particular new source and I'm not talking about channels only it could be the online source it could be the print source whatever new source and She already knows in advance that this is the opinion that this source is because I know the day if you keep up with that image As it's being said you get branded right and so is there anything wrong if she already knows and she still tunes in to Hear that is there anything wrong in that? dangerous more than wrong, you know because And by now it's happened We know certain prime times people as I said earlier not going to see what topic is being debated on that channel They just want to know what that particular guy has to say that evening and it follows a line You know and if you don't agree with it, then you're branded as national anti-lashing Those are powerful words that have been used for any debate of the day and I think that that is the danger It's not dangerous to take a stand is dangerous to push that bias through and through and not wait for another point of view I want to take a step back from all the you know the negativity around prime time TV Of course as bad as it is the cacophony the sensationalization the ten windows shouting matches as Sonia said the Maulana versus Acharya I mean, it's bad. Okay. I worked in China Under Chinese state television censored state television for three years Give me the madness of Indian TV and I'll take that any day over state-controlled television, okay? So I don't think I don't think I mean yes things are bad But eventually the the thing with the media is it itself corrects and again I want to take a step back because we tend to you know be in these echo chambers and we think oh my god You know such bad things are happening on TV. How can our kids watch this so on and so forth? Maybe your kids should not be watching it, but that's that's a separate debate. I want to take a step back Look at what's happened in America since the Trump election, right? Three months after the Trump election the New York Times its digital subscriptions went up by 300,000 in one quarter It's the best quarter that the New York Times company has had in the history of the existence of New York Times comm CNN its viewership is shot up 40% in the three in the six months after after the Trump election the highest watch prime time Talk show in US TV right now. It's called the Rachel Maddow show I don't know if you've gotten a chance to watch it the Rachel Maddow is a far left I mean her claim to fame was that she was the first openly gay News anchor on mainstream cable news for nine years She launched the show in 2008 for nine years She was you know in the pits no ratings Nobody was watching was dominated by Fox News below Riley and what have you and suddenly after the Trump election In the space of a few weeks. She's become the number one watched prime time show in America Things self-correct the point that I'm trying to get at and I said this briefly in my first answer as well In the world that we're living in in the post-truth alternative facts world that we're living in Ultimately people want to go back to the credible news sources and say hang on a second This doesn't this doesn't seem all right. This doesn't sound all right. What actually happened? So people go back to the credible news sources. So I again I'm an eternal optimist as messy and mad as this place is give it to me any day It's not so much with China and the freedom I think actually private television in India had a fantastic journey. We began over two and a half decades ago And it's been a fantastic journey. What's interesting is what we're doing to ourselves And I think that's why we need to self-intercept. This is not what the government is asking you to do You're not getting a call from a PA more saying please put this on We're doing it ourselves because we've come in this mad rush for TRPs I think that's where we need to step back and look as I started by saying we matter more than ever before today This is why we need to be responsible about what we're actually doing and while as I said The various issues that we talk about the fact is how do you tell issues in a way that is interesting to the viewer? I think we are in a sense getting Diverted from that by this craziness of like you know debates are more exciting to watch I mean it's often like watching entertainment rather than news. It's more exciting to watch. That's easy talk is cheap You don't have to invest money in sending people out to actually report stories That's what all of us in newsrooms need to be thinking about when we're reporting But of course, it's fantastic as I said It's a heartening for us that when we have some case against us or somebody in government may speak against us again from both governments the support we get from viewers the support our online sources give us is heartening and extremely extremely exhilarating at this time So that was exactly my Next question and and I wanted you to and you've already spoken a part of that So so is is viewership more important because your ship has gone up in Not only in in us many other countries as well in our own country as well because sometimes news becomes entertainment and it's live entertainment And that's even more interesting than the fictional entertainment. So but do you think? the business of news is More important than the purpose of news Is is do you think that is happening? I was a whole separate discussion because as you know NDTV's made it quite clear that we believe the current creating system doesn't work at all So this is almost a completely separate discussion because we believe that bark how it's currently being done They'll set up a news channels is a rigged system. We don't believe that the ratings reflect Viewship at all and I think for us our facts are bolstered by what the online viewership for the same TV shows are or even say for Instance the UK ratings of the same channels aren't compared are completely different. So that's actually an entirely different discussion So I'll leave it at that point that I say that I think currently bark ratings are rigged It affects advertising it affects our business and we hope something can be done to change that Artic has always been a news leader in and since long So I'm not I'm not sure if you will also contest the ratings, but but at the same time The question that I wanted to ask you is very happy with it. You're very happy with it. We work very hard for that You work very hard great so the question is that The the way opinions are put forward and sometimes coming it from from Star anchors and star journalists and some big names Does it add up to the overall confusion which gets created in the ecosystem? Does it actually put the entire news industry on a separate track at times are we all you know Running around as consumers following all these stars and their opinions But really not getting the truth out of it. Is that happening? Do you see that happening? Absolutely not because I Interestingly, you know, this is a discussion I have very often with the news persons the intro the English News channels actually project their journalist's stars But in Hindi as of now you don't have shows still with names of anchors Like I do a Hala bowl, but it's not Hala bowl with Anjana Omkashyap It's not special report with Anjana Omkashyap or any of the other shows But in English you would have shows which are with the anchors name. So I think the Hindi anchors are still, you know Working very hard to get their space and build their space So that apart the other part that you said it's confusion. No, it's not but yeah, you do know that Pune Prasoon Vajpayee will talk like this and Anjana will talk like this, right? Most of us know so he has his set of audience and I have my set of audience So people who like his style will follow that and go for his bulletin But just going back to what Sonia said I completely disagree with the fact that we are doing debates because we don't want to invest money and do the stories in Ajatak any anchor is not allowed to be just an anchor. They don't hire anchors All of us have to be out in the field and we do ground reports and Mr. Arun Puri makes it very clear that I don't want any anchors anchors in my channel So we are around the field like during elections I I travel for more than 2,000 kilometers, you know every day traveling roughly 600 kilometers going to a new place Doing a new show with new audience of a city and then going to the next one We work very hard as a channel very hard for these ratings and the amount of work we put in is not funny We are not doing this because we cut down on stories. I saw stories are equally important We have very important bulletins and the kind of stories and packaging that Ajatak does in Hindi I can tell you I can vouch for that. No other channel does it like that and those are our driving You know points you can say because of which people stick to us So I but but yeah, there are certain questions that journalists should be asking and a debate is a forum for that if sadly certain journalists choose to do something else in that one hour, then Debates cannot be you know I think the right kind of questions to get the right answers is a very very relevant form of journalism in television And we cannot negate that just because certain journalists used to Want to or drive to use that otherwise and I do agree with her when she says this binary that we are building Because over a period of time we have to realize this binary that we're building is actually going to delegitimize us You know people are going to see through it. So every time we say this Hindu Muslim thing you clap We know when we interact with people in various parties and you know, then they come up with these questions How long is this going to happen? So being positive like how as I said, I think it's a churning period. I think we'll evolve I think television is still evolving in this country and viewers. Trust me. Just correct the path over a period of time just like Chandragraha and and Two years back we would have not dared to do this We would have stuck to Chandragraha in the Hindi genre But we chose to move away because now we know that there is audience We have to tap them and we have to make it clear that a news channel cannot just keep talking about a moon and Linking it to earthquake, even if it's not actually directly linked So so I think we're going through a churning process and no people are not misled by stars as you say but People look forward to certain anchors also. I think we should give them their credit We definitely do we should give them their credit, right? It's so important certain certain anchors actually make me want to watch a show even as a journalist Most of us, you know in the newsroom. We always watch news on on mute. So did you see my show? Yeah, I did but on mute. So we're just seeing the monitors and we're going about our work But certain anchors make me want to turn on the sound. I like that and I I think they deserve that Because I'm sure make you want to turn off the sound as well, but absolutely I'm not referring to individual channels and I enjoy arch that I think actually one of the good things about arch That is that your reports so much and the anchors do and of course the no anchors are plenty TV None of the English shows also have anchors names attached to it But just to take this point on ratings and just something to interest. There's a show we have in Hindi I don't know if you'll have heard of Ravish, but he's one of our popular anchors Ravish does a show every night at 9 and his focus for the last three weeks has only been on jobs and because of a certain shows Done 20,000 people have got their jobs in the postal department. They haven't 20,000 people Do you know that it shows even though he gets often his Facebook pages or his thing on it gets up to lax his shows record 0% on buck 0% now Are you telling me that no one here watches Ravish's show no one should know him then if he goes to a literary festival right now Delhi he gets more Something doesn't add up and I'm not again as I said I'm not casting his versions on challenge our leaders or not but something doesn't add up and again, it's up to journalists and Organizations to self-correct when we talk about credibility when you have a website with the same content, which is a hundred and fifty Million and unique views. You can't have the TV channel the same content showing less than a thousand views So something doesn't add up. That's a very valid point Like I use coming back to you you said You prefer the madness Media sometimes over the state-controlled media so but Please look through your optimistic lens And help us see roast into glasses If there is going to be a method which is going to evolve from this madness Do you think there's a method which is building up and it's on matter of time And there is you can see something which is which is trending or which is actually a pattern Look a couple of things are happening I think all this talk about oh young people are not watching the news I'm not sure is the case because young people may not be watching news on television But they're certainly consuming that same content on Facebook videos or on periscope or what have you From a business point of view and this is a completely different conversation Maybe you should have a debate in next year's awards on this from a business point of view All the content that NDTV puts out a Rajstag puts out or CNN news 18 puts out Online and we get 100,000 hits 500,000 hits a million hits We don't make any money out of it and that's a huge problem I mean news channels are investing a hell of a lot of money Paying journalists paying editors paying, you know desk writers and so on and so forth and that content is obviously getting consumed because you know It's got unique hits and it's got views and so on But we barely make any money out of it and I think that is really going to determine not just the future of you know Journalism and particularly television journalism in India. I think this is a global conversation I think Rupert Murdoch has started parts of that conversation But eventually we'll have to get to that point. We'll have to get to that point where Content has to be paid for I mean, I'm not saying that you know Subscription models are gonna work but different different products are gonna have different models But ultimately we can't all be giving you know this free content to Facebook and Twitter I mean a bunch of free loaders if you ask me but that that to me is is right at the heart of Survival of this medium in terms of you know the polarizing debates, you know star anchors I keep saying this all the time if you don't like someone's face if you don't like listening to someone's voice or his opinion or his polarized views Hit the mute button change the channel. The consumer is the king, right? But I go back to what I say that ultimately people are not coming just for the news They want Reiteration they want Reaffirmation of what they already believe in it's a bit like advertising you sell people what they already believe in I Mean, I'm sorry to say this Some forms news is an extension of advertising or has become And that's the worry that if you have a Point of view then our journalist pressure to count out that majority point of views, you know, that is crazy I mean Okay, I'm not gonna get into a fight between any TV and that's that bad place to be but listen The thing is and what what I get my optimism from is look at all the biggest Polarizing stories that have happened in the last year three four years, right? Let's start with the JNU incident It is media channels themselves would put out the other side, right? It's not like people stood up and said oh, no, this is not happening There was pressure on the media itself to put out the facts No, no the point that I'm getting at is there is channel X which is giving you one version of the truth There's channel Y saying hang on. That's not quite the truth. There's something else to that story, right? And that's coming from the media ecosystem. That's not coming from Government or NGOs or third parties that's coming from within the media ecosystem and that is why I'm optimistic If if there is a polarized partisan point of view on one channel There will always be another view on some some other channel I'm I'm fine with that. I can live with that and that's how television has been all over the world in any free democratic society What I can't live with is messing around with facts Not giving the whole fact. I'm not fine with this actually, you know For instance, look at the Prime Minister's speech in Parliament, you know It was a great speed because of being the Prime Minister. He speaks well So, yes, it's okay to say he wiped the floor of the Congress But then you should also say he got some of his facts wrong Why was that left to one set of channels and you know wiping the floor of the Congress left another set of channels So I am not happy with the half truth put the whole truth then at the end of the day You can say yes PM one the day. We are fine with that, but at least put all the facts out. That's my problem The point I was trying to make the point I was trying to make was no Again, there's not not much silence around here The point I was trying to make was The the folks who took the other side are also established television companies. They're not from outside that ecosystem That's that's the point that I was trying to make. I'll give you a classic example, right again I might get pulled up for this but Look at the judge lawyer story, right a far out left Magazine which a few hundred people read broke the story in november october of last year, right Nobody wanted to touch it and I'm not going to get into the reasons for it but When the supreme court judges Went in a televised press conference that story became mainstream. None of us could stay away from that story We covered the story extensively much before that fair enough But not it not in a mainstream every night kind of way, right? Not in the way in line 30 reality check One one show one one one episode one fact check I mean to counter what caravan put I'm not going to get into it Listen the point I'm trying to make is the judges went on a televised press conference There by making that story mainstream today the court is hearing it We have no option but to cover that story Which is why I keep saying this I am supremely optimistic about this madness called indian television Long live indian television. We're all optimistic. That's my way Not necessarily we all love tv doesn't mean we can't see where it's changed But yeah, I mean I think optimism is definitely the end note of the keynote if you want to say Yes, optimism is what keeps us going And I can already see some hands and it was really warming up and I was I was Going to be more silent and smiling But time runs out. So we'll we'll open the house to questions If anyone has questions, please raise your hand I have a question Please introduce yourself, sir I'm left-learned Colonel Umang Kohli, but I'm on a sabbatical with amity university and I'm a student of journalism My question is When as a principal We accept That there is nothing wrong with bias And the anchor can have his own bias And it's only The opinions that come in the debate that may matter I think journalism is going down the hill then and the question to jack up is Media is the fourth pillar of democracy It took the fourth pillar of democracy for the judiciary to come out and say that Something is wrong. Then the fourth pillar of democracy has not performed its duty The thing should have not gone to such an impasse the democracy should not have gone to such an impasse We should have not got such a bad name for the judiciary had the media played its role in time And so your example is totally not suited for the audience. Okay. Thank you. Can I give you a counterfactual to it? One second. I'll give you a counterfactual to it, right For six months perhaps over a year and the judges themselves said this They tried reasoning out About their concerns with the cji within the four walls of the supreme court Nobody knew about it. Nobody talked about it. It stayed within the four walls of the supreme court Imagine this is a counterfactual Imagine There was no media imagine. There was no television. Imagine. We were living in state-controlled China right you think that story would have ever come out It wouldn't have and that is why that is why I'm I go back to that example because It's because of television. It's because of free media That that story the judge's story became public everybody got to know of it I mean even if even if you know, you had nothing to do with the supreme court You were not interested in the law This story was so gripping you had to stand and watch because something like this has never happened in the history of this country Imagine again the counterfactual Such a thing will never happen in china and zhaka and zhaka. They did a press conference. Exactly They did a sit down sir They did a press conference because they knew that media would take it to so many million people Exactly. They didn't go to the president. They took it to the media. Yes. Remember that 70 years ago We came to the issue of government oblique privatization of the media. We are not state-owned 70 years have passed since then and we are not china and since we are Having a vibrant democracy and not like our neighbors. We shouldn't compare Oh my god, we had state-controlled media all through the 80s and 90s So can we give other people a chance to ask questions? There's some more hands in the audience Yes, sir, you wanted to ask a question Is there a mic around that place? Excuse me one question Just give me a moment, sir. We'll come to you next. Yes, sir. My name is ankur khandelwal I'm a lawyer, but I'll not ask you a question. It's back to the judge lawyer controversy This is so barak obama said that He wouldn't have voted for himself if he watched fox news Are we are we trading on the path? That will eventually take us to complete polarization And may may I also bring in the the the role that twitter plays in our everyday lives? Which is of polarizing us? We all have to necessarily take a view either way And news channels are doing it at a much faster rate Are we okay as a society? To accept that a certain news channel can you will offer some make it shorter, please? We are running out of time My question to the panelists are the panelists is Are the different news channels deliberately and with full intent Taking a decisive road to tread on Well, I think some are