 The speakers for our next panel will discuss how much should algorithms control the newsrooms. We often get carried away by the number of likes and shares or the trending nature of a story. Is that enough for newsrooms to narrow down on a new story, and how can they secure their originality in the media ecosystem are some of the questions that will be addressed by the expert panel. Welcome on screen. Mr. Abhijeet Ayer Mitra, author, journalist and defense economist. Mr. Ankit Tyagi, senior editor India Today. Mr. Vivek Narayan, managing editor South Network 18. Mr. Subhijit Sengupta, deputy group head, Network 18 digital videos and Mr. Tarun Nangia, news X associate editor, special projects, ITV group as the moderator. Over to you, Mr. Nangia. Okay, so welcome, Mr. Subhijit Sengupta Abhijeet. Good to see you again. And Vivek Narayan and good to see you. So today's topic is pretty interesting and close to my heart whether likes and you know, in a sense the stories popularity should be the sole denominator to choose the story and for news channels to go ahead and go to town with it. This is especially more relevant as I see it in the past three or four years, when the popularity of content virtually has decided whether you know it should be taken to town by channels. And when policy journalists like us point out that you know why this or why that we are shown that the bottom line is more important than any other line even in channels and I think we must all agree to that at some point. So when the economic environment is not as conducive, economics does rule over a lot of other decisions. And since we are all from the content side, we can be frank about it. But I have a very eminent panel and I would like to get each one of you to give you an opening comment on today's topic. I'll start with Mr. Narayan. What's your opening comment for today's discussion. The opening comment would be, Tarun, thank you to ask what's wrong in it. I mean, we are in the world and we are in the business of, of news, and if social media is making news, if they are the ones for right or wrong, right or wrong is a different thing that we'll discuss later perhaps. But if it's that it is in public space, it is being spoken about, if it is trending, why not speak about the things that are trending, you can find out whether it's right or wrong later. But as an agent of news, as a person who's involved in news business, who makes its bread and bread out of news, I don't think there is anything bad in taking a topic, which is part of a social media network, which is being spoken about. I don't think it's intellectually inferior. I don't think that anything wrong in taking that and debating. But of course, there are several filters that as a news network, as a mainstream media, as a mass media that we have to be aware of. So that's it. In a very short, I don't have a problem at all for either of any of my networks or my fellow individuals were there with us. They're taking the seed out of a story, which germinates out of social media. Abhijit, your opening comment for today's discussion. Look, for me, it's very clear. How does a media house see itself? Is it an ideological crusader or is it a business? And the second issue here is, does the media house see itself as somehow superior to the collective wisdom? Because what you see as news may not be what the people want to see as news. So there's a demand dynamic here and there's a supply dynamic here. And I think many of these things about what should be news and what shouldn't be news is very much an old debate where the journalist was somehow perceived to be superior to the collective wisdom as sort of giving people a gyan in that sense, whereas today they have multiple options. And the second thing we need to realize is news like social media is about self validation. All right, if people don't like the news that you're giving them, they will go hear the version of events or stories that they want to hear. And this is where algorithms comes in because this is how YouTube news stars or YouTube opinion channels have become so much more powerful. I see so many YouTube channels that have more viewers than so-called mainstream TV channels. And the thing there is, all of them are regulated by algorithms. And the particularly dangerous part of this is it's sort of ab initio control of what news can be put out there or not put out there. You saw that Ethiopian woman Timnit Gebru getting sacked from Google because her entire job was to use linguistic paradigms to determine what was discriminatory language and what was not. So there's almost a very dangerous thing happening now that they realize that traditional news has lost it sort of monopoly of social control. And the social control is getting democratized to the point where they don't like it. And so they're changing their essentially rigging the paradigms of how news is reported what constitutes news based on algorithms. So the element of control is moved now from governments to language and companies which are and you know personally I don't care how rotten a government is. I will any day trust the government over a company. Okay, that's an interesting perspective Abhijeet. I'll go to Subhaji. You sit in Delhi to get some bird by bird's eye view of all channels in the country. What's your opening comment on today's show? You know as a digital newsroom manager if I say algorithms do not dictate the way we work, I would be like outrightly lying. That's not the case like now the question whether it does it will dictate or not dictate is long path. The question is how much would you want the algorithm to dictate you. Now, if we break it down it again can be seen in two parts. The text that goes up the videos that goes up on digital. So both work in a different kind of an ecosystem. So, especially if you look into the way text works. So algorithm has its pluses and minuses while of course the stories which work more are done more because newsrooms at the end of the day would want a higher readership as well. There are also algorithm in introduced fact checks which have come in which to which are also taking care of a lot of fake news which otherwise would circulate easily. But if you come to the videos here, the revenue is directly linked to the number of views that you get in text toys. It's not as much because there's a lot of on platform consumption, which is again dependent on other revenue models like the banner that you get the native as that you get. But if you look at videos, the consumption is mostly off platform, which means either on YouTube or on Facebook. And there the video is completely dominated by not just how many views it is getting, but also especially in YouTube, it is getting in which geography. Like if the video gets one lakh view in India, it might earn lesser revenue than about 10,000 views in the US. Now as a news company, when you're looking at this algorithm, you cannot ignore the huge financial angle which is bringing with it. Because at the end of the day, as we are seeing, we are all struggling to find the right subscription model. That model is not there. You would see, just for example, if you notice Punjab has much more number of YouTube streamers than say most of the other languages. Why? Because CTR in the Punjab market, CPM sorry, is the highest as in because it's got a huge consumption in England and Canada and US. That's why the revenue that they make from doing a broadcast is much higher. So yes, there are strong revenue consoles which are there. But the question that we need to look at right now is whether or not the consumption that we are seeing is factually verified news or not factually verified news. This algorithm and the analytics that we get is two steps ahead from what we used to get from TRPs. TRPs would come once in a week, it will dissect some of your content and you will not know who these people are. Today, when I'm looking at the analytics, I would not only know who the person is, I would know which device the person is using, which geographical corner the person is coming from, and also several other parameters which comes with it. That makes it increasingly important for you to cater to the people. Because as Abhijit had also mentioned, I mean, can we still have that high pedestal? At one point of time when newspaper was the medium, there was only one way of communication. Journalism has changed. With social media coming in with two-way communication coming in, we cannot control the narrative one way or the other. So we will have to pander to the entire ecosystem to an extent while keeping the checks and balances in place. Point well taken, Shubhajit, especially a point on revenues. As we all know recently, has an understanding with Google to share revenues for all the content that they pour into, in a sense, Google benefits from that advertising revenue. India, we haven't worked out any such thing but maybe soon enough, I've got Ankit Yagi who joined us on the panel just about 4-5 minutes ago. Ankit, your opening comment on today's topic. You see, at the end of the day as a journalist, whether how much of algorithm or AI or the other tools that we are using these days, how much of that impacts the newsroom? At the end of the day, for me, it all boils down to trust. There would be certain things that algorithm have made quite easy and also better as far as journalism newsrooms are concerned. Be it data crunching, quicker data crunching, we've been using a few very smart algorithms when it comes to election number crunching. I think in all those aspects, it does help. It's a great tool to have, you save a lot of time. But at the end of the day, would a viewer, because with the human story, there is also credibility that comes in attached. Does a viewer, is the viewer still ready? Is it time for the viewer to, in fact, make that leap that it can trust a program or an algorithm or a computer or an AI to, in fact, swift through news or make news and present it to you? That is something I still feel is, we are yet not there and it has to be an amalgamation. It has to be an amalgamation of technology, of algorithm and the human aspect as far as news is concerned. Because while AI and Shubhaji was also speaking about fact checking, while all those elements are great, it's quicker. Plus, you can go through with a certain amount of non-bias as far as these facts are concerned. But for an in-depth analytical deep pieces, would you still trust an algorithm which, by the way, has been created by a human being possibly, you know, has parameters set which you are putting out there. That is something I think still needs further discussion, development. At the end of the day, news is about credibility. It's about people that you see. It's about people, those who are putting it out there. It is a great tool to have in the newsroom, but can it in a way completely replace or be a dominant function in a newsroom? I think we'll have to wait for some more time when it comes to that. Okay, point taken. Ankit, I'll go to Mr. Narayan at this point. To take this discussion ahead, when we talk of algorithms and a certain kind of news that gains popularity, do you believe that eventually drives down to dumping down of news? Because we know the kind of news that gains popularity that appeals to the masses. And what appeals to the masses may not necessarily what editors in the past so many decades have been actually giving. For example, if you take examples of say, newspapers like the Hindu or even Times of India, you see that the quality of content, I'm not talking of the choice of stories. I'm talking of the quality of content that is maintained. The story selection may be here or there, but at least the quality is maintained. Here what has happened with instant response through algorithms, maybe the quality is what suffers because in the end, if I may take the liberty of pointing out a lot of English editors as little as about eight years ago used to point out at the quality of news of Hindi channels and say that they are pandering to a certain kind of audience. But now I think English is no better. What we are doing is what we all know. I don't need to explain you are all well experienced. So Mr. Arayanan, you are to bitten this. Well, it's always in human tendency to say that my generation was always better than yours and the generation which comes later will be always worse. I mean, Plato said the same of Aristotle. These people are the new generation is gone and we are talking about BCs. But again, this bit that you said about editors deciding if there is a sieve and if there is an algorithm if there is a machine which decides what is big news, 20 years back it used to be an editor who used to sit in a cabin like this and he used to decide. I mean, what gave him just to take a leaf of what Abhijeet mentioned, you know, that false sense of intellectual superiority of an editor sitting in a newsroom and deciding that this is what the readers of the Hindu or the times of India should read because this is news for them. And this is the editorial and this is what they should think about. And instead of that, the democratization of news as it has happened in social media. Well, you may call it, it is thin, it is not intellectually superior. You can blame it on whatever. But it has taken things down to the lowest common denominator. If when Ankit and when Shumbo tells me about this Pajab being a great place where social media is consumed in such high numbers, I mean, it may be a YouTube source, it may be something else on Twitter. But I believe there will be this industry, this medium that we see is going through a period of churn and the speed at which it's going through the churn, the churn will be natural. Yes, there will be companies, there will be enterprises which will try and curate it for you. They will try and tell you what is the big news. They will try and tell you what you should see here, read, understand and perhaps even practice. You know, that is where I think the trust that Ankit spoke about comes in. You know, the trust of me as a brand, my organization as a brand and me as a journalist as a curator of what happens on social media. If there are people who are seeing varied opinion, if they see my opinion also if they buy it, if they see that this man has over 20 years said this, this and this and they follow me and if they see me on social media, I'll read my articles. Well, as a journalist, as a new avatar journalist, well, I think I'm on my road to Nirvana. I've achieved what I could have. But you know, this has always been there in my 25 years that I started as always being a television journalist. Those days there was no private news. So we used to give our software to Durdarshan. It used to be Archduck on Durdarshan at that point and another news bulletin in the morning called First Edition, Long Time Back. So this used to be private players who used to give news channels. Then we evolved on to private news networks. So all my experience is as flaky as a television journalist. But we used to be looked down upon by the print. They always used to say, you're sound-bite soldiers. You just go collect a sound-bite and you're done. Your job is done. You don't put brains behind it. But television has survived. It has evolved. It is still evolving. And when television journalists, when many of us see social media as a threat, this so-called democratization of news, everyone more can say anything that they want. It's getting some of the YouTube channels. Your answer gave rise to about two, three questions in my mind. In that sense, it's a very important answer. And I have a very right person to take this discussion forward. Abhijeet, is news TV a tool for a manufacturing consent? Is that what news TV is? Second, I want to ask you, if the editor shouldn't decide an algorithm as in a sense to decide, the editor in the place is appointed because he has at least a little wisdom in what other right it used to be taken up. Now, right may vary between A and B, but why do I say this? A lot of my audience would enjoy watching a straight out-of-the-action robbery scene happening in, say, Noida or Delhi over a lot of important policy decisions that are going to impact their lives in so many ways. But they are not interested, so we don't show them. I just opposed it with print. Hindu is a newspaper in South that makes 118 crores of revenue just out of its digital subscriptions. A lot of IS aspirants read that newspaper. Of course, we in the North don't read it as much, but why? Because whatever be the slant, it may be, you know, whatever be the slant of news, the content that people get there gets them revenues. Why do I point this? Because India, there is a certain audience in the country which recognizes content, quality content, and I'm not standing or locating anybody's bias. I'm just talking of quality content. Abhijit, I want your views a little. So there's two points that you raised. One is the credibility and the second, you know, is manufacturing consent. Now, I remember a TV channel that used to, that probably still runs a program called left, right and center, where, you know, you had four or five panelists of whom four would be far on the left. One would be token right who would invariably be in articulate. And the three supposed center people were actually quite far to the left, who were just slightly less left than the alleged left candidate who were then portrayed as somehow being center. So, you know, this is again, like the way we spoke about manipulated algorithms and Timnit Gebru with Google. This was one more way of manufacturing consent. But this then brings us to, you know, credibility. Now, Indians have this problem that, you know, we need somebody to certify credibility. I think socially, we're incapable of making that decision ourselves, which is why every product. I remember once upon a time, it was the product that made the celebrity. Today, it's a celebrity who makes the product, which is why every product needs to have some kind of a celebrity endorsing it. Otherwise, you don't trust it and you won't buy it. And, you know, this credibility, certification agencies that certain people run, they do create a lot of business for certain print media or visual media that they certify. That said, I have always found TV journalism to be much more honest than print journalism because a TV journalist actually has to show what he or she is observing at that point of time. There has to be visual proof. On the other hand, print could usually get away with things saying, well, my source said this, you know, my source said that. We have actually had a person winning several international journalistic awards for a book she wrote on some riots in Gujarat a decade back for which nobody has seen proof to date where the initial employer has given up their IPR on the 632 audio cassettes that were allegedly recorded. But these audio cassettes have still not been released to the public. Okay. And yet this is considered legitimate journalism. Now you tell me what TV channel could run based saying, I heard this, I heard that, you know, you have to have visual backup for everything because TV can't run on I heard. She said he said, right. So I actually find TVs a lot more credible that way than print. Unfortunately, the problem with print is when people are archiving, you know, when narratives are being set, what happens is even today in an academic publication, you seldom see hyperlinks or footnotes that include videos. And it always includes newspaper print reports. Right. So there's different ways of looking at this. So yes, my whole issue though is with this, you know, credibility and credibility certification agency, because that is where this entire problem of algorithms and manufacturing content goes. Now, when you say credibility, whose credibility are you looking at? You know, between say times now in Republic, O'Connor about 70% of the market. Are you telling me that 70% of English news viewers don't confer credibility? Whereas less than 1% of viewers actually confer credibility on a channel. I'm not willing to accept that. I think the problem also lies in journalists who seek credibility from a certain peer group that they have been conditioned to see as their peers as somehow being more valuable than the credibility bestowed on them by the public as a whole. Okay. Point well taken. Abhijit made some two, three good points as far as credibility bestowed upon by the people as far as the peer group. And of course, this dictates a lot of news in Delhi. I admit it. But taking forward visuals can't cheat. We have seen certain angles being shot where hardly any people attended the rally, but with close up shots, we made it look as if a lot of people attended the rally. And this is done. This is these videos are sent out or shot. You know how it happens. How would you look at all these narratives that we discussed with Vivek Narayan and Abhijit? You know, with algorithms coming into play, what is happening is an editor is getting a more viewed like more options to decide what they need to do. It's not algorithm is just dictating it. It's an editor is taking a judgment on the basis of the algorithm and the numbers number crunching that comes in front of it. And to say that that it's TV or print, I would say that the game has moved on. If you see if you travel to the street, whether it's the auto rickshaw driver or the person sitting in the auto rickshaw, both are watching content on YouTube and there's a different kind of content which has been consumed. And these numbers are much more authenticated than a TRP and a bar for any other measuring point that we look at. So in a way, if you say if you're looking at those data and then you can get a better understanding of what has been viewed be when you're looking at these angles. Yes. So there is also what is happening is we cannot like if there is a mobile footage which is reaching you which shows a person being beaten up by B person and a mobile clip reaching me where we see a B person is beating up a person in the both the clips, both the narratives would be built. So we are in an era that's why it's called the post to error probably that that both the narratives exist. So only thing that can be done is put both the narratives on the platform because at this point of time there is the we cannot make a distinction sitting in Delhi right here. What is happening? Say what happened in underground, what happened in say in Assam during the polling, whatever is like going on in each of these areas. We have reporters will have to trust the reporters word because yes, that's what they're trained to do. But beyond that, wherever news is happening, wherever no authentic hand is visible to see what exactly had happened. All you can do is post both the narratives or as many narratives as it comes in and then viewers will watch what they watch and that's why probably there is also a boxification of the viewers happening. If my kind of content is far right, then I'll look at far right content. My content is far left. I will see far left content and that's why we would all exist in bubbles which is happening. But that's how the post is building up as well. Okay. I take this thing. You present a channel where one gets to see so many views and so many kinds of journalism in that ways. It is fun watching your channel. I want to know from you the choice of news in your own view should be dictated by algorithms or would you rather let the editor sense prevail in terms of what news you want to show today knowing that's important for people. What kind of choices? I mean, because in a channel like yours, I think there would be some kind of mulling going on before each story is put on edge. See, that's right. I mean, there is still for every news channel. I mean, there is still that edit meeting where all of us do get together. We decide what stories, big stories of the day that we are discussing. It will also be about what all the what are the stories that have been gathered by a news gathering team and then how and what way each anchor would differentiate or which angle would they want to take when they put that story out. But there is a certain sense of responsibility and also an oversight when you sit with a group of people and various angles are decided in the edit meeting. It's just not that I can run away with the whatever narrative I want to put across. I mean, there are checks and balances. There would be discussions at different point of view would also come in. I was just so in that sense, the whole democratization of our newsroom, which allows us to have multiple anchors trying to speak about multiple point of views on a single story. That in a way is a human intervention, which I don't think an algorithm can offer. There will be a certain sets parameters that you will put out as far as an algorithm goes. It will be created by somebody and that algorithm is only going to work on those certain parameters. We were just like Abhijeet and Shupoji both were mentioning a few things. You were talking about the Hindu newspaper and the kind of revenue that they are generating when it comes to their online stream at the end of the day. This is what I started. Why credibility? Look at Hindu or any other big online revenue stream. Most of them are attached to a brand name which has a certain years of journalism behind them and certain credibility attached to them. Even in the exploding online digital market, you will still find a news clip of a news anchor who is associated with the television channel rather going more viral than somebody, an unknown person putting out his point of view on the web. There will be a certain kind of people that will want to pick it up, but still it's about people, those who represent a certain kind of credibility or are attached to a news organization. That is why even in the digital era and the digital Twitter, YouTube, that is why the channels and newspapers have such a big imprint because they come with a sense of credibility for the viewer. You are able to consume that news thinking that because it comes attached with India today or Aaj Tak or Hindu or Times of India or Times Now or Republic, there has been certain vetting process that it has gone through and that is why it's easier to consume. I agree, Ankit with your point when you say that when it comes from say an India Today or some other organization which has been known, at least some kind of process, vetting would have been done before the story is put out. That lends it credibility. I'll go across to Vivek. Mr. Narayana, how do you look at it? A, algorithm selected stories. Second, wisdom of editors who've been in this business, a professional journalist qualified who understands how stories are put out and they are wisdom of 10, 20, 15, whatever years. How would you balance that out? Because in today's time, revenue is important as well as the message is important. You spoke about revenue, that's where I'll start from because in my present role I look at regional networks in South India and I have found, I mean, lead the journalism part alone. If you look at ratings, if it's ratings driven, if it is advertising driven, quite clearly there are shows in some of my regional networks which are based purely out of what's trending now. There's a half hour series in Kannada channel which I run called What is Trending on the Internet? And it has so much of rating. It does not require too much of journalism per se perhaps, but some smart thinking. You look at what's trending on social media, what's trending on YouTube, what's trending on, I mean, perhaps for national channels may not be able to carry it or Hindi channels at one point used to carry it and because YouTube started filing cases against them to stop. But regional media is not being looked with a microscope by these agencies. So we still manage to a great extent to run what is popular. It could be something from China or from Japan. It could be ridiculous videos, but it does give the channel revenue. It does give my Kannada vertical revenue. So how do I put my journalism into it? Why does it require my intervention at all? CCTV based footage which is so popular, which is nothing but voyeuristic pleasure, voyeuristic if you look at whether it be an accident, whether it be a burglary, whether it be a person got pants down. Well, all these are on TV or on CCTV. It's just strung together into a half hour and being not just across my channel, but there are several smaller networks in India where they make a living half hour, one hour is low and it is successful in one way. So the algorithm tells you that, yes, this is being watched and that is being aired from the internet onto television and that, again, an agency tells that it's hitting and viewers are watching and I get the revenue. I mean, I don't know whether it's, let's not go into the right or wrong of it, but it is successful at the end of the day. But just to take from where Ankit left and where you were speaking about, does it require human intervention? Yes, the collective wisdom of a group of editors. If it is so, if it's not one person who decides everything, if the wisdom of other senior journalists is also taken into account, I hope hopefully in many other organizations, it is like that. It does make a difference to have an amalgamation, I would say 80, 20 of purely editorial driven, which is not driven by what the social media says or well, how is it that we were collecting news still now as editors? We were collecting it from our reporters, stringers from vernacular medium. Among the news collection agencies, why is it that social media or curated stuff that bombs are in boxes are also not becoming a part of? It is our job as editors to go through it, act as a scene and take out as I said earlier, take the scene out. Point well taken, Abhijeet. I'll go to Abhijeet. Abhijeet, three quick questions in quick succession. I was just reading a book called Future Crimes. It talks about deepfakes. Then I saw a channel said we don't need anchors. We can put out news without anchors. We'll use a deepfake visual and there'll be editors who will be writing news on decks and it will be read out by a face, which is picture perfect, which is appealing and which will change every half an hour because we have a deepfake too. Now, for a lot of people, it may be good news because you don't have to pay fat salaries to anchors. You can dispense with them. But as far as we are concerned, this is a question of should something like this be done? Second, you make a very good point on your last intervention where you said that a certain channel put out a certain show where you could deliberately manufacture content by getting dumber type of if I may allow to use that word, a panelist for representing a certain ideology and for other ideology, you can get the best minds. I want to now ask you what happened during the farmer agitation? The bloggers took the lead and the channels followed. It became very evident after a few weeks that the algorithm started actually you open YouTube and you could see the bloggers news first and the channels news, you have to scroll a bit. Even after all the money that these channels spent on getting their news up, the bloggers news were coming up and people wanted to see the channels followed. What does that tell you about algorithms and the future of news? Because an independent guy with a mic and a camera emerged much mightier than channels with hundreds of intelligent paid staff on their roles. How do you look at it? See, this goes back to the point I was making. I'm going to deal with your last question first, which is the complete loss of credibility of traditional news media. Do you think it could be print or be it TV in that sense? So I don't actually think that having a big name behind you. At one point, it used to be a quality filter. It is no longer a quality filter, right? People, again, it is this sort of self-certifying agencies that claim that a certain editorial board is a quality filter. It is not. Let me give you three simple examples. I remember Enram's story on the Rafale based on that document, which was very cleverly edited, manipulated to remove certain comments that contextualize the entire conversation happening out there. And nobody, no fact-checking agency, nobody picked up on it till I tweeted about it because then the entire thing came out. You compare the original with the latter, all the conversation started making sense and the Hindu had deliberately manipulated comments out of the images on which it ran three days worth of so-called exclusives. And on the fourth day after this had been exposed, it fell flat completely, right? Second, on Doklam, you had, again, a reporter from the Hindu claiming that the Chinese opened the floodgates and the water completely washed them away. Again, it was a failure of editorial, a severe failure of editorial responsibility because they had bothered looking at satellite imagery, which incidentally was free and had already been put up from 13, 14 hours after the deadly clashes out there. You would have seen that there was absolutely no proof of water flow. The water was still being held out there. In fact, the water wasn't released till about 48 hours after the entire Doklam incident happened, right? So you also have an editorial board. It seems that is completely clueless about technology. So where is the credibility here? Then you had the business standard, which went on running stories about, you know, how this is an actual occupation of Indian territory, but the editors never took it upon themselves to actually do even basic fact-checking, which is asked the correspondent who was reporting, please tell us what your interpretation of the border is in A, B, and C, and then we'll take it. And so what was happening was they were running these stories without any kind of verification or proof. And every time we would put out satellite imagery, the correspondent in question would then change the border one kilometer or half a kilometer further and further east so that the burden was greater on you to prove that this wasn't an occupation anymore, right? Okay. I'm sorry, but none of these channels have credibility. Okay, so this credibility is a complete chimera. It's sort of a, you know, it's a sort of cheap self-promotion gimmick that people use. And it tells you a lot that people even see this as credibility of where their mindset is. On the other hand, let me give you an example in India today. Unfortunately, it's become a meme in Pakistan now to my great regret. I was on a TV show with Rahul Kanwal, where he had put up this engine, which the Indian Air Force was going on saying it was a JF-17, sorry, it was an F-16 engine. It clearly was not. It was a MiG-21 engine. I corrected him on screen and he immediately admitted that it was a mistake and corrected it. For me, that is credibility. That somebody has the intellectual caliber to say, yes, okay, fair enough. This was a mistake. We correct ourselves and we're no longer going to run this news. That's a point well taken, but I'm getting alerts that we are over shooting our time. We are at 12. Okay. Just one quick last point. I think we need to be very clear. There is a difference between journalists and anchors. The problem is we tend to confuse anchors with journalists. If you go back to the old Doordarshan days when we grew up, none of the TV anchors were actually out on the field reporting or winning journalism awards. We need to separate the two. An anchor is nearly a comparing function like an MC at an event. They are not the event. Okay. Okay. That's a good point and a good note to end this show. Those who have not read, must read Avijit Ayer Mitra's story using satellite imagery on the North East, which I think you put out about eight, nine months ago. That was an interesting story. I would like to thank Shubhajit Senghukta, Avijit Ayer Mitra, Ankit Piyagi and Vivek Tarayan, for spending time joining us on today's panel. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Tara. Thank you. Thank you.