 Actually, on the other side of the screen, an anchor will be asking me. So it's actually a name for a TV reporter who will be grilling the anchors, no matter where I'm going to be, no matter where I'm going to be. Thank you very much. Actually, none of them need interaction with the co-commodality. This is a part of the association with the New York Center, which is actually one of the most familiar places in the public TV world. So, I went by the rock star on our side. That's it, me, Rishabh Ullaki. One thing you should see is this. Rishabh Ullaki is the new ZX. And Kavira is a very familiar place to find us now. Thank you very much. As I said, it's a dream panel for me, because I get to grill you guys, and it used to be the other year around when I was on TV. But, you know, on a serious note, it's your own note that the topic is our anthem becoming spokespersons. The organizers, they have two questions, some are vague, spokespersons for me, for the government or for the opposition. And depending on which channel you watch, you get to decide. So, in any case, what we do is we ask each one of you, we have, I think about half an hour. We will ask each one of you to share your thoughts on this topic, and then we will have a conversation and say what I want to say with respect to what you're asking me. I'm wondering what you're doing on this panel, because we're talking about spokespersons for a particular political party. I've got that space, and how can you sort it out? You might as a chance to get folks to learn international news, but when you say, spokespersons, you are presenting an idea, and anybody who believes that journalists are the only stick to information for not opinionating them. It's either do you believe in yourself or not, because we express our opinion like more than we do. And that opinion we are made up, and actually we are able to contribute to the ideology. If I spoke, if he's specifically about the army, we say that we present India's perspective to the government, so are these spokespersons, isn't it? If they are, we present the point of view of the country of the government, but we also question it. So there's a difference between being opinionated and being biased. I think in today's TV space especially, people come to you as much for information, which is available everywhere else in today's social media, as for valuations of their opinion. I stand for something, I believe in something, and I'm not shy away from this question. Is it not just some ideology or some political views? Okay. To that extent, I can address our spokespersons, but they're also spokespersons for their own editorial position and their own individual people. I hope you know them all. What do you think, what's your take on this? Sir, you know you've just left the entire question, can you open it with the... So, personally, being in this industry for the system we are now, I've come from being in Z to a TV to try and stop the public, and if you think that that is how I should answer the question, I think you should also avoid that. The new space today is dramatically different. Your viewers are smart, you're intelligent, they have tons of ways to start which they can gather in this world. Whether it's a social media, whether it's your digital space, it's your traditional newspapers, it's your own format of magazines, newsletters, television. So you have to be the reason why they come to television. When they come to television, they spend some time with you. There has to be engagement. How do you engage? Unless you connect, I think to the audience, you can't have engagement. And why I also say this is because I've been in the photo, I've been an actor. So you understand the difference, you understand your journey, and we at the public very, very strongly believe in putting out our opinions. I think it's extremely important to take sides. Unless you take a side, what is the point of you putting views? If you just tell me this is so and so, this is so and so, this is something you can almost everywhere. My idea is to speak about a story today that matters to the viewer. For the last few hours, if there is one story, I think that has consumed all of us as a nation, is what happened to Obama. Now, people can have different opinions, you know, but I against strongly believe that if this is not what gets you together as a nation, nothing else. Talk about anything. You can say these are dilutionary tactics. The opposition on the first day decided to question the Prime Minister. They realized they should not be doing it very well. The next day you hear a very sensible remark that comes into the Congress President, Jonathan Gandhi. And I think that is about the movement of the nation. So I think when we say our anti-ethnic or sports persons, yes, they should always be. Because unless there is a face to a story that is a voice to a story, people will not come to you. That's right. When I said, actually, the question was there, recommended that you might be said to organize a sex sports person in the room. But the question is the same thing that arises that should the various sports persons to the green side of the government or to the other party rather than to the room. What's your opinion? Let me tell you. Let's talk about this piece. I think that when it comes to sports persons, that person should not be doing it very well. Every time there is a person who is giving knowledge, the person in front is doing something very simple that if you are giving knowledge, you should give it. If you give it, then it is like a connector. That is not the case today. In today's case, when you are talking about the mind, you are talking about the mind. When you are talking about your mind, then the mind will be connected to you. When you are leaving the mind, you have to move forward. What is the mood of the nation? In the United States, we say that there is anger on the head, there is angry on the head, there is protest on the head. So when you are showing all those things, if we don't look at it in a different way, then what does the person in front want? He wants to confuse us, or he wants to confuse us. And if someone comes to me with a question, then he wants to confuse us. The one who has lost his child, who was engaged in it, suddenly realized that his wife was innocent. The rest of the family was also innocent. The wife who was going to marry him, her father, her mother, said that we should not treat our child, because we want to know about our child. If we are showing the country of that sentiment, or if we are telling it, then in some political party, we should be happy. No, I am talking about that family, that every person should be happy, because along with that, we should feel that sentiment. Why did you come here? I locked both of you in the room and left you. And the fact that both of you are fighting, I said that you are a rain shower, you shouldn't do anything outside. Now when he came to me, I asked him to tell me that you are a rain shower. Or he said that I am keeping both of you clean. He said that it is not a rain shower, that you should stop fighting. So he said that we were talking about rain. That's why he said that you should know the truth. So what have we done so far? In the name of Nishpa Chhita, we do different things. Nishpa Chhita and Chhita Chhita are different things. Like what you said, being cooperative and being biased are two different things. So Nishpa Chhita and Chhita Chhita are different things. Chhita Chhita means that I am not saying anything, I don't understand anything. Whatever I say in front of you, you are throwing it at your audience. Nishpa Chhita means that I am because you think I am better than you and that's why I come to see you. And I am more resourceful than you. So I can go to all the places, but you can't go there. So I can see all the things there, understand them, feel them, and after that I can tell you what I was right. That is Nishpa Chhita. So if you want to give that sentiment, that feeling, that Nishpa Chhita is in front of you in the right way. If you want to be a spokesperson, I don't mind being a spokesperson of the people of the country who watch me on TV, I don't mind. And only when they come to see that we are their group or their group, what is this? It's interesting that if we are not there, then we are not on the spot. But usually wherever we sit, that very capacity, that's happening there. And when we give our word, that's when we are at ourя in the wrong direction. So I can tell you about this in this moment, that when we are at Swig append, that happens there. No one reaching the block, and that's fine. I am going to read the subject matter of this angle, I will ask you three questions. Today, this has become a fashion in India. And fashion is like this in all political parties. If you ask me a question, then you will say that you are the anchor of that party. And this is a question with everyone. Everyone can be with Chennai, everyone can be with Anchor. This is why the anchors are like this. They will ask questions and answer them. And some anchors are like this. They will ask questions and answer them. They leave a question. They don't ask questions, they leave a statement. They say whatever you want to say. Why? If I ask them, I will ask them. And I will ask them one more question. I will ask you one more question. If you think that you are the anchor of this party, then answer them. But the problem is different. The problem is not that what anchors are asking. The problem is different. When there is a panelist situation in front of you, then what do you have to say? You have to answer the question of the anchors. Or the political parties in front of you. The people who are above the police, they will attack the anchor. They will say that you are the person who is asking these questions. No, you have to fight, you have to fight. You have to debate in front of the political parties. You don't have to do it with the anchor. But the situation is like this. You become like this. And then when you become like this. And if you attack the anchor, the anchor will try to defend you more. The anchor will try to strengthen you more. And then this is the way the anchor is in the debate. The anchor is like this. Not at all. When we ask questions in a good way, and every party's panelist is like this. They ask me a lot of questions. But they keep it hidden. They don't keep it hidden. And then they attack. That is very important. The pressure comes in as I already said. There are some people who ask questions. They keep it hidden as being the person for A or B. What is your A or B? No, you become like this. That should be right. No one asks a question. How are you going to do it? And that will often have to do with the political parties. And that's also the beauty. Because you debate across dozens of channels. Why it takes a wave today? It's a constant debate. No one wants to even use a political party that we can get to see coming on. One thing I just might admit is that people who come to watch you are not coming for it very, very well. Except in very rare circumstances, like the circumstances that happen in Australia. The information they give even for us online, our first protocol becomes that. By the time the protocol gets to us, you know, the spot is half an hour, 45 minutes. And even on a big event like this, all of us is reacting to what we do. Is that what's happening on this topic? The people who come to you have an opportunity to buy us. Now, not understanding human psychology, the people who come to you are not coming to you on the next day. They are coming to you in a few minutes. They are likely to make no person who is not going to be sitting there doing exactly what these people are saying. Just hear this, this, this. Sometimes very gently and exactly. To hear this and this. And then let them buy it out. You actually control the conversation to have some potency in the conversation. Obviously, you can't buy that. And the second bit of my view is, when we are looking at a presentation of our own business, is that going to have a basis of a chain of biases to national attitude? We are opinion, not people, we become opinion makers. And to sit there and not have an opinion makes you a piece of furniture. You are not part of that proposition. You have to be part of the conversation, even if it is to educate that conversation or temper that conversation as it then was required. Sometimes our conversation need to be headed in a particular direction because we are going all over the place. Sometimes it needs to be tempered. And for this, the realization for all of us, that we don't want to end up speaking to an empty room because we will soon be highlighted by the sheer plunder between us out there and all of us assume that we are together. And that is a disservice to people of country also because we lose the face value. Really, if I am saying something like it, don't like it, I am mounted to what I said and that is subject to the law or the definition that we are defining. When I talk to nonsense every day, I will be caught down in the middle of it. But when it is out there floating in the medium, we say that we are not going to connect. We can't put a name and a face to it. Who knows where it came from? Then there is no comment that we can also make. There is a whole bunch of more comment for this. But you said that I was wrong or you said that I was lying, so we are... So these are my two bits of it. It's a real energy. I am talking about it instead of talking about it. We can even talk about it more clearly but pretty, two questions I think you want to ask are anti-soft buckets. Really, I am not going to go with it. Everyone has said it is also important we are also systems. It is also important to talk a little bit about the feeling and how strongly we feel about the issue. But there is also this new, traditional meaning that goes to the dirt that is unorganic. Who, in a broad sense, will be the news that the news maker will be, you know, be the news. So, what do you like to say about this? So, if I take your first question, are anti-soft buckets because they are taking places of a channel where they are planning to make burdens to us. You know, when you talk about anchors in spokesperson, I think, you know, we are planning to make burdens in the sense that we are also being watched by someone who is a pro-BJP, someone who is a pro-powerist, someone who hates a particular community and someone who is secular to the court, someone likes the idea of being the someone so that that nationalistic sentiment is very high on the head. Somebody says, down, down, making the news. So, we are actually we are sitting on there and we are written because if anyone we are being watched by anyone. So, for someone, I am definitely going to be the spokesperson of the other. Right? Because there has to be one certain story that will be whole. It has to stand up. Now, having said that, I also feel that talking today are anchors becoming the new spokesperson. There is very much perception here. People have come to associate a certain perception with a certain brand and they want to just believe it. Like all my fingers on my hand are not equal. Everyone under certain umbrella is not following a certain code and code written script. When we are doing the line today, which we are not following in the script, we have to follow what flows through that particularly. Now, again, because it's not specific to what spokesperson I am assuming that primarily it is because of the political base has been developed and my channel has been elaborated in a certain way. So, I think it's about time that I put out some facts about it as well. As new anchors, we are also debate moderators. So, they could understand that, right? We are debate moderators. Now, sometimes we have to take that step forward and you have to indulge in what I call as rescue acts. I'll give you three examples where rescue acts come into play. First is in a debate, one spokesperson is making personal attacks or indulging in what about you which is very common. Now, when you are making personal attacks to the other person even if I am not in that party I will definitely come to this rescue and tell you come on. You know, personal attacks are not part of my debate topic. Please stay away from it. At that time the other person will say, oh, I think this spokesperson will be more than that. That's one example. Second example is in a debate again. A spokesperson is getting hammered left and right and not getting his, you know, 30 second in in terms of his response. It is my job as a drain waterer to please like this day immediately come with him which was down and bring him back to where it all started. The third is and this is extremely important this is where he will as spokesperson of a certain side. This is when one spokesperson is putting out wrong facts or treating facts as for their convenience for the viewer. I am also responsible for the viewer's concerns, right? But they are getting out of this situation. Now if this spokesperson is not to be prepared and my research team has backed me up with better facts I am definitely one who you know can change with my facts. Now you may say oh, you may discuss this but I can use this that way we will also talk to us, right? So you know we have a very all of these things that may be not going during that debate and I think it's not fair to label anchors as spokesperson I can relate just judge one anchor as an individual not under the grant and they are working one is that the fact that people are accountable viewers come to you because you are a piece of silver you are a person of art you are a person of art and they would what you say is important to them they would believe you so that's what this is the question to you maybe have you know a strong view that the other side of the debate also that what do you think the people who you are you can discuss your opinions because you are a speaker you think as we say in politics and for example he not only represents the people so do you also articulate views to see what makes the difference from the other side what do you think the people who you are you are a person of art that's what the people who you are are more and they are more they are more they are more they are more they are more they are more they are more so knows what so they are more they are very aggressive they are more They are less Lastly he what speakers He talks So what do you think? That's the problem. That's the problem. Most of the problems we are dealing with. Do you understand this? It's a very problem for all of us. As long as we are reduced from all sides, we are fine. We are doing a fine job. Let me give you an example. In NRAP, from 4 months to 5 months, there was an accident. What happened? Nothing happened in NRAP. We are doing the same thing, in NRAP's previous flow school. What happened? What happened in NRAP's previous flow school? What happened in NRAP's previous flow school? What happened? So what happened was that every state of NRAP was trying to fight against them. As I said, the people in NRAP were fighting against them. And they were fighting against them. And they thought that if they were fighting, they would have been dead. But they were fighting with the state of NRAP. That's why I know this. Because you say, what's the point of being in this state of NRAP? That white choice is seen every day. It's known that the reason for fighting with the state of NRAP is that it is very bad. If you are with the state of NRAP, you are fighting with the state of NRAP. Every day, you fight with the state of NRAP. And every day, you fight with the state of NRAP. I don't think the government is doing the same thing with the schools. Even today, schools can't do the same thing. Something we do is we raise that conversation to politics. It's not just about the future of the environment. This is not what the country is about. The country is about us, it's about the people. This is why 10 years ago, you know, weirds about the idea. We'll pick up people's issues. It could be our process. But we'll use stories that matter to you. So, I think it's why we hold the entire conversation about Congress versus the future of any other political party. And just enlarge it. But I think it's because we are smart enough. We, what is coming, are not following that path. I think that is also a challenge. Because it's very easy. A very easy analyze that we see for most of political parties you know, Congress does not come to a channel at all. So, but you'll get political analysts. Shama is sitting there and smiling. I don't know why you still don't come. But you know what, it's a participate of democracy. You know, I just want to make a brief point. It's a participate of democracy. The moment you decide not to come to a forum or not to, you know, even speak and then say, okay, it's a channel, it's a channel. And that is your bias. If you're open, come forward, put out your view. If you're not allowed to put out your view, that is another problem. But come and do that in the first step. Allow people to make an opinion. And as I said, viewers are very smart. Please do not undermine the intelligence of others. Let's see what you decide then. Okay. Now, let's move to the next question. I think Indian people, in the end of the century, their position was different. But also, they have a feeling that other political parties have a different opinion. This channel is different. And this is a very anti-partisan channel. You are very clear about yourself. The fact is, if you come to a forum with a person, you, if you send half a million Spokesperson and as you say, it's getting better, then you feel that there is no such thing as an anchor. This is different. All these Spokespersons will meet in a gas station in the evening, in the evening, and in the evening, they will meet in the evening. So, there is an anchor, there is a lot of anchor, and all these Spokespersons will meet in the evening. So, my opinion is simple. The channel you have a problem with, you feel that this channel is ours, you send the best case, the best team, the best team, but you say that are these Spokespersons from India? So, there is also somewhere under line there is this traditional concept that as journalists, which is our job to be questioned on your knowledge. So, you know, should we not come to the forum? You are of course developing a perspective, India perspective to the international world. But when things are going wrong, should we not question or should we just initially I think this perception as we were saying, the perception battle or perception as that has come to be defined is that you know we, media houses stand to show to be one side of the story and of the entire story. I want to start this answer by slightly disagreeing with what the co-pandas have been saying. When you say that you have spoken personally and specifically to people, I don't do it to panic their moments. I'm not going to say something just because I feel that today this is a segment, this is what you want to do about it. I'm going to speak against Ajay Shastra, Madhura Pradesh, Thala Prugama, Arbaid, because I believe this is the way. And if people agree with what we are saying, to the brand of journalism that we stand for, they will watch us. I will not change my position today because I want to serve tomorrow as a media feed on them. And governments don't want to office on you because we don't want to. So that is the reflection of what I said today. So tomorrow there is a government, I will not change my position. Everything that is done will be served by me. What is your feeling that is bad, irrespective of who is in power? Krishna, I just want to take that view. As I said, there are times when managers or media houses need to be spokespersons. For example, you call out Agastar and say that you have to stop voting together. You know, they are not too opinionative about it. You can't even be audience in some way. You know, that is from a single strategy that we change the neutral position. I mean, that means somebody else can do that. I mean, our company will be on the same level. But to take some decision. You are right. What is what I was going to say. I was going to say something to Pakistan and say, oh, they are saying they are millionaires. Let's discuss the fact that pension is there. That's not going to happen, right? That's not going to happen. But it is actually right. You also got to believe in something. And in the end, you are responsible to come to vote. There might be perceptions about channels, but there are also perceptions about us. If you are sitting there, right, they are not voting, voting something. This is our base, what we are saying. We are not voting. Who is talking my and any of the same? What was? Once the button is pressed, I am there. All of us are there. And we are accountable to what we are saying. That accountability for ourselves keeps and should keep all of us in check. And I just want to start talking about this. I am not going to say it. When you have a question, you think, is that happening in this country? If you have a question in price line, if you have a question in two lines, if you have a question in problems, if you have a question in response to a level of that, these questionings are in the system. But the real party in the system is changing. The nature of the dollar question system cannot change. It does not change. That's precisely what we are asking. There has always been a fine line between news and abuse. In newspapers, for example, when we write a report, we write the report as to this, or as on the song. Of course, I can write whatever I want. But primarily, we see that you need to give a question on the line, lost that anti-establishment attitude. I mean, I started my career with being in the great state, but it was a battle for me. At that point in time, have we somehow lost it? I want to do what you guys always want to do. We keep running out of time. I am just going to say that. So really, I know our views and views, go hand in hand. The minute a news breaks, we have to present the views around it. So it's a pretty succinct way, and then we get both the persons to join us online, and then we immediately start reading our views. So news and news are not that widely separated in TV broadcasts, for sure. I mean, we can't bring out a feature, a 30 minute feature channel program every day, since this is only opinion. That doesn't happen. So when you are asking people to express your views immediately after news break, we don't end up taking certain sides sometimes, or end up relating to that side more quickly than the other. Then of course, the news follow up happens, and then you may end up changing sides. So it's not like, you know, like I said earlier, we're not already scripted yet. It depends on the go and how the story is. So that's the point, because that's the way transpelling in TV. You can't take it. If you are not convinced by the news, that is not an opinion that is in you, you know, you'll actually be like that. And that is where the viewer will have the ability to switch it off, change channels. So that's point number one. That is why we as a public again, you know, what we do if we don't have telecoms, we don't read from a script. Because you connect with the audience, you're able to know what the pulse of the people is. For you, it could be right or wrong. I don't care. But for me, that ability for me, it's important and we are, you know, writing the press. And if you're talking about Pakistan's good guy, that is not good stuff. So we are very sure that we are taking our time. We are, you know, I'm technically working as a group that, you know, we have to wrap this up. We have to wrap this up. I've always been very polite. Anyway, I'm glad you're working with me. This is of course the jury is out of this one. You know, I would say that my closing comments is that I always believe that there is a line between views and views and we need to paint that line. Let the viewer decide. But at the same time, you know, it's not bad to have an opinion that it's not good to be biased. That's all I can say. The jury is out of this one. Thank you very much. Wonderful discussion. Thank you very much.