 This session has no topic as such as unfreeze, so that's what it is, so expect some, we don't get chance to catch news anchors often, you know. So here is the final part of the day to do that. First of all, you just had three. No, I was in, we had really more of them today. So first, so thank you so much for joining us and I want to start with this context during that, you are the jury, right? You saw some new talent. First of all, give me a sense of where is journalism headed when you saw those profiling journalists, you know, that they represent. Where are we? I think journalism is anything absolutely the right direction. I am the young people, you know, I'm young too. So I'm not going to exclude myself from that list, but some of the people that we saw, we heard and the work, it was just phenomenal. And I think that it was very, very tough to distinguish between their capabilities. I feel that we're in very safe hands with this generation as long as we maintain the distinction between, you know, fact and fiction. I think that's really fundamentally the most important part. And I think that all the individuals that, in fact all 80 or 90 individuals that were shortlisted were phenomenally well versed in what they were doing. So it was very tough, but on just the basis of that, I think, you know, articulation, the use of language, perhaps even their point of views, and I don't shy away from expressing them. I think this was a fabulous bunch. And it really inspires a lot of confidence. So which brings me to my next question about, okay, all that is fine, but what they are watching is a certain quality of discourse that has a lot of critics. What do they do? I mean, the journalism that's been practiced, you know, a lot of critics are around. And we have this promise in class. So are they torn between something with the idea that we're just in fact? So you talk about TV journalism in specific. Look, I'm married to a critic. My own wife is my biggest critic. She comes from the United States. She worked with the BBC Reuters. They far moved from the sensitivities of our times now. And she finds some of us extremely valuable and I don't blame her. But as I said, I think every culture has its idiom of expression. We are a, I don't want to use the cliche argumentive democracy, this that the other, but we are a society that appreciates some amount of, I suppose unfiltered, to use your word, commentary. The problem, and this is where we need to be extremely focused. The problem is when our rhetoric gets the better of us. I think that is an issue that needs to be looked at very closely and especially the debate medium. Because if that is happening, then you can't build a good argument or at least a convincing argument. The basis of every good argument is hard fact. And you can interpret hard fact and look, just look around you, we're today competing with, I think, Ukraine used that example of digital or what have you and you know, I'm not even on social media, I'm getting out of the tweet. I've just about managed to start treating on my own, I used to use an interface, I'm not very proud of it. I'm not on Facebook, I'm not an insider, don't know what to do with them. A bit of a crocodile, but nonetheless appreciates the fact that people have got a voice in this medium and can today actually put out a lot of things that mainstream media would miss. Now, when you're competing with that, you're looking at a very different beast because they're commentary, extending points of views. And also, remember, there is very little formality. So, you know, a lot of us process the news first on WhatsApp. A lot of stuff is sent to us on WhatsApp. I'm talking about in our daily lives, as normal citizens. We don't even switch on our TV, we don't even pick up on newspapers. The first thing we get are forwards from friends, etc., and we're looking at them and we don't know if they're fact, they're fiction, if they're mix of two. And sometimes, some of us who are impressionable, less skeptical, will take them as gospel. At least mainstream media has some sort of regulation. It is self-enforced, of course. We govern ourselves. We do. We are held up to certain standards. We just set, of course, for us through a process which is quite inclusive. And therefore, there is a bit of a formality in what we're doing. There's an expectation that we verify facts and we don't put up fake news. As long as you are actually sticking to those basic rules, you can be as opinionated as you want. Newspapers are opinionated. Various digital websites have the news and they're opinionated. Their opinion columns, we swim between or, I mean, with people, for example, is the first thing you look at on a paper is the news. Increasingly, news is also becoming editorialized because they're looking at not obviously being, you know, they're competing with digital, which is reported in the news the day before or hours before they have. So, in your right team, you're going to editorialize law. I remember working in a BBC newsroom where we couldn't even describe the person we were conversing with because that was, you know, an editorial comment on their, you know, either their patritude or the demeanor, et cetera, and that good bias in some ways and influence the conversation. Today, you know, we've forgotten those basic rules. Not to have a fan of that. I think that, you know, you can build atmosphere into your piece and that's, I'm just taking a setting of benign example, perhaps a more extreme one. But the fact is that I don't see why an anchor can't be opinionated. In fact, if you, like I do, in my promo, I put out, kind of energetically, then I have a point to view, that you can choose not to watch my show. I set myself up for that. So, I think, you know, we need to evolve with the manner in which we're also interlocuting with public. We've got Twitter now, you know, so you've had Twitter, I've woken up to its reality in the last two years and I find a lot of people want to converse with you and you can choose to engage them, or you can put up your point of view as long as it's responsible and as long as it needs certain criteria, which is fact-based, you get over it. But isn't mixing news and news a dangerous cocktail at the same time? Now again, I don't think it's a dangerous cocktail because you are looking at television from a very, very prime-time perspective, where anchors sometimes with signature shows come on. And if you look at the West, I think, not to say that the West is any ideal, but if you look at what has happened in the West where perhaps this style has been experimented with more in different formats, this is quite the rigour. The issue is when an anchor oversteps the market, most of us are guilty on a given day, there are a few rare exceptions that don't, when you mix fact with fiction. So I can sit there and start cooking up facts and then basing my opinion or my view on that, I must come up with a expose of what are the facts. It's like being in a court of law. The two lawyers are doing pretty much the same charge sheet from different perspectives. I'm not talking about cherry pickets, I'm talking about establishing the facts. You put the facts out there and then you say, well, these facts lead me to deduce this. What do you think? And as long as you're not muting the other side, I think television shows are a lot more democratic and a large number of publications. I won't take publications from my conservative point of view and a large number of publications in India. They won't even want me to write because there's consensus there. One of the biggest problems with American democracy for a while, and you saw people like Noam Chomsky completely out of the pale, was because it's a consensus between society. Their politics is now consensus given that the vast, vast middle in the last five years, we've seen like, you know, move away from that and they don't know how to deal with it. Here in India, we find many shape the opinion and it's important to reflect that. And if the 20 minute or half an hour, 45 minute, one hour show can bring together several strands of the conversation, I think that's a great thumbs up to our democracy. As long as I said, you know, new job people, right? We're short on time. I want to ask my last question and then a couple of questions from the audience. I know they are really waiting for it. Why is news looks same, right? I look everywhere. Why is it showing up? What are you doing to change it? Why? Number two, somebody in the morning said that he doesn't bother what the children say. Doesn't bother you. That's what's the question. Look, I'm a bit new to this game. I'm a very self-absorbed personality who doesn't really interact with a lot of people. I don't meet politicians at all. On the rare occasion, when there's a background briefing, I go and fact it, not very particularly fond of meeting politicians. I'm not somebody who greets us, but I don't even meet fellow journalists. You probably never see me at any, you know, journalist parties, et cetera, et cetera. So obviously, I live in a cocoon and the only feedback I get is from friends, family, and of course now increasingly through Twitter. I barely ever look at what the so-called trolls are saying. It doesn't matter to me because if someone can't meet an argument with another argument, I don't even consider them worthy or being bothered about. What does bother me is when someone points out that on a particular show, I might have transgressed some of the lines that I hold dear, which is fact. If I've put out the wrong fact, then that bothers me because I think that all of us as journalists have souls and we all try, at least in the public interest, to do stories that in James and his scores. For example, there was a time, and I think it still remains quite valid for a large number of news organizations where, you know, sting journalism is sort of valorized and people go out there and do stings and all sorts of things. Now, I've put a ban on stings which don't serve the public interest. So as long as a sting serves the public interest and manifestively so, we won't do sting journalism. We don't even have an SIT team. We have a bunch of people who are editors or journalists who go out and we want to perhaps carry out some sort of an investigation and that sort of dovetails into our sort of, you know, SIT for the lack of a better word, just to differentiate ourselves from the usual context in which we report. So I think that is something that is important. So as I said, feedback I get from people who are close to me and I value those associations because I think those people are interested to say that India is growing in total not so much because we have great views which we shout at each other. I think we're growing in total because we're not accepting of another point of view. So there's a massive cancel culture which is, and I can tell you from my own doing example, I've written several pieces that I have a column in the TOI and I know for sure that some of the stuff that I write raises hackles of the establishment and journalistic establishment, a particular set of people, and they don't like it and they would rather not have me writing for those pages. And I find that appalling because on times though we invite, we go out and say to political parties, they're representatives, people of the other side of the spectrum come, there's a top intellectual in the country who's also an author who will not appear on times now because he might find that some of the questions might visit responses to him that might expose his lack of balance. And I think that's timidity and I think that's very wrong and I think that just shows there's an intellectual insecurity. If you can't stand and, stand toe to toe with somebody and argue a point, then I'm sorry you're not an intellectual. I think we are planning for two quick questions, very short of time. Yes please, can I get the mic? Sir, may I give a speech, please wait for a while to come to you. Sir, as you've told that, I do argue with your point when you tell that anchors can be opinionated. But I think that anchors have the privilege of getting the largest, the major screen time. So if they are opinionated in one direction, is not that problematic? Yeah, that's what I'd say. I added a caveat. As long as you, A, remain faithful to facts, to present the other side of the argument. Look, if there's a story, you know, demolition, etc., there are always two points of view. There will be some people who come out and say that these people weren't given due notice. You might have another site that says like the municipal corporation that moved, we sent them and ordered a multiple this, that, the other. And if you choose to mute, one site which says, well, no due process was served here, and you only present the SDMC or whatever you want to call it, the municipal corporation, north corporation, whatever it is, their point of view. And then you begin to expound and say, many, this is, you know, a legitimate exercise. Then you're doing a disservice. If you say that two points of view, now you can take this, you can, you can, you policy, put them out there. And then you say, well, having acknowledged these facts, we can still say X, Y, or Z. And that's up to you and the way you sort of interpret. As long as the viewer is very clearly told that they're two sites. Second, most importantly, there will be another site on your panel that will express the dissenting point of view, if from you that is. And if you cancel that point out, then there is obviously imbalance, endemic imbalance in your show. Thirdly, which is something that I would like to reflect upon. I think people need to be a little more mature about accommodating another point of view, which may not actually concur with your own. A lot of people who come to times now, perhaps, and this is why I think they do, is to interlocute with the point of view that they don't hear on any other channel. Now you might be very niche, or you might be quite broad. Today, unfortunately, if you, I believe in certain things, certain principles, for 25 years, and I have a body of work, I went for an interview to a leading media company when I was about 28, and they said, you have two rights for us, i.e., rights of center. And I was stunned. It didn't dawn on me, I was too young to process it. When I look back on it, I was basically canceled. Now what I'm trying to say is, and that ironically is a media organization that prides itself in being telepathic and open. And when I look at it, and I begin to process what I hear from that portal or from the company, I sometimes try to square that point of view on air with what I've experienced. I hope they've graduated to be more accommodating, but it's mature. It shows maturity. If you interlocute with another point of view, and you allow it to subsist. So as long as an anchor allows for that, you're okay. And you're telling the viewer out front, sorry, if I phrase, welcome to show his name, that you have a point of view. So you're going to express it. What is the most happy moment of being in the middle? Well, that's a tough one. I think when you get up every morning, you feel excited about the news. I think I'm really happy about being excited about my job. I think we do the best job in the world, quite frankly. You're exposed to so much. You learn so much on a daily basis. You're not just staring at a spreadsheet. I would love to if I had my own business, but I don't. And I'm sure that brings people joy when they see the numbers going up. But I think when you get up every morning, there's a fresh story. There's something new to learn, something new to understand, something new to get your head around, and you're rejuvenated every day. I think I'm being extremely politic by saying this, because, you know, I really can't single out anything that makes me superlatively happy. I think the transition from films to TV, for me, was something I had to do. Do I enjoy it? Hardly television, not really. I don't even like to be on an actually how to do it, it's a job. I'm thinking of taking a break from it, in fact. That's the news. And I'm trying to sort of move towards something. Do you think I can take your place? Absolutely. You just ask everyone, they think we just do it. I'm used to it quite often. Exactly. What is the most embarrassing moment of the year? Oh, I have to say that recently, I started in a dual, and I didn't know the identity of the person I was speaking with. And just the other day, I was at this forum, the other time's forum in Bombay, Mechanums. And there was this young gentleman, a young, young man, perhaps as always, the gentleman was asking a question back there. And he came up to me and there was a young girl, and they said, we want to take a photograph. Do you really like her? Should we watch her as soon as it? Great. I pulled off my mask and I stood next to this guy and he looked at me and the moment they were going to take the photo, he said, by the way, I just died laughing. And I looked at this guy and I said, you know, even I crack up when I watch that. And so I think, you know, embarrassing in the sense that I didn't set myself up for that, didn't I? People have often asked, what have you done to the producer? I'm sure you gave the producer a hard time. I have to say that I came in and I was, in fact, I realized that this was probably going to go a little viral. So I told him immediately, don't put it out on Twitter. Okay. Don't put this out on Twitter. But it went off on YouTube. I didn't even know people like on YouTube. Can you imagine? Who puts a show that's going live on TV, live on YouTube, you're killing your viewership. But it did. And of course, it went crazy. So I went to the producer and I said, guys, it's fine. You set me up. At least don't throw me to the world before I knew it. What is the one news media person you look up to and why? Well, that's a tough question. And look, there are several. I'm really a man of letters. I like writing and I'm writing. I think I've worked with a couple of very good editors who are experts at the English language. I think Dileep Pradhyanka was phenomenal. Jock, I think, worked under him. Yes. Jyothirmoy Sharma. Jyothirmoy Sharma. Who's now going to academia. Good for him. I think my own uncle, Karan, I think he's an exceptionally good journalist. You can disagree with his politics, but that's the way it is today. As long as everyone's sort of retained a certain fidelity to the fact. I'm talking about the craft here. I'm not talking about opinions. I liked, for a long time, I thought that one other particular writer really fond of Rod Niddle. I read the spectator, I've been reading it for like 25 years. I think Rod Niddle's work has really influenced me. His irreverence is typical British term of phrase. I think it's phenomenal. As journalists go, fantastic body of work. I do read the National Review and I think spectacularly curated and written magazine, The National Review, set up by one of the greatest in commentary. So I think these guys really have some power. I think we are going to be a new TV journalist. I've talked about Karan, for example. I like the way he sort of sends himself up. I don't agree with him. We're on completely radical ends of the greatest spectrum. I think I've even been cancelled in the family, but that's okay. That doesn't still, you know, so I think Rajdeep was good. Vikram was fantastic when he comes on air. He's been a big round of applause. You don't really applaud your contemporaries or various reasons. I think that's so important. I think, you know, we're a big family. You know, we compete with each other. But I think at the end of the day, you've got to retain your soul. You've got to be able to get up in the morning and appreciate the others. Because if you don't, then you're a megalomaniac. And I think... Anyone in media, you know, for the first time, they're assembled with that. You won't give them, you know, next conversation. It was on Saturday, the third promo, but okay, my last question. One person outside news media, media that you look up to. Not for the... I mean, like, I look up to Kalli, the rest of us, but we add five feet more to all the news, not five feet more. Look, I mean, you know, look, I mean, when you start, India is full of... One principle. Two people one. I suppose, you know, look, again, it's good to learn controversial, but I think I sort of read a lot of being good. I think he was a phenomenal mind, very good for Indian politics, actually. I think you've had... You know, I'm not really enamoured by Mr. Nheru. He used to be at one time. Madhavan Gandhi is someone, obviously, that you would, you know, have a respect for. But again, I'm not going to the critique of Madhavan Gandhi. But I think overall, I have to say that there are certain voices that speak up, you know, to speak up to you, they reach out, they influence your mind, and I think I'm more... You know, I'm not somebody who watches as much cinema, etc., etc., so don't expect me to go, you know, I don't want to do it anymore. You're going to be specifically... My last question to you. Yeah. If you had to forecast one trend for media that we still haven't kind of got our hands around the... It hasn't been talked about since morning. We can't talk about some of the changes. Hope it can talk about some of the... So, one trend that we are not yet focusing a lot on, one prediction. Well, I think that I'm going to give this slightly preachy. I think we need to really come together as media, as professionals. I think there's just too much, you know, back-by-team that goes on, and I think that does a disservice, because I find that we can't unify on some of the more important issues, and I think people can take advantage of that, and a severely divided media is not good for... I agree. Also, I think if I were to activate anything, look, you can come up with a number of technical fixes, you know, to plow a different sort of, you know, a trend in a particular field. But I think... I don't know, I think it was the last time 20 top journalists cutting across opinion, shape the opinion, sat in one row, and actually had an honest conversation. I think what we really need is truth and reconciliation in the media. And we really don't know what to do with it, right? If you haven't heard about it, then my friends who really know me will try and do that. You know, there is an industry body, and there is such hostility in that industry body. I'll do the important work. And, you know, it shocks me, because at the end of the day, you're just contesting ideas, hopefully, not agendas. And if you are an author and agenda, that's that. You shouldn't be in journalism. But it's obvious you're contesting ideas. I think we should be mature enough to sit together and have conversations. That's before I let you go. Your viewpoint on the ratings. Look, first of all, there's, and you know, I speak my mind. I think there were certain expectations of, you know, the agencies. And I don't think all of them have been fulfilled. So I'm very, very, very trepidatious about the fact that the system is still open to the prospect of another scandal. Now, there are your headlines, multiple headlines today. Yeah. I keep saying he'll retire soon. Sonia says, he's been saying this for 20 years, and now around is whatever he has said about rating. Yeah, I think that, you know, somewhere along the line, that fills me with a little bit of apprehension. Now, look, I don't know. Times Now's trumpet. Is that the other thing? The release of the ratings is when I strike on top of the heat where I thought we always were. Now, I'm not saying that, you know, this was my doing or the present teams doing. I think Times Now as a brand has been put up there and the credit goes to everyone who actually served that channel. And the enterprise past, present, and hopefully future. So I think that's that's important. But I do feel that why we can sort of rebel in that, you know, I think what the rating system does is it sometimes pushes you into taking decisions that are tailored more for the taste of an audience. Right. And that's a constant and perennial struggle. Now, many people say, if you can't handle it, leave the kitchen. Obviously, you have to, and you have to under even those constraints continue to do the job so that you can, you know, speak well with your conscience. I think that what needs to evolve into a system. I don't have a legal office from them very often. Oh, so I'm speaking on your platform. You know, I get people who may or may not use. But the fact is, has everything that was raised has been addressed? No. Has the manipulation and manual intervention has that been addressed? No one knows. I mean, I don't know. So I just hope it has. Look, the report is yet to be, I think, made public if I'm not mistaken on the schedule under company. So clearly not with us. So it's not with us. So it would have been nice to see it. Do they have an internal fandom that they are contributing to the report that all those issues that were raised by the industry have been fixed? So clearly that's what wrong with the people. Yeah, clear out. I think I haven't given you on the same page on that. It may have been fixed. We don't know. Yeah, I mean, look, as I said, I hope it has been fixed. One expects it to have been fixed. I don't think anyone would want to subject themselves once again to that kind of scrutiny. Least of all bark, but frankly, you know, you know, Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.