The long answer is, well, I had to find the driver for the network device, which was not included in Gabron, had to fix some bugs in this driver and had to ask for some maintenance because I was not able to fix this problem on my own. This took me about one day and further the not supported 3D graphics of the ATI device was another task for two days to get the 3D acceleration working until it was not real fun. And so I can understand if some people are not really happy about the interior, but we cannot do much about it. So we cannot force ATI to release their code or whatever, but it's just a fact that there are outside users out there who are not really happy with the interior. These users might also be a lot of media enthusiasts, but there is not enough support currently, but we have no real chance to help them. These are just two users who probably will not lose data, which is not really our fault, but we could at least try to give them some hints and some documentation that they could do if they really wanted to try it out. The lucky user's fuel is, well, he was lucky enough to obtain some supported hardware. The installer went fine and he finally reached the task there, the selection of some 10 items also to select from and most users who are not really comfortable are wondering what to do now, but I want to do some desktop, what desktop is it? In my opinion, the start-sale selection is not really as user-friendly as it would be, because it works for many people, or for millions and loads, and you just have to do the synaptic or whatever to continue from this step on, but I'm a little bit missing the kind of needing hand for all users to make the system just nice, just as I wanted it. The different part of you is the upstream developer. The upstream developers, so those people who are developing the software we are including into Debian are not necessarily the Debian users. They might be Debian users, but in one way I think there are also Debian users even if they are keen on some other distribution because they have other users of their software that are working with Debian, and so they use Debian as kind of quality assurance for their software. A Debian developer, for instance, noticed that there is no manual page or whatever for the software. Most Debian developers are writing many pages, so you do not choose to do it, and forward this approach to the upstream developer and thus the upstream developer has some profit from those Debian users. As well Debian is supporting upstream software to other architectures, and very often there are some problems detected by these supporting teams, and if these problems are reported to upstream, these people also profit from Debian. In this very abstract view there are also users of Debian. Well, the Debian developer's view is as high as the kind of missing link between upstream and the end user because we have in between the software which is anywhere at the top and the machine of the user, then it starts to use the software. And if we are doing a good job, our users will be happy. And also the upstream developer is also happy in the sense I tried to describe before. Well, there is some principle of free software. You stay just independent from commercial interests of a producer. I mean, if I would be an employee of Red Hat 2 or whatever, I wouldn't have the freedom to pick whatever upstream software I would like to integrate. I have to follow some... I have to care for those software which makes a big market share and tries to make the distribution which my employer is promoting become a wide user base. Wide user base you can get easily if you stay in a large market and not so much in nice products. If you think about Debian review which is caring for schools, the schools are not really known for paying much money for software. So the main distributors will not really care about schools or in my case with this Debian main stuff. These people will not care about medical stuff because there is not so much software to bring to the medics. And so in Debian I have the freedom to say, well, my idea is I want to support this special field of software to bring it to the user and I have the freedom to do so because nobody would say, well, do something more useful. In one hand we are some kind of hunters and collectors of free software because if there is a piece of free software and Debian will be developing, oh, this is the right thing that packages and integrates. But in principle we should rather be more less designer of a comprehensive system and not just cherry picking anywhere. And my point of view is try to make some consistent system which really helps the users instead of just packing done software. Then finally we have the driver's view. They say, well, Debian is really nice but it does not really fit my needs. I would like to change this or that to make something else. And they just use Debian as a nice point to start from and then takes the freedom to make some other system which is find the license allowances. But I think it's not always the clever approach to go. What means universal? Try some search and work that's dictionary and what means comprehensive, general and also adaptable. I think these points are quite valid for a user as it is and it is really adaptable because we can adapt Debian for several things and the developers are doing it but they're doing something else. So another try has also three meanings if you are asking for the adjective. And here is one point I stress a little bit with what you call it. It is adapted to various purposes such as form and operation. So if you have, for instance, a screwdriver which is adapted to, well, you can mount any screw or you have a tool which can be used for many different things. So in this sense I have limited problems with Debian because it is not really adapted to anything. It is adaptable but not yet adapted to certain means. Special cases, for instance, the Debian Edu, the Castle Debian distribution it is really adapted to use inside tools. It can, for instance, handle students' accounts. It enables students to run educational software games, whatever and it does it in a really good way and it is also a good tool to teach students basic skills and informatics science and so on. And so Debian Edu is adapted from a teacher point of view. The adaptation is about a few points on the scene. But if you are, for instance, a scientist you find in Debian very interesting applications. They are included. There are many outside but well, it is quite interesting. And if you have nobody, please be quiet over there. Thank you. So Debian has a high potential to be a full featured scientific workbench but it is kind of served in pieces. If you are going to a low budget market and buy a workbench you have to assemble it yourself. And this is more or less what we are currently providing. It would be really good if it would be high quality tool provider who brings the workbench to the customer and puts it in their workroom to be ready for us. So we have no real concept to guide scientific users. So it is just only adaptable for the scientist point of view and well it is slightly better for biologists because in Debian we care for these biologists but there could be done some more for other scientists and also other fields of... We have this multi-media project which is not really active inside Debian. We have this Debian Lex which could be do something for lawyers and so forth but these projects are not really in life and so I think we could cover those special things much, much better if somebody would agree with me and start some work with us. So what about development inside Debian? Do we scale well in every direction? Debian is kind of multi-dimensional room and we have an increasing number of people involved which means not only the debut developers we have many people who are providing work to Debian as translators and bug reporters and sent patches and so the number of people who are working on Debian is increasing and the number of packages is increasing from release to release the number of architectures is not so drastically increasing we got some more we even lost some but the tendency is also an increase but the number of bugs also increases the number of bugs who are closed is not so high as those who are opened we have an increasing number of users we also have an increasing number of derivatives and last but not least we have an increasing number of labels which is not really nice but these are some points we are increasing numbers mean there is some change if you move forward into quantity at some point in time you just gain a new quality which is not very new and the problem is to find the right moment in time when this critical point is reached where the quantity makes a new approach to new quality and it is hard to find out this point I think we just stepped over this point Debian has reached a new quality than we had in maybe 2000 and we go into some process of evolution to move to something different I think it is a positive move like well if not we would not be here we would not be at the Debian conference and would produce new things but we have to be aware that we cannot approach as we did before we have to find some new methods to work on Debian and so I think that passing Debian distributions are ideal to deal with nearly all these dimensions of growth I mentioned before some quote from 2003 I hope this year number is fine compared to my talk number is when Manoj Sivastava said for the most part Debian is a bazaar of casinos with a few producers in place to override the low level casinos in exceptional situations each developer has within reason full control over his packages when you are following Debian technical policy just creating the low level procedure the technical policy and the general resolution protocol means of overriding developer decisions about their own packages this means more or less we have kind of a flat structure with some controlling mechanisms and the structure means we have one-to-one relation between maintainer and package this has just changed because we have some group maintenance for several complicated packages so we have an end maintainer to one package relation one package means if you have the X packages the result are several binary packages but many people are caring for the X packages which leads to some reliable teamwork and this work on the phase 2 means we stay on a technical level but I think we will evolve further on where in custom distribution we have an end-to-end maintainer to package relation that means several maintainers care for a set of packages which builds some kind of close subset inside Debian and so we have some complete suites covering use case and we have users and all users have their own use case so we have to find out which users are keen on using Debian in their special field by the way, did anybody solve the puzzle? it's up, it said anybody solved it so why do I think that Debian scale is higher? we have the increasing number of people so if we try to apply some substructure to Debian all of our number is the same but if we have smaller projects people are working on who are focusing on a certain field we have some better focus on these packages in these fields if we are subgrouping the number of packages we have closer packet sets and these subsets are easier to maintain in the overview and so the number of packages problem which is growing continuously might be solved well, the number of packs will increase more or less we cannot do much about it but if you have a number of maintainers who try to care for a number of packages at least I hope that they will try to have more motivation to fix those bugs who are relevant for their custom Debian institutions also the number of users which is increasing in general is reduced to some specialists for the Debian education of the teachers and so the maintainers try to cope with the specialist issues so they try to talk to teachers and ask what they can do for them also the number of derivatives is growing as I said but if we do some reasonable customization we could perhaps offer some means that the drivers might say well, there is no real need to derive because everything is inside Debian and I prefer to join Debian and work inside Debian than just arriving and start from scratch all the time but one thing I did not mention in my list of items is the time span in between the releases because this was for the last release not increasing we became better, this is really good this idea that we could release the time span could decrease the time span between releases this custom distribution was born because it might be possible to release subsets of Debian as custom distribution for instance if you think of schools they have a certain frequency to upgrade maybe the school year so it makes sense to have such fixed releases for certain subsets there are no techniques to do this currently there is just the idea but maybe it might work in the future so what about these derivatives Debian has according to probably some old numbers 129 derivatives, Fedora has 630 and all others has less than 30 what more Fedora has 63, sorry and well, the question is, is it a good time or a bad time? who thinks Debian is a better distribution time? distributions are a good time other people think it's a bad time it is good if you see large numbers but I think it is a good time that people regard Debian as a high quality distribution which makes sense to you and to derive from but on the other hand these 129 people think Debian is not good enough for my use case and so there is a pro and con in these numbers and in this talk I would like to stress the not so good side because if something is good we don't have to change it it's fine, if people like us it is fine I know what the puzzle is the puzzle is needed in a high stack yeah the puzzle is needed in a high stack what do you mean? you are brave enough, one free beer for me and so I would like to express some ideas how we can make those people who derive from Debian even more happy than they are currently what kind of deriver do we have? there is some kind of poor diligent deriver he has some misconception about Debian he thinks Debian is just one way he takes Debian as a running product which can be changed in any way so this is a few of the the use of some probability of software who has to accept what his provider of software hands him over but Debian is something else you can work on Debian and you can tell us what's not so nice in Debian and what you would like to change and then this poor diligent deriver has perhaps some problems with human beings he is sending a patch, please change this or that and the maintainer says go away with your stupid patch, I have no interest in it this is not not nice but we are doing human beings and please try again and perhaps the maintainer has changed his mind the problem for the diligent deriver is that he continues to work to keep up with the development of Debian and so I have observed several derivatives of Debian or the most famous derivative is Knopix which has 50 derivatives of his own those projects tend to die at any point in time because the deriver has not enough time to keep up with the speed of Debian development so my hint is rather try to cooperate than to make something else then there is the impatient desperate deriver he knows that Debian is something you can work on it's something you can influence but he faces certain showstoppers in Debian not every maintainer is responsible as he would like to be and if the deriver has a timeline he has no choice to change Debian in the way he wants to be he has to derive and he knows the principle of bureaucracy that those who do something are those who decide what is really done and so he just takes Debian and does what he wants to do but here I have also hint to leave open the way back to Debian because if the showstopper is solved and if it's possible to reintegrate your stuff just try it then we have some possibility employed derivers I named here some from Munich and Vienna and some other Spanish derivatives those people are gathered by the government to do something else and maybe it's known fact that every authority thinks it is very special and cannot do the same as some other authority so they need their own stuff so this deriver is more forced by social reasons to derive from Debian an alternative would be to continue the Debian eGaff passing Debian distribution guys it is much a sketch what could be done in a diploma work and there is not really much substance behind it a similar situation is our funded project the DeMuni project the Debian multimedia distribution was founded by the EU and the EU wanted to have a product and Debian is not their product so it's at least something else then we have the lucky life cities life cities are really cool you can demonstrate something you can test your hardware your favorite OS on random computers live DVD from Klaus Knobot has saved my life and I was sitting in the middle of Iceland and I had to find an internet cafe to fix something at all and we have very good usage of life cities in key systems and if you perhaps want to give a Linux course in a computer lab you are quite fine with life city the problem you have to keep your system up to date and this is really a problem I've heard there is even a book of 200 or 300 pages how to remaster Knobot it's really nice to remaster Knobot but if you have done it once you don't want to do it again because it's over and over the same work and doing the same work over and over this is not really fun for people like us so just use Life Paper I've heard about Life Paper here in this conference and it's really great and just use what you want to do give this a list of packages you want to have on your life city and some configuration you want to have and enter some line and say make it, make my life city and you are ready so perhaps you can join this effort regarding this two orchestras principle and make the life ever even better to fit on these and so on lucky life city creators could use plain Libyan stuff then we have the clever commercial Libyan those people want to turn Libyan into a sellable product Libyan is not sell anybody can use it for free but there are many companies who base their work on Libyan stuff they know the names they know the secrets and these people they add some value to Libyan and for instance this might be non free drivers to help those poor users I mentioned in the very beginning or print some manuals they can also sell some service for enterprises what we cannot really do inside Libyan because we are just volunteers and so it is basically about rebranding Libyan and add some value I think Libyan supports those drivers or should it even more support to make their work as easy as possible but they should be aware that Libyan even competes with those drivers so if they are not good enough use Libyan instead of Libyan in general I think the drivers should one lesson learn the difference between Libyan and the derivative should be very small smaller than some epsilon and over all time so if you derive more and more from Libyan I think the success is not as much as it could be so keep the diff always small and remind we are on your side talk to us if we can help you it's fine we would like to so finally I would like to say something about special applications inside Libyan we have to be aware that Libyan becomes larger and larger so the question arises how many packages are good for Libyan and I don't know I don't really know but I think if we bring some special applications under quality control we are able to attract the wider user base and this can't be really bad and so I think if there is a maintainer who cares for his package or a group of maintainer who cares for their packages it can't be really bad if we have more and more packages if there are packages who are not maintained we can get rid of them because they probably have also not a large user base so how many packages are good for our users is a real question and I think if we include special applications only if there are small user base it's really nice for our users and we can spread into areas which are not covered by other distributors finally the question is what about large user data yesterday I heard the talk about Zangra and with the GNOME projects they have really huge data and so it makes no sense to put them on every deviant in the world but it would be interesting to have a solution for those people to perhaps have a data area inside the deviant there is a long standing open bug number 38902 which is just tagged won't fix without any command which is not really nice because I think we should do something about those people who need large chunks of data so what is the basic goal of the custom period distributions we have more than 15,000 packages and our users are not interested in all of them they are interested in the subsets and we have some groups of specialized users who are need and very easy installation and configuration of these subsets of packages so while deviant stays a general distribution this is the main point, this will not change it should support specialists as well to make deviant really the universal system only if we are able to support every user who wants deviant support it will work for everyone so we try not to do a derivative from deviant and the basic idea is do not make a separate distribution but make deviant fit for special purposes in the future I think custom deviant distribution could solve structural problems inside deviant and I have to say I do not really like this name custom deviant distribution because most people who hear this name think this is something else in deviant so if somebody has a better name for this I am open for the couple it should make me fit for user interests and in my opinion it makes deviant stronger if done it in the right way what is the right way? I hope I can elaborate next year more about some common techniques which should be shared which my first attempt did not really work but I hope that I learn some lessons and make it better for next year and so the future of deviant is also known as the last final step towards total world domination I think I totally agree with Tosten who had to talk about this before me it was nice, I was not able to join and so to our right it is a need and a high stack and I think the custom distribution is kind of a need and a high stack for those users who are seeking for needs inside deviant I want to show them immediately and not just by wrapping all the huge high stack packages just show them what they really need and makes them happy to become well you know a future base so now open for discussion and I hope you like this idea and I hope you like this idea Okay, so firstly I should describe who is that I am employed in direct and by-marked shuttle work so I don't think that that's what I'm about to say so I agree that CDDs are a good thing and they should be encouraged and so forth but it's very important to realise that I think there's nothing wrong if somebody chooses to derive from deviant this is what free software is free software is software that everybody is allowed to modify and that everybody can modify and when people choose to exercise that freedom they have a lot of reasons which may or may not be something that is maybe wrong with deviant that's the case then obviously we should improve that but sometimes they have their own reasons maybe they disagree with us about something and it's definitely unreasonable if we say that people should not if we say that somehow we disapprove all these people doing something wrong in fact the biggest problem that we have at the moment with derivatives is that it's fantastically difficult to do a derivative and we really need to put in an awful lot of effort and we can't keep it up today properly basically because our source code management tool is so poor and I would really like to see some improvement in this area this was in the wacky ideas both earlier and if anybody has any comment ideas please talk to me about it really there's nothing wrong we say I want more people to take deviant I want to easily be able to derive it I want some random person in their house to be able to make a derive distribution for their friends and still have reasonable security support and for it to all work properly and we're a long way from that unfortunately I have a simple question maybe I don't understand the difference or the boundary between deriving a distribution and customizing a distribution to me it's really interesting to customize a distribution I should have mentioned we have a certain term custom deviant distribution that is a name for customization inside deviant this name is badly chosen because it's misleading can I explain because you've actually had to mention that CDDs do not have different versions of the packages that are already in deviant so CDD consists of some additional packages in deviant and some extra attention is paid to certain packages that are interested in but all the time it's the same versions as our deviant problem it's customization that's what CDD it means and derived distributions are ones where there is a different source code different binaries for at least some of the packages this is what's called deviant internal projects and we wanted to make some separation between technical projects and these user customization but we succeeded completely in confusing people who are just wanted to derive deviant and think custom deviant distribution is something they want so we have this term found and if we find a better name which is not so confusing I would be really lucky but I think we have to explain it anyway so if you have deviant dvd or stack of deviant CDs we have everything which custom deviant distributions provide it's all completely inside the environment this is what this term means I'm from the city of Mene and actually what we made program I think is that we cannot cope really with the development of CDDs we have to take the stages there is no development for stages and that's actually good for us this can say ok we have problems with this kind of hardware because it's new and this can change for example XOR the 810 driver from new hardware that's just one change to one package but we would not be able to say ok look all the time we have two or three people who remain development and it's possible for us to run with the deviant and the city has to work so we cannot we have a release cycle inside too we have change processes and instant processes which make a new release every once three months something like that and we just take stable and have some new features for us but I don't see as long as there is not something like development of stable there won't be many people who really stay in media I'm in real favor of keeping stable for such purpose and I think you should at least try to make sure that the next stable distribution contains everything you really need if you reach this for this particular moment and then there's also this backport effort which at least I've heard about it this is quite good and supports the main features of new versions which are not stable but you can perfectly use it it's also signed by deviant developers so this backport effort is something you could at least got to get some help from we use it some of us most of the time we just stay in the stable and we don't want to change all the system every three months I'm not sure how currently unstable but if they maybe the whole distribution is new every three months or a half a year every second has changed and that's impossible to test I think I think you did some local adaptations which is besides this keeping up with this adaptation and customization if you bring this inside deviant for for certain purpose other people can just learn from it because I think Munich is not Vienna but if they share some code between they could have some common profit sure but that would be for stable not for infrastructure to really level up for stable in Vienna now once we will release Lenny at least I hope so if there is some common code in Lenny you can have common profit we might be attached at the end of the year maybe they agree maybe there is a way to really do some development for the stable too in some extra territory or something like that where people can share it themselves they are perfectly well in reason to work the rafts this is a perfect development but try to keep the tip small I would try to my name is Paterenek I'm from deviant u developers we have I think we are actually starting these derived things in deviant 6 years ago and we have always focused on making as few modifications as possible as much cooperation as we need and making sure that the deviant packages are stable in two door fixes so we don't have to modify them the next place and this has worked pretty well we started out with four key special packages and at the moment I think we are down to eight hopefully for landing we should go down to zero but it's a long and slow process to convince all the for the maintenance of the packages we need to do the modifications we need it's as simple as how do you automatically configure other servers during install time a lot of maintainers in deviant do not really understand the program they just say well you just fire up your image and edit it but that doesn't really solve our problem we also want to make sure that all changes to the configuration files are kept during upgrades and that doesn't really work very well at the moment we often give the system the choice between a configuration file that used to work with the old version and a new configuration file that doesn't really do what they want for the new upgrades so I really wish that the deviant maintenance would keep this in mind and fix their packages to have the upgrades more riskily and have the overall modifications but my point is that yes we cannot modify the stable distribution that much but actually there is the edge on the half at the moment hopefully there will be a process to get the new return on the new X server even if you can modify the stable distribution you can get your fix into the unstable and then you wait for two years and then you actually have modified the stable what are the other experience John is called in Indonesia I have a question what is being done to encourage people that are making these derivative distributions to give back their improvements to the deviant project I can say exactly holding a talk on devconf holding a talk on devconf but I try to explain how to give back something we cannot we have no handle to tell those people just backport your stuff I can only say we are open try to give something back once seems like they should realize that there is a moral obligation to do so yeah but what should I do if somebody just goes and derives deviant but how should I have a communication channel to the person he is free to do so he is fine to do so but if he does not ask me to do something for him is there any kind of license that would require them to give back no there isn't that would be a non free license yeah exactly so deviant does exactly this to upstreams you might as well ask the same question you know what do upstreams do to try to get us to tell them about the changes that we make and the answer is most upstreams do nothing at all and it is up to us to go and tell those upstreams you know here as these changes please take them and well some deviant developers do this very well and other deviant developers do it best well and I think it is very much the same derivatives one interesting observation is that it is the derivatives advantage to actually push the changes back in I think that is the mechanism that makes this work if they are deriving too much the maintenance load will be too high and they will just not be able to keep up that is why a lot of deviant developers are pushing changes back into upstream and that is why school unions even in EU is pushing our stuff back into deviant we don't really want to have that high maintenance load but other than that I don't think we want any harder enforcement mechanism because that would make the software not really but the point is here deviant competes with those derivatives so if they want to to be as good as their competitor they should provide something back maybe I don't know if this is your answer I think actually that is kind of the opposite of the answer some of the derivatives feel that if they send their patches back that they will be helping their competitors more than helping themselves I think that they are mistaken and well everyone seems to suggest that the people who don't do that don't always last very long I think you are the option of standing on someone's shoulders for their toes I know what I would choose and probably my answer was bias by the deviant how many minutes left maybe for the next two days therefore there are only questions


And of course, a lot of us have tried to do some course correction, do some introspection. But now, there's a whole way of looking at it, Shri Alok Mehtaji, renowned senior journalist and Padma Shri, he has come up with his book, Power, Press and Politics, which is an attempt to look at media closely and look at the ways we can address this criticism. And with me today, we have some eminent names from the world of journalism who would talk about who have read this book and they'll share their views. And Mehtaji is also here. I just want to introduce my panelists today who will be talking about it. We have Padma Shri, Shri Alok Mehtaji with us, who is also the former president of the editor's Guild of India and editorial director of ITV Network Hindi. We have Mr. Anand Narsimhan, executive editor, Network 18. We have with us Mr. Sachin and the Murti, resident editor of Malayala Manorama and The Week. We have with us Ms. Rubika Liakas, news anchor, popular presenter and journalist of ABP. And of course, Dr. Anurad Batra, chairman and editor-in-chief BW Business World and exchange for media. Before we proceed and I ask my set of questions, I want to request everyone to just put up the book in front of the camera so we can have a quick screen shot. That is the way we do the photo shoot, the group photo now. Absolutely. All right. No worries. All right. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you so much for joining us today. I want to go straight away with my first question to Shree Alokmatharji. So give me a sense of what was the inspiration behind writing this book and what kind of impact are you trying to create? Thank you very much, Rohail. And thanks to all panelists, our good friends and colleagues in the media. That's why you introduced already them. You know, everybody nowadays talk about the challenges now we are facing more problems. The media is in the struggling, but I think Kachiran Mootidhi and he also takes the Malayalam Manoroba. We know this last 50, 50 years, or even one position, one can say 75 years. Our senior colleagues from Maman Matviti also wrote about it. The number of writers, Nihal Singh, Kuldeep Naya, I always remember those writers in Hindi, Rajen Matvore, Pranavar Shyam Joshi, my colleague in Outlook, my senior colleague, Rupyod Mehta. So everybody was asking, this is the more challenges nowadays in this book, the new generation who are in the media, including Rubika, I still feel connected, spent so many years in media, but even then, I think she also asked, what is the problem? What is happening? Why so much people are asking that now we have more tests? So I thought, and our publisher is very, Praveen Tewari, Tewari is editor. So he suggested me, why don't you write, you are experienced, because I worked with the agency Hindusan Samachar 71, even before that, one year I was in Nigeria, Indore. Five years I spent in the agency, then the decrease of time in the time in the country, then some time in the Germany, three years, voice of Germany, then came back in time to Bhima, Navarra time, then Hindustan, Pascal, Outlook. So I worked so many newspapers, then now in Nigeria, Outlook Hindi also, so I had a different kind of experience and know how editors can do the editors build. So Murti was our secretary general and he always helped, and he is a pioneer in the field also, helped to purport up ethics also, and the question of paid news. So that's why we thought that we should write and contribute for the next generation or even for the colleagues also, that our forward editors, they also got a lot of opportunities, I reviewed them a number of times on the television or for the magazine for the newspaper, so I thought we should share the point of view with large number of Indian readers and even outside also, that's why the Bruce Murray is an international publisher, he has worked in the United Kingdom. And that's why I'm also thankful, I would like to mention that Kailasa Karthi are from Nauvelaare, I think everybody knows, he is a very well known scholar. He also read the whole book when he skipped and then cemented. Aman Matthew was very kind enough, because he was also president of the editors field, he was also a secretary, then I was president because of him and other colleagues. Then British High Commissioner Agriya, former Samar, he also read the book and he also commented about it. So I, because I wanted that the friends can praise it, but the real objective was people should know that in international era also, people are talking about the Indian journalism and present context. So I think we will discuss more, I will not speak much, but I am very thankful to exchange for media, Anurag Batraji, because he also commented, that's why I mentioned everybody, but Anurag Batraji from the very beginning and I always call him a media mobile, he is not Robert Murdov, but I wish that one day because he has put concrete to everybody and that's why he devoted so much for media. So I feel and he also commented about how it will be helpful for the mass communication institution and new generation of the media. So I thank you very much. I want to ask you, Mr. Muthi, at this point, having read this book, what kind of issues does it touch upon and the solution it offers?  One of the great things about this book for me is I also started my journey just before the emergency, journalistic journey. So when I read the entire book, I thought, okay, I'm on a very familiar road. I've traveled on this road, but then I'm also going with a very experienced guide. That is Alok Mehta, that is, he's showing me newer sites on a very familiar route of journalism where I've seen the kind of changes which happened. As he rightly notes in the book, the two big impactful events of our society. Our society itself has been going through a huge turn. The India which we knew every decade changes in the next decade. So in that the media has changed and Alok Ji has held a mirror to that whole changing world. First was the impact of the emergency, the kind of thing. Suddenly we realize that freedom is very valuable. Then the economic reforms which made us realize money is very valuable in the media, money and power. So Alok Ji holds a mirror to whatever has happened across. Like him, I've also seen the media, the interplay of media power and politics at the state level as well as the national level. So in this book is a true reflection of what has happened over the last and how different kind of editors have come up, how they have changed and also the different kind of management. I mean, we are now today talking about startups, unicorns, somebody coming from nowhere and all that. But you look at the history of the media in the country in the last 60 years. Very unlikely barrens have come from very unlikely fields. People who are either in the newspaper hawkers or who are in rise business. I mean, all of us know about it. So the kind of publishers, the kind of editors who have come. So Alok Ji has looked at all these things and then he has looked at two models of journalism. But I'd like to say that there are other models which they're not emphasized because again, they look more at the English press. But then the regional press has by large has a different model from either the Times of India model or the Indian Express model, which he has emphasized in the book. So that way this is a journey for me. And I really because the last powerful book of an editor in India. I remember long ago in my younger days, I read was D.R. Mankhekar's book of anguish. He titled it as know my son never. That is, he was telling his son, please don't become a journalist. Don't become editor. Don't enter journalism. It was a sort of very, very dire warning that this is a very toxic profession. And this was written in the 60s if I remember. So I mean, but then after that, the kind of changes which have happened and Alok Ji brings in the entire history of Indian media for the last 60 years. So it's an amazing journey. And I was very impressed by it. Now to the only lady on the panel, Rupika Ji, your initial thoughts on this book. What kind of reading? I mean, what is the takeaway for you from this book? So I think the audio is muted, I guess. First of all, namaste. Adab to all the big refugees present here. And I respect him a lot.  So this book is all about his experience. So look, if I stand in front of Alok Ji, I am just a tiny bit. So when I was reading this book, when I was going through these chapters and pages, like Mr. Murthy Sehdar, it felt like this is a familiar place. But what was it for me? It was for me that I am at a place where a huge building has been built. And Mr. Alok Ji is telling you that you know that earlier, there used to be mountains here. Earlier, there used to be a field here. And what I see is a huge, enormous building. But I am standing right there. Things are almost there. Earlier, there used to be a house there. But things have changed. So Alok Ji's book is taking me back in his memory lane. And from today's perspective, if I read this book, there are many things that are very similar that will never change. We really wish we hope that things will change. But they won't change. Now it happens that, like many times in different chapters and lessons of books, where did you try to put pressure? And how did you get out of that pressure? Pressure has always been the same. Like Mr. Moorthy said that, unlikely pressure from unlikely places, unlikely people. You know, pressure, if I try to put it in straight words, so what happens is that public here who has chosen a government for five years, gets attached to that. Earlier, it used to happen that you have chosen a government for five years when you are watching them work. If they don't, you will elect a new government. But right now what has happened is that every single person who is on social media feels that they are so attached to the ideology. Whether it is a government or a party. They are all attached with each other. Instead of seeing them how they are working, all the voters who are going to participate in these elections feel that they are working. You asked them a question. You said something about them. And it is happening on both sides. So you know, like our power, press and politics. I think a public should have been attached to it too. Because now we are all after social media. This becomes the most important thing. By the way, power, press and politics are amazing. But as you can see, because of social media, the influence of the public has become very strong. But when you read this book, you will go to the old times. You will be very happy. And Anand himself is present here. And Anand will come here because he is the one who comes. Then he sits down. Then he thinks. It feels like the whole movie is going on in front of you. And I am sure people are going to enjoy it with facts and anecdotes. Right. So let's go to Anand Ji. Mr. Nassamin, so power, politics and press. A heady cocktail. First of all, your takeaways from this book. And do you think this still exists? You know, the title that it captures the reality of journalism. Does it still exist in that fashion? Namaste to everybody. And I am very, very humbled and honored. I have immense respect for Satchitana Dhamurti, Alok Maitaji, a very, very senior journalist. And Dr. Rannara Gautra is somebody who would identify how much the editorial bent of his mind or his head has to balance it with the business end. And the talk about the golden ratio, the talk about finding that balance where you are able to do what is in the good of the public. Balance that with your own convictions and what you need to do. And add to that this reality. We need to understand that there is no media independent in the world. And there will be no media independent in the world until your dependency is that you are a cost center and you have to earn. And until you have to earn, you have to see it as a business. You cannot give it as ideology on that ideological utopia. That I am the journalist, the ideology that we teach in journalism schools, we implement it. But we need to understand how much this gradient is. From 4% to 20-25% of the sphere of influence. So the less influence you have from outside, the less influence you will have, the more your face will become independent. But today the meaning of independence has also changed. I will tell you the truth. The book of Alok, it is in my office. So whenever I get the time, I read it there. So the book is there and I have been on the road. So I have returned home yesterday evening and then I am coming home today. So that's why I don't have a copy of the book and I didn't read it completely. But it is still there.  I have reached there slowly. Because from the foreword of Mahatma Mahatma Ji, you have not started at all. There is so much that it is fun to read it. And the biggest thing is that you have named those 27 journalists who stood up during the time of the emergency. Those 27 people whose names were not read in any journalism school. What was their position in those 27 people and what was their hurry in not reading in any journalism school. For example, what you have written about Mr. Gandhi is very important for people to understand. And what you had to move in a hurry, because you were behind the fodder scam. And you started talking about it. And the way you were behind it. You also have to look at it. How do you influence those who are familiar with democracy and save democracy? There are a lot of things when I was not in general use. I was a sports journalist. So I have seen a lot of things. How much influence is there. How much is said. So there was a lot of independence. And there was always a lot of pressure because of politics and power. And it is a different challenge to get your way out of it. It is a different challenge on its own. And the biggest thing, Alok Ji, and I think that is something which we don't realise. That in the past, what was considered to be the journalist elite and also the reading elite, the thinking elite was only 0.1%. The majority of this country was always addressed in a different way. And that domination which happened, that control which was exercised in the regional media is a different story altogether. And the propaganda that is being spread by the journalists is going on freely. Mal Gangadhar Tilak Ji, his press, KSRI, how it was spread, what happened there. In every part of our country, we've had to see that those who sit in power want to call the shots. But the other aspect today is that you are now being called out for having your own idea of presenting or your perspective. Tathya hai aapke saamne usko ek chakshu se hi dekha jaayi aur ek chakshu se present kya jaayi to aap independent hai. But if you present another perspective to that and another logical rational reasoning to that then you are suddenly biased and you are not an independent thinker. This I feel is wrong. But given social media today, given the ambit and the growth of new media today I think everybody has a space. So if you've got to decide whether we want to see obstacles like a dam or you've got to behave like a river where it finds an obstacle, it finds a way out and continues to flow. So I think that essence comes across that you find that balance and also find a way to go ahead and muscle on and back your conviction, back what you believe in. That is something which is my take out from the book, what I've read so far ki agar aapko belief hai aapke aap jis soj pe karre hain, jis odhi pe aap karre hain no matter what, go ahead and put it out because people will appreciate that and people will respect you for that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Narsaman for sharing these thoughts. Dr. Bhattra, how do you sum up what Shree Mehta Ji has written in his book? What are your takeaways? Thank you so much, Royal. First of all, congratulations to Shree Aalok Mehta Ji for getting this book published. It's an important milestone in the chronicling of Indian media by people who've been leading the journey or being a part of the journey. I also had the good fortune of reading the manuscript before it got published and have read it after the book has come out and Anand is the first person to say that I have read. So thank you Anand for acknowledging that I have a brain. I'm not sure about that. So balance comes later but on a very serious note, you know, when I read the book for the first time, even in the acknowledgement, you know, I try and I consider that I know a lot about media. I'm a student of media and when I read the acknowledgments in the book, there were at least six people that I didn't know of. I mean, I knew of majority of them. He signed about 36, 37 people in that acknowledgement and I knew 30 and I didn't know six. So the point I'm trying to make is by reading this book, somebody who's deeply interested in media, who's deeply interested in politics, who's deeply interested in governance and is also interested in how somebody like Shree Aalok Mehta over the last five decades has kept his balance going. And I, you know, he says what he has to say as because that Beba ko karke bulte hai. But fir bhi ussum ek shalinta hoti ek balance hota hai. Ek lehza aasa hota hai ki it is not offensive. And in his personal life and professional life, he's exactly like that. So I'd like to say that it's an important landmark as Warren Christopher said, without a free and independent media, true democracy is unattainable. Anand just said that, you know, the notion of free media is relative. I mean, he didn't say it exactly like this, but it means different things to different people. And of course, the background today, Prishabhumi, badal gaye, the background is a little different. So it's a book that was needed. The chapters in itself are about very interesting people. He talks about the pressures in the politics and the wealth. He talks about the mirror to political power. You know, he talks about paid news and tells that it is not a new phenomena. It has existed for many, many years. So it's not some, it has just come in the last one decade. He talks about investigative journalism and sting operations. He talks about what are the new threats to media and what are the trends versus the editor. He talks about political and economic pressure. You know, political pressure manifests in terms of an economic pressure. Mr. Sachinan Mukti would know that, you know, sometimes the excess is cut off. The advertising is cut off. And, you know, that can create its own pressure. How, you know, media is on the receiving end of attacks from everyone, the chapter on that. And of course, how media impacts judiciary and how judiciary impacts media, there's a chapter on that. So it's a book that everyone in the journalism schools, media institutes, universities, media planners, and Mr. Anand Narsimhan was a media planner before he became a journalist, should read, you know, people in the cop com because, you know, it gives a historical perspective with chronicles. And that couldn't have been anybody better than Padishree Alok Maitraji to write it. So I am happy that this book raises a lot of questions when you read it. Hopefully it answers some of those questions and it takes you through a journey which gives you a historical perspective. I think much more should be written about Indian media, Indian media owners, Indian media, editorial professional, editorial leaders. I think we need much more material literature and I'm glad that Shri Alok Maitraji is here. So congratulations and... Absolutely, absolutely. We have a better parallel that Mr. Murthy, Ms. Lyaka said, Mr. Narsimhan to be here at the book launch. So I'm glad that we're doing it one day before the Independence Day and I'm sure this book will go on to become a reference point for a lot of people who want to look at the history of media over the last four to five decades. Absolutely, absolutely.  The real power present politics is a heavy cocktail. It exists today also, right? There has to be healthy interaction but sometimes this healthy interaction can become unhealthy in more ways than one. It can become unhealthy because it can be lopsided. And I remember about our news broadcast about this 14 years young but in the third or fourth, I'm not sure. It was at the Oberoi deli and I'd invited Riz Khan because I'm a very big news aficionado. I watched three hours of news even today but there was a time I used to watch five, seven hours of news. So I used to watch a lot of CNN which I still do and I watched all the Indian channels of Kerala to my home page. But I'd invited Riz Khan because when I was growing up, Riz Khan was this tall news anchor on not literally tall, he's very tall, but he was really tall. And I invited him and I started doing it. And there was a debate that he had with a leading Indian anchor and about should the anchor be presenting his or her point of view. This was almost 10 or 11 years back. And Riz shared that when he was at CNN they would only articulate the issue and they'd give both sides but he also acknowledged the fact that times have changed in the times where media is itself under attack, journalists and we are at the receiving end of fake news.  It's created by vested interests. It's created by groups that want to spread a certain kind of message. We are at the receiving end of it. We're not creating it except in some splinter cases. But today in India, media groups have an ideology. People understand who has which ideology, anchors have an ideology. And it's a gray area. We can keep debating, you should present both sides. But in a point where the viewer or the reader looks at the anchor to be able to decipher the world for them to be able to give their point of view. I think that perspective is also interesting. So it's not an either or case. I just want to say that today also this heady cocktail of power present politics exists. It's just the nature is a little different than what she said. Absolutely. Absolutely. So true and what a day we have chosen. I mean, tomorrow is the independent day and we are discussing something which is such a great significance. Mr. Mehta, tell me while you were writing the book, you've captured so much in these pages. How do you, if I asked you, which is your favorite chapter? For example, give me a, I mean, is there one chapter of your favorite one? Take me through the process of while you were writing the book. How did you decide? Was it tough? What to write? Do you want to be this much candid? You know, what all was going in your mind while you were writing this book? Because of the political and economic power. People think that now they're corporate. Anand Narasimhan also mentioned it now. He's been there for two countries. Malayalam Manorama. Now they also have the television network. But the midst also targeted Malayalam Manorama. Even the Congress. Sometimes they are biased. Same in the economic process. I mentioned the book. In the states man, he was also very senior in our writers' field. He was there for three years. So the memorial also he mentioned that how even Kulip Nair also mentioned it. Tata were also there in the statesman's time. And Birla in Goenka, and Jhalmi and others. You know, and most of all, I worked with Birla at the time of the book now. I didn't work with the Goenka group, the network group. So that's why I wanted to say that the pressure always is there. Manohar Shyam Jyushy, famous name in Hindi, BGR English also. He launched his first tabloid this morning. But in one day, when the Danta Party, after emergency, because of the pressure of the Kanti Desai, there was one big columnist story. Because not even the article commented by it. It should be said today itself. And the whole day, how do we spend? Rani Ji and Bahora and others, they helped us. They helped us. Lajin Mathur also suffered different kinds of pressure. Kamreshwar was very famous writer. He was said, and he was in David Wall's block. Earlier also, the management, they used to do, not because of the political power, even the Mrs. Gandhi, who wrote the Gandhi film. And then Mrs. Gandhi came in power and he became the Assistant Director of the Rootership. You have to face the challenges. And this is one example. What I mentioned is one of the greatest stories, the writings of Chandraswami. He was very famous, maybe at that time, used to stay in guest house of the time, when I was not even a writer. I wrote about it. Nobody objected. Lajin Mathur allowed me to write about it. Because I was in Hindustan, that time he was very powerful. Narsur Rao Ji was the Prime Minister. He was very close to Prime Minister. But I wrote about Chandraswami. Nobody objected. Even Rao, Narsur Rao, he was so kind. He wanted me to write also. I wrote a book, who after Rao, Rao Ji Baat Kaun in Hindi. But he never objected. He just said, what is your friends doing? That's why I mentioned Madhurao Sindhya, Rajesh Paila, Sardbawar also. But I was not paying for Sardbawar. But even then, I made a very wise decision. I said, that these people are part of your team. So what I say is that, every Prime Minister, they have their own Prime Minister also. People talk about it. Not because the motive is there. They regularly read the week. Very objective kind of journalism. Sometimes you criticize, but you not criticize a person. Not criticize people, it's a stuff. Critical about the problems, about the issue, challenges. But now, what is happening? Either you are with the ruling party, that's why I mentioned about the paid news also. At the time, even the national newspapers, indeed newspapers, the bureau chief, he used to ask for money for publishing, but he was a journalist also. That's why, one can be a Godi media, or Godi media, or the Congress media, or left media, depends on how you feed, and how you can fight with these systems and survive itself. Maybe you have to change how many writers they designed, as they might have died, because of the pressure from the... Right, right, right. Mr. Muthi, which is your favourite chapter in the book and why? Okay. You know, I would like to look at two chapters together, because they both are somewhere related to each other. One is chapter 8 on the historical role of the editor's guild, because Alokji was its secretary general for six years, president for two years, and I was his secretary general when he was the president. So, we have been involved, I think, on the journey of the editor's guild, Alokji, from the early 80s, me from the 90s, then the second is chapter 11, the new threats and trends versus the editor. Basically, Alokji, I would like to tell one thing, one of his biggest contribution for press freedom, I don't know how many people know about it, when he was the president of the editor's guild, the biggest legislative threat of the 21st century to Indian media came in the form of the Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India Bill, which was moved by the UPA government under Priyarajan Das Munchi INB. It was a piece of legislation which set up BRI, worse than what the IT rules now media is agitated about, which would have allowed a police officer to enter any television studio, seize the equipment, seize the notes, do everything, and it gave all powers to the bureaucracy to control Indian broadcast media, television media, essentially. And so Alokji was upset by this. He said, what do we do about it? So we both consulted senior editors and others. So Alokji who knew the ways of the media as well as the powers, he said, Satish Ji, we have to do a guerrilla tactic attack on this. So I said, what do you mean? I thought we'll hold a big discussion and tell the Prime Minister and others. He said, no, because he said most of the television owners will not stand up to the government because they have their own reasons. So they won't come and support is not like the anti-deformation agitation of the 1980s against the Rajiv Gandhi government. So he said, let's do something because the minister said he's calling a meeting of the stakeholders in Hotel Samrat of Delhi, I remember. So Alokji was traveling. So he said, what do we do? I said, one thing we can do is we can prepare a very strong criticism of this bill and put it into the public domain. So we requested major newspapers because no channel was prepared to carry this thing because it was an attack on the government dependent on wages. So finally the Hindu carried the full text. So did the Hindustan Times and other papers. So the evening at Samrat was the meeting I was representing the guild. So when Mrs. Sonia Gandhi the chairperson and Manmohan Singh the Prime Minister read the guild statement, they were really taken aback. This is the vehemence of the editor's guild against this bill. So they called Prerajan Das Munchi and told me. So I was at that meeting. Alokji could not come. He was outside Delhi and I found that Prerajan Das Munchi was right in the face. He was shouting and he said, who's there from the editor's guild? So from the back I raised my hand. I'm here. So you're the guy who has done the mischief. So I'm here by announcing that news media will not be part of this bill. So which was a very important concession he gave. But I found that the basic barons of Indian television sitting in the front row were very differentially speaking. So that is where Alokji's leadership mattered and I'm happy to say that in the last 15 years that bill has remained in the cold story it has not come through. So of course I also provoked the minister by saying that the ministry was working with an NGO mafia so they gathered a lot of NGOs they attacked the editor's guild. And I said no, we'll stand by this because this is something which is important for press freedom. So I'm just telling you about his commitment to press freedom and ethical values. So when these two chapters on the editors, because the editor is now there are new threads and I was told a publisher, director asked the editor so how will you manage MIS in a meeting? So the editor was taken aback what MIS? Don't you know about MIS? MIS is management information system so how do you keep the target reader, circulation figure target how will you convert each journalist into a profit center? I mean this is a kind of extremism maybe but these are the kind of challenges and threats which come to the editor. So then they don't like this fellow told the editor see this institutional memory business I don't like.  So this kind of more and more modern management where profit and influence and numbers matter so editors will have to integrate all that and have to function. This happens in some publications and channels. Alokji has written elaborately on the kind of pernicious thing on TRP ratings which the press council took up I had edited a committee on private treaties about which he has referred in this book so the editors of the coming days will be more and more challenges and more and more but then how they stand up it depends on the caliber of each one of them. So I am very grateful to Alokji for highlighting the role of the editor because you know last 80 years as he said people have lamented that the editor has become unnecessary a newspaper had once advertised a journalist need not apply for the posts of reporters but now that same newspaper wants the best journalist because it realizes that for profits, numbers, eyeballs they need good journalists so they are both absolutely absolutely I think the need for post-correction today is so important like never before I want to move to Mr. Liyakat you know this book raises a lot of issues credibility and journalists being I mean not taking stand I mean being true to what they do but in today's context I mean if we look at especially news presenters you know very well known faces like you are here and Mr. Narsaman is here often when you are told a lot of criticism is thrown at you first of all I mean how justified are people in raising such points what do you like to tell them because the book raises these points and I am just reflecting it and you often face this criticism because you are a public figure both of you so how do you face this criticism when people talk about credibility and taking stand not being used to how do you respond to your critics sorry it's muted can you hear me so I am going to connect it with the book there is a chapter called love-hate relationship there is a chapter of 5th number in 20 pages Mr. Alok has told the whole journey that a senior editor of a correspondent or a resident editor of a politician has a relationship and despite having such a close relationship he has published news against them and he has called he used to call and he was told how you can publish this in your newspaper or how you can write this in your column and how he was dealt with I will just tell you one thing Anand was also in Kashmir I was there in Kashmir I met a very senior police officer but one of them even today he says that journalists are not for anyone they are not friends of any politician they are not friends of any businessman they are friends of people who are eyeball viewers our friends are friends this is our mother and everyone says this is a TRP viewer's game but nobody sees whose eyeball it is do I force those eyeballs to see my TV can I hypnotize them no it is a two way relationship so what happens is that there are two aspects of every coin and as Dr. Batra was saying you have to maintain a balance you tell me and I always say when a terrorist is being killed in Kashmir where should I balance when a terrorist is being attacked in your city where should I balance that terrorist I am not a militant the truth I will have to say where should I balance and many times it is said how anchor is the presenter how can we hope Anand would know this now Anurag Batra is a host so he also knows it we don't just say what we want there is a whole team behind us there is a whole line and length the whole group will not come to the bus I know our rule book my company has its standards its principles my team has my editors my producer in fact the interns have their own ideas we all sit together and in this we discuss we have discussions and that is when the anchor goes and says that so how do I debate I will tell you one thing for example Mr. Murti, Mr. Mehta Mr. Narsimhan and Mr. Batra are on the panel from where there will be bias I have said let's debate I say this book is a hit I took a line I reached the conclusion now I am coming to the back Mr. Narsimhan prove me that I am wrong that this book is not a hit I am debating if he doesn't like the book he has all the rights in my program if I am not calling Mr. Narsimhan or Mr. Murti then you can say this is a bias there is no thought process what happens is we the people from media become the punching bag there is no work from here there is no work from here it's so easy Rohail and you wrote 4 lines on this phone you didn't think what is the hard work behind it what is the source behind it how this whole program is made no if you if you belong to a particular party and believe me there is no government of that party so they will say this is a bias next day if I will ask another party they will say you are biased basically there is a tomato in the sandwich like Anand was saying the pressure is on but that will not stop us there is a conviction and what is right for the people when they go together they are not the journalists but what they have to say will come in the right way if you are convinced that this is right for the people right when we talk about credibility and the way we look at it and we debate about it are we taking a balanced view or do you think we are unnecessarily bashing media which is caught in a complex situation what is a balanced view like how we like how people say that I am just saying your sense of balance your sense of balance your sense of balance could vary from my sense of balance could differ from what Alok metha ji sense of balance or what such a sense of balance so if I am saying something you have the freedom to call me out and you have the freedom to try and cancel me but I do not have the freedom to say it so how is that balanced so the point is what am I saying if the argument is based on a particular logic is based on fact and a perspective you have the freedom to agree with that perspective or disagree with that perspective now if you disagree with that perspective can you abuse your right to freedom by trying to come out and cancel me out what he is saying is a little forceful what he is saying is sensible cancel it now or else tomorrow people will start listening to him so then the right to freedom of expression stops your freedom of expression stops where my nose begins you have to remember that it comes with reasonable restrictions the other part is that if we start bothering about the number of people who are trying to troll us or cancel us out we will stop doing our work like I said at the beginning the one inspiration that I draw from people like Satchitana Murthy ji and also Alok Mehta ji is they have the courage of conviction and also the guts to go ahead and follow through that conviction we need to have that if I am not convinced if I do not have the conviction of what I am going to put on air just like Rubika was saying anybody or what they are going to put they are going to put pen to paper so if they don't have conviction with their thoughts if they don't have facts to back their argument do you think they will write what they will do right Alok Mehta ji and Satchitana Murthy ji or we will say what we have to say on our show I can't I can't I can't I can't at the end of the day it is a true step stand and this is what is irritating a lot of people who are just trying to create narratives and when you try to bust those narratives with facts and with a reasonable logical argument then they come back and then slander you personally the moment somebody gets personal with you you have actually won the argument the moment there are people who are reacting to what you are writing or what you are saying on the show that means you have a certain element of truth with you and you are going ahead and say you can counter facts with facts you can counter argument with arguments but if I am intolerant to your point of view then how does that make me liberal if I am intolerant to what you have to say and unwilling to listen to you and I start branding you with a particular name or calling you a Dalal or whatever it is then how are you liberal how am I liberal if I am doing that so this is what the aspect is and this kind of political pressure which has been talked about the influence which has been talked about I have seen how Pyaar se ke kar Kuchkar ke ke kar it was far greater far more I am witness to government ministers in the past calling up the editor in chief and dictating the lines which should go on the ticker on the bottom ticker of the channel and telling the person what debate you have to do tonight and what is the question that you have to ask that is the level of influence I have witnessed by those who claim to be the champions of free will and democracy so the reality is that at all points in time people who stand there based on the courage of their conviction and argue on facts and call out the right issues the fact and the other aspect is like I said and I am going to just say it again the pressure on the editor is immense and it is mentioned in Alok Jee's book and Satya Dhananda Jee said it is very true because they have to balance media as a cost center I am a media planner from an advertising agency's point of view media department was a cost center from a journalism point of view and from this we are a cost center because we are not churning out profits we are churning out editorial and we all need to get paid at the end of the day so for all the businessmen who is setting up a new channel that person has to earn from somewhere and those earnings will be directly influenced by those in power be it operates or be it politicians or governments of the day so in various state governments there is pressure exerted you cannot say something against certain chief ministers or certain governments in certain disposition why because they are advertising revenue from there the salary of our family is coming from their money so you speak slowly so this is not influence this is democracy so this is reality so like I said that that gradient it is relative 4% to 25% so as long as a media channel or a media group is closer to the 4% and it is in single digits you can perceive it to be largely independent and that the journalist will get a space what does digital media do today or a website or a platform like that it allows you to put both points of view so Sachidanandaji Me, Alokji you 4 of us can pen 4 different articles on the same issue and all 4 perspectives are there for the viewer to read and invite so that is the sense of balance new media is allowing you to create so if there are forces from here there are forces from here who support you and stand up in your support you know automatically amidst the chaos there is a balance that is created on a larger scale if you want to see and that is what perhaps today new media allows you to do it allows a Ruhelani, an Alok Mehta an Anandar Simhan, a Rubika Liath an Anurag Bhatra and Sachidanandaji also to read everybody pen their own pieces put out their perspective on a particular story and allow the viewer, the consumer to decide who they want to agree with or disagree with that perhaps is the better way to look at it but pressure is always going to be there I will be marked by those who do not agree with my point of view you will be marked by those who do not agree with your point of view and depending upon who has the balance of power in their favor or who is politically stronger they will try and exercise their influence what is it that I can do can I decide how you should think but can I be convinced can I be convinced about how I think and continue to push that and finally realize that people will appreciate that where you are coming from is based on just one simple narrative and that's where I respect Alok Jain, Sachidanandamur Pijit that their core part is the goodness of the country as long as I say what is good for my country and what is not good for my country and I base my arguments, my stories, my debates my articles on that and reason I think the rest will sort itself out in the long run but we've got to stay steadfast in that binary that my story is Bharat my interest is the betterment of Bharat and for me my country matters ahead of everything else and what is good for my country if somebody is doing even some bit which is good it's not because I like that person I just feel that that person has got the interest of the country foremost ahead of the interest of self party, you know, community etc it's my country that comes first and as long as that is happening we'll back those people or we'll take that position I think that's something which I really respect Alok Jain and Sachidanandamur Pijit for that and that courage of conviction comes from your love for your country and how clear can you be like that and then people will realize you may have to change jobs you may please but you will always get that space to write that narrative which is Bharat well I just wanted one adding something because the regional regional press, Indian language space they have more challenges more pressures when sitting in Delhi you can have more protection you can release the government but there what Arun mentioned about it more pressure from Bihar to Kerala, Jammu, Kashmir or anywhere regional leaders, RT's and the organizations they will spend more than anybody else in days also just give me 30 seconds last 15 days I've gone there 2-3 times and I've gone to the deepest rural parts and I've met local journalists who are doing work there you know what they're coming out and saying their perspective they are living in so much fear that they say that I write one line here or that I say one thing which certain people don't like they will target my wife my daughter, my sister my family so it's a game of fear which is being played out there not the game of freedom and then despite that they are standing there and then they are penning articles they are doing stories which talks about the beauty of Jammu and Kashmir and the idea of Bharat working with the rest of the country so they are still doing it and I have immense respect for them but the fact is that the national media there has led them down by falling to a lexicon and a narrative which is trying to prop up and work as an apologist a terrorist is a terrorist my friend the person who takes who globs a grenade not caring for the fact that a 4 year old is dying or a 2 year old is dying that person cannot have any sympathy for anybody because that person doesn't care and that person is a terrorist that conviction we need to have that's where there is going to be courage to come to talk about the real issues right perfect so I just want to this chapter 11 in this book Dr. Bhattacharyu which talks about threats and trends versus the editor if I talk about the new trends and the new threats in the news room the editorial room how do you see this you know first of all this debate between Saraswati and Lakshmi chasing editorial excellence and all the things that Mr. Murthy talked about you have to have first of all you have to have so first of all you have to have viewers first of all you have to have readers first of all you have to be known for something sharp and every real editor understands that and I must say that now I run business but for 14 years I did run for a month I don't run it of course editorially I read it I have a point of view on it but I must tell you that we will exchange from media by saying what we needed to say we will exchange from media to run down our community I mean there are other sides who agenda is only to do negative stories about what's wrong with media what's wrong with media people where about marketing advertising and media so I think balance is required intent matters and most importantly at the end of the day as Rubika said our loyalties are towards readers if you don't give good content you will not have traffic you will not have editorial impact forget don't just live for money they live for editorial impact how much impact their story how much impact they had how much discussion they had how much action they had so that's when there is authenticity there is factualness and a sharp point of view right right so so I would say that I think Indian media can do a lot better than it is doing now but as I said we are working in a very tough media environment and let me articulate why it is so tough when you look at broadcasting this government has been around only for 7 years and you know for all those people who say that this government tries to control the media all governments you know Mr.Murthy talked about Priyaranjan Nagbanshi who is an Indian minister when he was the Indian minister I remember what you talked about very very vividly so you know it is nothing new right so this is not the first time that this government tries so the old government tried a lot and controlled a lot everybody ways and means are different but today we have social media we have individuals who are following so you cannot hide a point of view it will get accentuated and let me say to our viewers that there is in a point of view if there is a certain right wing media there is a left wing meaning media so you know I think if you can choose what you want to read, watch view so this choice is yours right so we can keep debating about it so that balance is needed and again Anand asked this question what is your definition of balance I mean according to you it is balance according to me it is not balance and you know by the way Anand and Rupika Rohit is Kashmiri he is right now he is in Kashmir and last 3 months he has been working out of Kashmir and he is in Kashmir he understands the situation in Kashmir while we are planning a JNK media summit also but coming to his Alok ji's book and specifically about Alok ji we are all involved in his book we are all involved in his book you know Alok ji has been on the Inba jury for last 10 years 10 missing 7 juries and I think he is the only person and you know because he brings balance he may have his personal view on this guy show is better but I have seen him in jury deliberation he is he is the voice of reason point of view and balance I think when Mr. Murti, Mr. Nasim and Ms. Lyakat you are approached for being I called you you took one second to accept it because of his respect and the fact how he engages with everyone so I just want to say that I have known Mr. Murti from the day I started and I would seek his view more like 17, 18 years back 15 years back and again Mr. Mehta and I think you know you shouldn't have personal any more with anyone you can have a karmic view point also you can have a sharp view point but you have to distinguish as Mr. Mehta said the issue from the person the subject from the person and yes there is less tolerance we take criticism personally it is good and bad we can use that to change ourselves if there is a real view point but I must tell you some time I am not referring to anyone on the panel even the media panel the media profession, journalist, editor media owners become like politicians they learn all the bad habits from them they cannot take a negative story they cannot take criticism I don't give you the name of an anchor an editor who did not come to Inba this year because some one and half years back some of the time we did some story which I had not till the day of the Inba at first I was a small man I said what have you done I was very small so I said you are upset then after 10 minutes they told me why are you upset with me so I said while calling I would have removed it there was nothing personal about their show their show was not good there is nothing to say about them the show is not good I cannot take the name but you know the point is it took me a lot of because I don't want to kind of get it out from it because journalists are also human beings they haven't come from Mars Venus they are also bloodthirsty like everyone else so there are no other weird creatures so I respect that I see it as passion but sometimes media professionals take all the wrong lessons from politicians but when they are treated they expect to do the same I run a B2C product in business world where you know advertisers or even one level up they cut advertising and when it financially hurts you it hurts you more so I am just to say in spite of all these tough challenges I think by and large the Indian media does a very good job there are areas we must improve but I am sure as we go along I would like to congratulate you I would like to congratulate you and I am sure that your book will create the right impact that it is intended to I genuinely believe that more books on Indian media and Indian media professionals are needed I conceptualized the book 11 years back but I haven't written it but I am happy my daughter's book is coming out and I just want to say that in spite of the media people being very kind to me I have lost it that's more genetic it's not because of the anyone in the media has been unkind to me I just want to clarify that thank you so much thank you so much now I have two anchors here so I will inspire them I will request them all keep the answers for 30 seconds starting with you Alok ji sorry this has thrown so many important points and everyone you don't have express your views on it I would like to ask you what is your message to both journalists of today as well as viewers we should not just call journalists responsible as Mr. Narasimhan also pointed out what is your message to them everybody think that next generation should come in the journalism or not but I always say India is such a vast country it's in the rural area what I think specialized journalism if you are doing something on health because of the corona everybody understood how important education health and legal affairs I think we need large number of newspapers still there is scope in the rural area the city newspapers I think there is scope still because the national media we should not think we should not think only the Delhi I think there is a bright future for the Indian journalism still even after the challenges and people think that there is a no scope and now the social media is there but people will read people will watch people will also go on the different media or social media but we will survive this is the message what I think absolutely I agree with the look finally people want more news and as Anand pointed out the elite readership percentage what it was when IRLG came into journalism what it is there has been a huge in terms of people who are interested in news they wanted well presented well edited news maybe the form of delivery will be different but news will always thrive and pressure will be there I am saying it will be like cholesterol we need good cholesterol not bad cholesterol so I think but how do we do the balance how do we work it out as Anand pointed out where to do that and Anurag has shown how media watch is also very important I think he brought in a new element of media watch to this country where I certainly found that non-journalistic professionals in newspapers who never read anything would wait for exchange for media to read do the news there and then move on to strategize themselves so I think he has also brought a lot of Lakshmi to others through exchange for media thank you so much great and I can see Rubika Ji having one more speaker with us absolutely your thoughts Rubika Ji on you know the pressure is only on the journalist the news room side the presenter side what do you have to tell the viewers the people who go to twitter and waste no time in criticizing do they also have a responsibility okay first I have to attend to this gentleman he is asking me who is this gentleman I have to tell him what do you think he is the gentleman sitting here yeah he has written this book would you read it yeah okay you have got the right book you read it you have got the right book you have got the right book you have got the right book okay so I just want to tell these not viewers for sale sometimes it seems that the people who are cursing me they are saying they have not seen my show because what do they do believe me I didn't like that question so they cut that part of my show for an hour and they made it viral but the rest the time was they asked me questions or heard they have not seen anyone and on that they are going to call me names the biggest problem is if I could just take one minute okay I will give you ice cream Anurag sir is going to get ice cream for you yeah just give me 2 minutes and then I will come see this is a viewer I am trying to say something and what he wants is an ice cream and he wants ice cream especially my cold love so sir I remembered a meme which is so relevant to what you said see it said I read a meme that my daughter sent to me that you can't make everyone happy absolutely generally we don't have ice cream that we can make everyone happy okay and it is not possible you can't please all the people whether in personal life in professional life in public life there will be people who have a predisposition and I want to say that our friend Rohit Sarlana got married she had a mental illness she had a mental illness she had a mental illness what are you saying what are you saying Mr. Bhattra I will tell you something people like us and I am sure Anand will relate to this and even Alok ji Alok ji has given his time in Patrakarita and today when in my show sometime in Ungar when Mr. Alok ji sits even he gets annoyed but the good thing is Mr. Alok ji has two pockets if he has a secret against Vipaksh then he has a secret against the government so if someone starts saying then he puts his hand in his other pocket and says see I will tell you your story so what I am trying to say is that I think I and Anand and all the people like Anand or presenters who have their own thoughts they are like a river Dharaprabha you keep sending them someone will throw stones at them and we will stop yeah ABP news yeah ABP news yeah ABP news yeah ABP news yeah ABP news so what I am trying to say like Anand is saying I know where the destination is betterment of our society and of our country you have to throw stones or stones right right Mr. Narsaman to you two minutes then I go to Dr. Bhattra for his final comment you spoke about how the new media is the opportunity of having these multiple voices and then they kind of balance what are the future forces that will define the newsroom taking on from what Dr. Maitaji has written in his book what are the forces that will dictate the terms in the newsroom I think reading and writing I see Twitter is a base of 3 crore people in our country we are a population of a nation of 135 crore plus so how can Twitter decide who we are clubhouse is not less than not more than about say 3 to 4 million people who are there so how is clubhouse going to decide how society thinks and how we think what's going to happen is I can only urge and I have started I always used to but I think I have started reading more now and the more I read the more I am about I am able to understand and it is credit to people like Mr. Narsaman Mr. Maitaji that they write so the more people read the more they will be inclined to write these 3 minute shots that's a bad trend 3 minute shots are not the right trend they are the current trend but that's not the right trend the future is digital television perhaps will somewhere become redundant newspaper writing or print the way we see as in broadsheets may not be there in the near future but these broadsheets will go on to the digital platform and there is so much to read if people who spend our life is now inside this one phone this one instrument which is a phone but there is so much information which is there and if people can read and if more people can write and people will read different points of view then perhaps we have a far more educated and more open society which also connects with our past see somewhere we don't read our past we are not being taught about our past we don't know where we are coming from to have a clarity about where we want to go and I think that's what's going to happen and I'm hoping somewhere amidst all of this artificial intelligence and bots which are going to prompt you to see towards certain aspects there will be because it's such a huge of our ocean get there there will be a balance you will swing the pendulum there you will swing the pendulum there but somewhere you will find that golden ratio which is important and that perhaps will happen but for that we need to encourage people to write more read more and then perhaps stop and I may say a lot of people in television journalism actually came from print I can give you 10 big examples not all but I can say 60 70% initially and I think you form a thought process when you write you learn your research you want to be sure and in writing gravity is the soul of it which also applies to television so I think the content neutral form will take over I just wanted to supplement what you said right and final thoughts to you Dr. Bhatsra keeping in view of what Mr. Mehta has written how do you see the future discourse around media what would it be like what benefits does the media have to show the credibility the government has the government's media has any government I am not talking about the government as you know Mr. Sachinan Murti told that there are many examples I think first of all yes we can enhance our reputation there is some credibility loss but as a community that we have had I think we need to bring it back that's the honest submission I would say some I am not talking about the individual or organization second is to stay relevant we also have to take up new areas of journalism for example if the air quality should be issued for only 2 months the air quality does not have an important issue impact lives impact livelihood so why should we not focus more and more on environmental issues why are we not focusing a lot on mental well-being which we started to post covid these two big issues we also have to focus on what is the we all have become screenagers we are not teenagers but what is more screen time to all of us so the point I want to make is that for journalism to reinvent itself it will also go deeper into areas that we sometimes take as only once twice a year when there is a crisis second there has to be a more follow up India has become an activist in some way and takes up issues till they are brought to logical conclusions through a judicial process or some other action but we have to for example I talked of environment now again the issue of air quality will come in a few months then we will go in 2 months so I think making sure that this activism leads to action I think we have to become like that some owning an issue owning a story and creating an impact people on this panel do that in their own way and last my thing is what Anand said we will see if we want to be relevant in an era where there is social media where there are individuals who have their point of view and can disseminate will have to be sharper will have to be differentiated and last but not the least will have to be more honest than we are I have to say that that is what I feel it is not a commentary on anyone on this panel but it is a commentary on myself why I talk to myself this is me talking to me and you know we have to be more honest that is what I would say and I would like to congratulate you again on this book and I would like all of us to hold it once again absolutely one more yes the screen version of a group picture absolutely thank you very much I am giving company to Mr. Nassaman here right so congratulations again sir for this wonderful book it is a long conversation I am 60-90 minutes away and still I think it could have gone longer but we will surely have more discussions thank you for joining us today everyone on this panel and to the young reader who joined us at the end thank you everyone not at all great to see him here and thank you final words Alok ji if you would like to say a few words about the book thank you very much thank you thank you thank you Alok ji from papa's side there is a message he is saying that you should publish it in Hindi so that you can reach the book more than a month absolutely I am sure all of you all right thank you all all right well directed I would like to extend on behalf of all the panelists thank you very much for doing this and for having us here thank you for thinking of us very humble it was a pleasure thank you very much congratulations Alok ji thank you thank you