After the customary salutation and love, here are my two points:

1. Response to Arijit’s email about advertisement vs subscription model: I would like to cite Pareto principle (or 80/20 rule) which states that in many systems, 80 per cent effects are due to 20 per cent participants. I do not have the data but it is highly likely that in ad-based media groups, this would be true; that is 80 per cent (not exactly 80 but a high number) of their ad revenue is quite likely from 20 per cent (not exactly 20 but a small number) of advertisers. If this is true, then unless there is a strong conviction at the media entity itself towards not allowing it, the ad-based model is destined to have a very restricted advertiser base. Hence, compromised news.

2. The experience of listening to any discussion on news (eg. Hafta) is best when presented with unpredictable (not unsubstantiated though) opinions. Over the course of listening to Hafta (which I do religiously), I have made a mental profile of almost each regular Hafta member (including Anand Vardhan) and can predict (not completely though) what they would say for a given news item. (In fact, I stopped listening to Charcha—no disrespect—a year back just because I had an idea what everyone would say. I have to check it again though.) The only person I have not been able to crack is Raman Sir (and occasionally Madhu). He is always hitting me with a counterview I have not thought of.

I hear many subscribers have asked Anand to be more emphatic in putting his point of view. I disagree. I find his approach in Hafta to be an example for panel discussions, neither insipid nor Bakshi-fied. You can see where the emphatic opinionating has taken the current TV news.

Regards,
Another NRI postdoc subscriber