My opponent talking about rational individuals said, “Sir then why do all these citizens get the right to vote? why do they get all the other guarantees by the constitution? It would only imply that the framers of the constitution & all other officials were daft to have concurred these provisions, which is actually laughable.”
We do not get rights on basis of rationality. We do because our framers of constitution have entrusted a fatith in us to be rational and to think right. Everyone has this right. Even the prisoners for murder crimes or anything else do. Will you call them rational? Will you call the illiterate voters rational who would sell their children for money and who cant even read or write–forget rationality. Will you call businessmen who would commit fraud for years and render thousands homeless and jobless rational? So whom is my opponent calling rational? And when has policing ever interfered and made amendments? When has policing resorted to stringent measures to keep a check of restraint on people freedom of choice? Even in case of Uma Khurana, the channel ban was hardly a punishment in comparison the life and character assassination of the lady. Democracy and freedom of speech are for mature people and not for irrational kids and immature uncles creating ruckus about creating unnecessary sensation about useless and trivial news as they have to understand that India is still 40% uneducated.

Writing about “change”, I would certainly state that I am not against change. My opponent puts up a baseless allegation that I am not supportive of change. Change is good–but only if is corresponds to the needs of the nation. The concept of breaking news has changed but in the wrong direction. Everything is not breaking news. One one hand they show “Tsunami” as breaking news which is justified but on the other hand they show a boy named “Prince fallen in pit” as breaking news. This is the change which shows the declining credibility of our media. If media is money minded, then our democracy is in danger. They exploit news events sensationalizing them to earn money like in which causes riots in disharmony. TV headlines scream “Mumbai Burning”, “Attack on North Indians”, “Kaun hai asli maharashtrian” etc. Excessive coverage of Raj Thackeray incidents caused lot of disturbance n the country thanks to our fourth estate.the tremendous growth of the media industry in the country had also increased its capacity for harm as seen in the case of the attacks on Reliance stores in Andhra Pradesh following certain news broadcasts

My opponent conveniently draws his own conclusions about me stating that i chose to ignore media’s achievements. I have clarified previously too that certainly do not. We all are aware of the plethora of cases that media has brought to our attention. We call the media fourth estate after the legislature, executive and the judiciary–such esteemed organizations. Media certainly has a key role in enforcing democratic values and principles. And profit motive is definitely not one of them. the Local Restaurant in my opponent’s Jain colony works profit and only profit. He earns his living out of it. But equating him to the media is indeed alarming. Such extremes that my opponent has extended to that it makes him a sheer capitalist who sees nothing but the green paper. How can we think of media selling our values and principles for money consideration? Media is a “social organization” and not a commercial one my dear opponent.
I must remind my opponent that today, the importance of reporting accurate, fair and correct news is now overpowered by the self-seeking commercial domination in the press industry. Noble, virtuous and courteous journalists are replaced by aggressive, interrogative and persistently fearless journalists. Reports published on a particular issue are getting judgmental and defamatory. Provocative compositions are employed to sensationalize issues or to prompt the people to think and behave in a certain way that may seem appropriate to the agenda of the press. Social agendas that are incompetently deliberated by the press have grievous consequences in the society, and that has been going on for long. They have been instigating repugnance between the people and some political parties so that other political parties are benefited. Questions in the poll conducted by press are so composed that the result achieved is as per their desire. People’s opinions are sought with biased questions that will derive answers that are beneficial for the press.
Majority of my opponents arguments concentrate only on debating the wants of the people–that media fulfills what people want like in case of cricket or any channel. My opponent himself is confused with the issue here because I have repeatedly said that the wants of the society are separate and the role of media as a social organization is separate. A company or industry or Business enterprise focuses on wants of people to earn profit but a social organization like that of media should focus more on desires of the society–their problems, shortcomings of the government, achievements, solutions, etc. But my opponent thinks that media should only portray what people wants it to portray in order to earn TRPs and be famous. Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, N Ram said in the 22nd conference of the FMRAI on ‘Media and Politics,’ the media in India should commit itself to clean ethical principles and recognize its social responsibility even while it asserts its freedom. My opponent’s profit motive and materialistic approach towards the media ’sensationalisation’ is appalling. We are not products that media can sell to fulfill its own interests. Media needs to act within its limits and keep up its glorious tradition of safeguarding people’s rights and interests that help in growth of the nation.