Freedom of press is more than just the freedom of publishers and editors. It is the freedom of society to have its voice heard. The exercise of this freedom does require, as your motto proclaims, a “journalism of courage”. However, it also requires a journalism of honesty and integrity. A journalism of toil and hard work. I also believe that a “journalism of courage” is not just about giving voice to those who are willing to shout, but it is about giving voice to the voiceless and to those who choose to be silent. I submit to you that a “journalism of courage” also implies taking sides. Objectivity does not imply neutrality. It implies respect for truth and facts, and a willingness to take positions, howsoever contrarian or contentious.

I have heard my friend Arun Shourie, a distinguished editor of The Indian Express, and a compatriot of Ramnathji, decry a trend in journalism where every discussion is turned into a debate. Perhaps that is because debates are entertaining, and discussions are boring. But there is a downside to this trend. A discussion can facilitate a consensus. A debate invariably divides opinion. There are many issues of great public and national interest, where a debate is useful, but where a consensus is necessary. Getting rivals to disagree and turn debate into a gladiatorial sport, may be entertaining and commercially rewarding. But does it help society move forward? Our democracy may be better off if we can increase the area of agreement, rather than sharpen disagreements. I would like you to reflect on these issues.

... contd.