‘‘What the front page reports has changed drastically in a lot of newspapers. Frivolous, sensational news gets prominence over socially relevant news. Government policies that can change our lives are not getting that much prominence.’’ This, Khan argues, makes readers like him, who depend on newspapers, poorly informed about what is ‘‘important’’.

So, whose fault is it? Khan seems pretty sure where to look: 24x7, private television news. ‘‘Absurd’’ and ‘‘sensational’’ are the two adjectives he uses to describe television news that, he says, is driven by increasing viewership via settling for the lowest common denominator in public taste. And how do they (TV news channels) report news, Khan asks. ‘‘By creating excitement when there’s no such thing...What the media reports has changed, how it reports has changed as well.’’

What would he do though were he to set up a TV news channel or a newspaper? How would he sustain it? How would he buck what he says is the trend? ‘‘I would first of all not take any ads,’’ Khan says, adding he is perhaps sounding too ‘‘idealistic’’. ‘‘But I would only report news and not take any ads.’’

But revenue? Once informed how the BBC’s revenue model works—government funding but independence guaranteed—Khan says that’s what we need. Turn, for starters, DD into an Indian BBC.

And newspapers? Does he think a ‘‘serious’’ newspaper can also be run by government money? Isn’t publicly funded independent newspaper an oxymoron? Khan doesn’t agree. ‘‘Public money can be used to set up a newspaper. Pay journalists well so that you get quality staff. But since there will be no profit motive, news can become as serious as it should.’’

‘‘People of India will fund such a newspaper or a news channel..That’s the ‘need of the hour’...That’s what people like me would want.’’

So, it’s a good idea for society at large to think of ways to fund ‘‘serious’’ journalism? Absolutely, Khan says. ‘‘As a citizen of my country I can’t voice my opinion if I don’t know accurately what is happening. Corruption in news reporting is dulling our senses.’’

He insists on elaborating. ‘‘I probably don’t know half the news that I should know.’’ He gives an example of an acquaintance telling him about recent security forces’ actions in Assam. ‘‘Newspapers didn’t inform me of this.’’ But that could have been because of the news hierarchy newspapers have to follow—not all regions can be equally important for all newspapers. Maybe, Khan says, ‘‘maybe it came out in a small item but it is the kind of news I don’t get to see’’.

But how many news consumers does he reckon feel like him? How many in Bollywood? Khan frowns but relaxes when he’s told he isn’t being asked to name co-actors, but to tell us whether his professional colleagues share his views on the media. ‘‘If you think of Bollywood as only stars—maybe I am an odd guy. But that is irrelevant. The industry is not just about stars, there are hundreds of others, assistant directors, editors, production staff, other people who make up the industry.’’ Many of these people, Khan says, share his discomfiture with how news is selected and presented.

He also questions the question on Bollywood by asking why is it that people from other professions haven’t spoken out about the media. ‘‘I haven’t heard any politician, businessperson, trade unionist, anyone say what I have said...So if I am the odd one I am the odd one not among Bollywood stars but in a larger sense.’’ But then, he qualifies, ‘‘maybe other people who feel like that don’t have a platform’’.

‘‘I think what only film magazines used to report 20 years ago, mainstream newspapers are doing now. Let newspapers call themselves film magazines. I am saying this as a reader, not a celebrity. As a celebrity I am happy the way newspapers are going. Not as a reader. Have one page for entertainment, have eight pages. But why can’t major newspapers report major important news on Page 1?...I have heard some newspapers sell news space. I have seen a TV news channel, I don’t want to name it, do a report on a new two-wheeler saying only good things about it?’’

The two newspapers Khan says he reads are The Indian Express and The Hindu. Hindu ‘‘is stricter about how it reports’’, Khan says, Express still ‘‘tries to balance (between serious and non-serious)’’. Really? Yup, says, Khan. Salman Khan’s jail term in Jodhpur didn’t make Page 1 of Hindu, but in Express it was Page 1. The Delhi edition of Hindu had put Salman on Page 1, I say. Okay, but the Chennai edition, which Khan takes, had the Salman story on Page 14. ‘‘And why not treat Salman as a ‘normal individual’. He’s committed a crime—does every conviction make Page 1?’’ So which conviction is Page 1? ‘‘If Modi is convicted, that’s Page 1,’’ Khan says.

Khan has another bone to pick with Express: ‘‘Why only uncover news? Investigative journalism is very important, but there’s good news also. I want to share the energy. Why not report that?’’

What about all the Express stories of reforms changing India, stories about individuals who are rewriting the India story, I ask. Khan says he will get back to me on that, after having gone over Express again.

But the next day he was in Delhi, and the reader who’s dissatisfied with news on Page 1 became Page 1 news.