Recall the time of Anna Andolan, Nirbhaya's case, Ramdev Andolan. Could those movements have gain that significance had media polarized the issue and kept different intentions and didn’t give sufficient coverage? We never felt pride in our media houses, but we were too not ashamed of these at that time. We never blamed it for being pro-government or pro-corporate. At that time as well, many politicians owned some stakes in media houses but they didn’t dare to interfere with their working, or at least it was not apparent enough. There was a strong coherent voice against the government, raising questions on everything that matters. Media houses didn’t have notions of nationality, right conduct. Professionals, subject matter experts' views were respected. They intended to bring new perspectives into the country, not to streamline all ideologies in one direction. We need to check how this polarization of media started and where are we heading? Can we draw parallels with some...