I don't think there is much to add now that Amrita has beautifully given her views. Mr Tripathi, what you have told is very true. Reporters are to report the facts and let facts portray reality as it is. Going by this definition, P Sainath is a reporter par excellence. I don't think he has ever tried to provide prescriptions to all that ails in rurals. If he is unhappy that most of his folks are busy with glamour reporting, does it increase the urban-rural divide? What does Tripathi mean when he says media has kept various issues (be it Bhopal gas tragedy, or Gujarat riots, or Sikh riot victims)alive? Does it mean we should have ranking as to which is the No 1 issue to be reported on p1? Discussion on one should mean discussions on the rest should not be taken up. He is perhaps bored that Sainath took up his pet topic of rural hunger. We are bored too, Mr Tripathi. The World Food Program had warned of such a scenario atleast a decade back. No the media didn't 'play it up'. Media takes up an issue only if it is in the breaking news category. By now, this paper, both the print as well as the online version have put up hundreds of stories on the rise of foodgrain prices and riots in Haiti. If there are counterarguments to Norman Borlaug's thesis that without the use of chemical fertilizers, governments will be unable to cope up with the rising demand for food and biofuel. Now does it mean that the media stops publishing Keith Bradsher's articles and Borlaug's sweeping assumptions. Another perpetual theme, Mr Tripathi, that maximum no. of kids in India and South Asia, under the age of 3 are malnourished. Now, should the media report it? Its been there for decades now. Again, Mr Tripathi, one can always argue with the analysis given. But reporters like Samanth have again brought to the forefront an issue we conveniently ignore.