First, no one in a democracy can be objective, inclusive and reflective without citizens and users being engaged and active. Citizens need to be interactively involved. Second, self-assessment or internal appraisal of content priorities goes a long way. Having an active ombudsman should be formal with user’s participation. Third, reconnect with users distinctly. Letters to editor, guest edits, analysis, critic’s voice etc should be nurtured. Fourth, senior staff, both journalists and others, should be identified whenever their coverage appear. Any “conflict of interest” with any content should be indicated. Fifth, sources of content should always be indicated, particularly where figures and quotes are used. These sources could be varied; better not to use the same source repeatedly. Sixth, references and resources involved in coverage should be specified with timing, origin, author etc so that any apprehensions are avoided or pre-empted. Seventh, a media house should come under the RTI on its own, irrespective of the position of other media. It could even be transparent on RTI questions received. So also periodic reports, audit, monitoring, review committees etc. Eight, declare at least annually a review of news coverage, on how it was inclusive, objective and reflective. Ninth, opinion pieces should have “other point” as well—at least one “other” view for every three of one’s own. Tenth, collaborate with other established or professional institutions on contentious issues in particular, instead of taking a solo view. Eleventh, there is nothing wrong for