Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Why should the entry of foreign media harm local interests?

• Different sets of rules and laws were made applicable for foreign media

• Economic reform programmes will get a setback

• The cultural heritage will be lost

• They are better equipped managerially and technologically

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

In the controversy involving two principles regarding allowing foreign media, which of the following is against its entry?

• Governmental restrictions

• Preserve culture

• Security across national borders

• Western ideology

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Which of the following will be the impact of increasing competition?

• It will improve Indian newspapers and television

• The domestic media will not be able to withstand it

• The Indian news agencies will seek protection from the court

• The foreign media will not be allowed duty concessions on import of technology

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

A country has been cited as having succeeded in protecting which of the following?

• News agencies

• Television

• GATT

• None of the above

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

According to the passage, which media, in particular, promotes Western interest?

• Western

• Foreign

• American

• French

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

A figure with more than four angles or sides is called

• Polygon

• Octagon

• Parallelogram

• Pentagon

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Which of the following seems to be the most likely purpose of writing this passage?

• To highlight the exploitation by developed nations

• To make the public aware of the technological and managerial superiority of Western media

• To criticise foreign media

• To highlight the steps and caution to be taken about the entry of foreign media

Renowned educationist Sir Tim Brighouse observed that an outstanding school has four factors that are visible. "Teachers talk about teaching, teachers observe each other's practice, teachers plan, organize and evaluate their work together rather than separately and that teachers teach each other." He continues "One of the reasons I like that is that you can immediately see ways in which you could make it more likely that teachers talk about teaching."
Sir Tim then encouraged schools to focus on activities that were low effort but high impact, describing them as 'butterflies'. Some examples he gave included rotating staff meetings around different classrooms with the host, at the start, describing the room layout and displays or discussing other teaching techniques and approaches. With modern technology, teachers could observe their own lessons and then when viewing them back, decide whether they want to share them with a mentor. The role of mentoring was vital and suggested that more schools could send teachers out in small groups to learn from colleagues in other schools.
He said "If this were widespread practice, if people were to attend to their butterflies, the outcome in terms of teacher morale and teacher satisfaction would be positive. We all agree that professional development is the vital ingredient".

In the mode suggested by Sir Tim, teachers may self-evaluate and self-reflect

• using technology

• without technology

• through a students' survey

• interviewing each other

Renowned educationist Sir Tim Brighouse observed that an outstanding school has four factors that are visible. "Teachers talk about teaching, teachers observe each other's practice, teachers plan, organize and evaluate their work together rather than separately and that teachers teach each other." He continues "One of the reasons I like that is that you can immediately see ways in which you could make it more likely that teachers talk about teaching."
Sir Tim then encouraged schools to focus on activities that were low effort but high impact, describing them as 'butterflies'. Some examples he gave included rotating staff meetings around different classrooms with the host, at the start, describing the room layout and displays or discussing other teaching techniques and approaches. With modern technology, teachers could observe their own lessons and then when viewing them back, decide whether they want to share them with a mentor. The role of mentoring was vital and suggested that more schools could send teachers out in small groups to learn from colleagues in other schools.
He said "If this were widespread practice, if people were to attend to their butterflies, the outcome in terms of teacher morale and teacher satisfaction would be positive. We all agree that professional development is the vital ingredient".

Teachers talk about teaching' means that they 

• make some suggestions

• discuss their own practices

• criticize one another

• freely change opinions

Renowned educationist Sir Tim Brighouse observed that an outstanding school has four factors that are visible. "Teachers talk about teaching, teachers observe each other's practice, teachers plan, organize and evaluate their work together rather than separately and that teachers teach each other." He continues "One of the reasons I like that is that you can immediately see ways in which you could make it more likely that teachers talk about teaching."
Sir Tim then encouraged schools to focus on activities that were low effort but high impact, describing them as 'butterflies'. Some examples he gave included rotating staff meetings around different classrooms with the host, at the start, describing the room layout and displays or discussing other teaching techniques and approaches. With modern technology, teachers could observe their own lessons and then when viewing them back, decide whether they want to share them with a mentor. The role of mentoring was vital and suggested that more schools could send teachers out in small groups to learn from colleagues in other schools.
He said "If this were widespread practice, if people were to attend to their butterflies, the outcome in terms of teacher morale and teacher satisfaction would be positive. We all agree that professional development is the vital ingredient".

'Low effort but high impact' in this context implies that schools

• pay teachers a lower salary

• extract more work for the same pay

• decrease the work load and salary

• create opportunities within the system for development