People, working in the news television channels, often get strangled between the airy gossips and hardcore real facts. Even after they have decided what is newsworthy facts versus gossip is, the next decision is whether it is ethical to report on a subject at all.

Question that comes up are: Is it too invasive? Is it a private matter? For example, even after Aishwarya Rai's marriage, her past romantic affairs related stories still revolve around different news channels whereas in India a married woman is always looked upon with respect.

"Channels are the voice of people, they show what people want to see. The popularity of gossip related news is more an indication in itself. News channels are no missionaries; they are here to do business and are required to show people what is there in the market," is how Ashish Kaul, PRO, Zee news, explains the issue.

"People want to see that. Once you become a celebrity you become a public property. People adore you, worship you and want to know about your personal life," says Ravi Rai, veteran television producer- director.

It seems that the decision of airing these kind of episodes are based on what other news outlets are doing and not on ethics what a channel feels suitable as being responsible news showcase.

The demand to stay ahead in the competition with rival channels, that run private photos and release personal information on celebrities, has affected the content of the real news.

"It depends on your business model and what kind of channel you want to be. You can be a channel like NDTV which is high on perception but low on rating, as far as market share is concerned.

Again, you can be a channel like Aaj Tak which is low in advertising but high on popularity. So it is the way you choose," says Ashish Kaul.

"I think every channel is defined by its TRP. So there is a kind of pressure.

Even religious babas like Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, Baba Ramdev need Salman Khan or Shilpa Shetty to gather more public in their shows. So news channel are no different. Jo dhikta hai vo bikta hai," says Ravi Rai.

News networks are faced with the ethical question of what to cover everyday. Should news networks surrender to the public who demands entertainment news or should they take what they consider is the high road and can only cover stories with value and impact?

"There is nothing like relevant or irrelevant here, if people like a story it is relevant if they don't like it then it is irrelevant. If the channel is popular, everything they show is relevant, and if the channel is not working, whatever they show is not relevant. It's as simple as that.

It really depends on what kind of market the channel is looking at and accordingly they will have to position themselves. If you are trying to be the channel for the masses you will have to show the stories that reflect the local flavour of the masses i.e. what is happening at the grass root level.

You can't take a show of Barkha Dutt to the masses. But, if you want to be an up market channel then naturally, you can't show them the kind of gossip stories or local flavored stories that happened at the grass root level.

If you are the channel for the masses you will have to show what is happening at the grass root level whether it is black magic, violence or crime, which are the ground realities. We can indulge in brachial thinking but that is the fact of life," comments Aashish Kaul.

"People want to see what is happening in stars' life. So, news channels have no other option. Not only with film stars but even the same thing happens with cricket stars, too. Whatever has just happened in Australia regarding sledging controversy was shown for 10 good days by all news channels," comments Ravi Rai.

It seems like a river where shores are looking at each other. In the recent scenario, the audience is showing their fingers at the channels whereas channels are blaming the audience. But the question is still the same. Who will look for the perfect answer? Channels or the audience? You or me?