So, why cant the media change India?

Okay. So newspapers & magazines have been writing about corruption. About crime. About 'fundamentalism'. About how to improve India. They've been doing it for years.

Why does even the most vocal writing refuse to change things? Of course, there's the fact that it's easier-said-than-done. But then, shouldnt at least *some* people be influenced enough to change things?

Perhaps a few stats will explain things. Here're a few (approximate)numbers as a percentage of India's population:

Circulation of Times of India: 3%
Internet penetration: 7%
Unique users on Orkut: 2%
Twitter: 0.5%

To say nothing of regional newspapers and niche websites.

If any medium talks to such a small percentage of population, what are the odds that it'll change anything that concerns the other 95%?

Why arent marketing textbooks on the NYT bestseller list?

They ought to be, right?

Someone who's trying to teach you how to sell stuff to others ought to be doing a helluva job of selling his own textbook, right?

Two to tango

"A did such evil things."
"Well. A is a sadist. B is a masochist. They were consenting adults. It was a mutual arrangement. If B didnt like it, B could have walked off any time. Why should you and I have a problem?"