Rob Atkinson’s distinction and categorisation of the two types of professionalism is represented by Stevens and Kenton (1995, pp. 199–214). The former argues that everything within the limits of the law is permissible, and the latter argues that there are other limitations, such as morality, that limit one’s actions beyond what the law permits (1995, pp. 199–214). He situates the ROD as mediating between the two kinds of what he calls the flawed professionalism, the “perfectionist” and the “nihilistic”, one that “accepts the imperfection [. . .] of both the individuals and institutions, without rejecting the possibility of virtuous professional lives and cultures” (1995, p. 200). This is perhaps equally true of Indian “godi” media as well. The gross oversimplification would be that the Stevens’ camp would not question the law and that Kenton’s would vehemently oppose it. As Arundhati Roy (2012) puts the Caravan magazine’s work as opposite to what “godi” media is doing by “calling the powerful to account” (2012).