Susan Ormiston (presenter and correspondent, CBC News): There can't be a better time to talk about the explosion of 24/7 news. Our Indian friends are starting up a new all-news channel, the 30 th in India. We're going to see a new Al Jazeera international English channel start up. We have a new channel starting up in Latin America, Telesur; we have another one in Russia, and we're going to talk to both those players. It's an amazing explosion of interest. Do we need more 24/7 channels? Are we fragmenting our channels into points of view, where you can choose from a buffet of 24/7 channels, and only have to watch the opinions that you agree with? It has really become an environment of "news you can choose." Nigel Parsons, why a new channel for Al Jazeera?

Nigel Parsons (managing director, Al Jazeera International): I think that's really a question for the board; it wasn't my decision. But I think there is room for another channel, and I think Al Jazeera has shown that. The existing Al Jazeera channel was founded nine years ago and is one of the most-watched channels in the world now, so there was clearly a need for it.

The way you see events depends very much on where you're sitting, and people want the opportunity to see things through a different prism, and that's what we'll be offering. Doing it in English is a natural extension, because Al Jazeera found that when they travelled around, wherever they went, people said: “Great channel, pity we can't understand it. Can we have an English version?” It's hugely popular in the Middle East and with the diaspora of Arabic speakers around the world, but that still misses out a large part of the world, and we're hoping to fill that gap.

Susan Ormiston: How closely will it be allied with Al Jazeera in terms of programming? Will you be programming the same things in some cases?

Nigel Parsons: I guess in some cases, in documentaries. We're sister channels; we have separate but adjacent buildings. We have separate news teams, but of course we'll co-locate where we will be having correspondents in the same place. It would be daft not to. Of course we'll share resources where it makes sense for both sides.

Susan Ormiston: When you say "a need" and “there's room for another channel,” what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting there are gaps in the other channels that are offering pan-regional, 24/7 channels?

Nigel Parsons: Pan-regional? I think we're talking about global channels. All I'm saying is there are different ways of looking at things. If you pick up a local newspaper wherever you are, it will have a different front and back page - they're looking at things differently. I was in the States last week and I like to read the newspaper from the back, and there wasn't a single story I could understand because it's all sports I don't know. I wanted another perspective out there and I wasn't getting it.

How you see an event depends on where you're sitting, and we're sitting in a different place - in a tiny country that's very centrally located. We're on the equator and we're mid-way between the States and Southeast Asia. It's a tiny, tiny place. Qatar is so small that there are about 200,000 ethnic Qataris in the world. It's impossible for us to carry a domestic agenda when you're coming out of a place that small. We have a 360-degree perspective, coming from a place like that.

After the London bombing, there was a huge spike in visitors to our English website. Why? Because people were looking for a different take on the story. If you're sitting in the U.K., and there's a big story going on, and your preferred channel is ITN and we're on the air - I'm not saying that most U.K. people are going to necessarily switch from ITN and always watch us. They may be watching ITN, and then wonder what the BBC is saying about this story and they'll probably find that the BBC is coming at it from a very similar angle, both being U.K.-centric channels. We're hoping people are more likely to say, I wonder what Al-Jazeera is saying about this story, because we might have a different take, so we become a default channel, if you like.

Susan Ormiston: We're going to go now to Margarita Simonyan in Moscow. Tell us about Russia Today. What are you going to do with a [24/7] English channel in Russia? Who's funding it and who wields editorial control?

Margarita Simonyan (chief editor, Russia Today): I've been listening to Nigel, and it's amazing what he was saying, because in all the interviews I've been giving in recent months, I've been saying practically the same things, although we're not acquainted - why the channel is there, the reasons to create yet another channel, how it does depend on where you're sitting, how you see the events.

Susan Ormiston: What are you going to show us from Russia that isn't being shown now?

Margarita Simonyan: We're going to provide a more objective and broad, as we see it, picture of Russia, because now people from the West who come to Russia for the first time are often very surprised about what the country actually is, because what they had expected to see is not what they actually see. It happens partially maybe because what they have read and what they have seen about Russia does not necessarily have a lot to do with what Russia really is.

So we're going to show a different side of Russia. Some of the media is saying that the channel is there to create a positive image of Russia, which is not actually our aim. We'll try and do our best to create an objective image of Russia, with all the negative and positive sides, and with the background to events, to make things that are going on in Russia and that interest the world more understandable because it's easier to do it from Russia.

Susan Ormiston: How is it funded?

Margarita Simonyan: Part of the money we get is state money; part of it is loans from commercial banks - more or less half and half.

Susan Ormiston: It's 50-per-cent state-funded. So do you have editorial freedom?

Margarita Simonyan: Well, yeah! What do you mean? Have I got any calls from anyone telling me what to say? No.

Susan Ormiston: It has been, perhaps unflatteringly, referred to as "Putin's Television." Do you reject that?

Margarita Simonyan: Absolutely. I haven't heard that. I've heard "Kremlin's Television," but not “Putin's” - that's more personal.

Susan Ormiston: How will you cover issues like Beslan, like Chechnya? How much editorial independence will you have on those types of sensitive issues?

Margarita Simonyan: There's always professionalism and non-professionalism. Everybody knows and understands what professionalism is, more or less in the same way. Everybody understands obvious things, like you have to show both sides, or the three or four sides of the story. You cannot be silent about this, and be loud about that. We will do our best to do all these things, and I don't see any reason why we can't.

Susan Ormiston: Who is your audience?

Margarita Simonyan: People who are interested in Russia, who need information from Russia because of their business or their interests - people from the media, politicians, businessmen - people who lack this information because there isn't a TV channel that can tell the world about what's going on in Russia, or show the Russian point of view on world events. We will try to fill that gap.