Her case, like hundreds before hers, would have remained hidden in some obscure corner of a news page, had it not been for the Kantipur daily which was relentless in its coverage of the evil practice,–giving prominence to the news and backing it up with strong editorials.[break]
Last year, the fraud behind Unity Life International’s scheme came out, saving tens of thousands of potential investors from losing money. Republica daily kept on doing what a good newspaper should do – doggedly pursuing the story, forcing widely read Nepali papers to finally pick up the story and ushering necessary actions.
The government not only shut down Unity but other similar money-making organizations had to close shop as well. These two are among the best work done by Nepali media.
On the other hand, there are examples which can enter the curricula of journalism education of what bad journalism is all about and how it should be avoided.
From writing a news about an impending army coup, without a single attribution and entirely on anonymous sources, to writing news as editorial (the Mahara tape controversy) on the front page, from witch hunting of business houses and companies in order to get ads in newspapers and TV channels, to propping up a faction in a political party, from character assassination to completely blanking out news that would serve public interest, Nepal’s media have done it all. All of these hurt the media’s credibility.
Of course, we are yet to be plagued by the “paid news” disease that has dogged the Indian media. But this is no consolation for the Nepali media and for those who want to see a free, fair, fearless, truthful, professional and accountable media. Worse, our TV stations are blatantly copying the circus that passes off as news on most Indian TV channels, with sensationalism being a common thread running through them.
Clearly, there is a need for reform in Nepal’s media – print, electronic and online – so as to make them more credible. The tough question is what to do and how to go about it? This should be done before those whose interests are served by a controlled media making moves to weaken it in the name of regulating it.
We also need to think about what to do with the public-owned entities like Gorkhapatra, Nepal TV, and Radio Nepal, run by taxes paid by the people but being abused by the government of the day and treated as their personal property? This is a tool of the parties in power to distribute employment to their cadre.
Imagine the BBC and the National Public Radio (NPR) – arguably two of the best and most professional broadcasters in the world – being run by Tories or Labor Party in the United Kingdom and by Republicans or Democrats in the United States. This happens in Nepal.
During normal times, society and politics are highly polarized – even in mature democracies. This gets reflected in the media. Post-conflict Nepal, which is still struggling to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, is no exception. Reforms related to all aspects of Nepal’s media are needed.
But what kind of reforms? Is regulation the answer? If yes, who is to regulate and how much? I have a simple answer: the reforms process and regulation should come from within, not imposed by the government and the courts. They cannot dictate what to print/broadcast.
The government can play its role – limited to passing relevant legislations – and the courts ensuring that there is no breach of the norms and laws by any side.
I see one area where this is needed – defamation laws. If a media outlet accuses any person or organization of any wrongdoing, they need to have evidence to back their story.
The current defamation laws are so weak that newspapers and others get away with their unproven allegations.
We don’t need laws as severe as the ones in the United Kingdom but it is in the media’s best interest not to allow the current state of affairs to perpetuate.
Newsrooms and media companies that own them can take some steps, progressing from easy ones like completely stopping misuse/abuse of press identity to tough choices, like introducing financial transparency.
Balanced news is a casualty. Either reporters are in too much haste to cover all sides and aspects or are plain biased.
Also, if the latter is the case, then the question arises: Is it institutional or individual, or both? The biasness could be due to one’s faith in a particular ideology/thought or for money or for fulfillment of personal interest.
One way to improve credibility is to present news as it is – without twists, re-worked quotes or deliberate leaving out of information and context.
There will be inherently biased reporters, and not just limited to those working for party-funded outlets. But it is up to the editors to ensure that bias is not reflected.
Sadly, this goes on. This, I believe, is the ugliest aspect of our media.Here’s more. These days, the practice of using anonymous sources is rising, even for the most mundane news.
The practice is getting entrenched because the reporters are overeager to offer the cover of anonymity to politicians and others who happily accept it.
Once the need to speak on the record is removed, the person then gives his or her spin to the story. Most times, this appears on papers and TV without being verified, without the “other side” being contacted.
The responsibility of allowing news with anonymous sources with lies with senior newsroom managers. It should personally be authorized by the editor or the gatekeeper of the concerned agency only if he or she thinks the news is in public interest and there’s no other way to get it out.
Trust me, this is not difficult at all. The other aspect is adherence to professionalism and media ethics.
Newspapers like The New York Times have a very elaborate media ethics policy. Not everything can be emulated in Nepal, but most can be. Of course, it has to start at the top, with the editors leading by example.
Periodic training for both gatekeepers and foot soldiers is an absolute must. The media landscape is rapidly changing and it is only wise to keep abreast of the best global practices.
There’s no media house in Nepal that has a systematic arrangement to make available to its journalists/editors the latest training – either by sending them to attend courses in Nepal and abroad, or by inviting experts to train their newsroom staff.
Some journalists, of course, make individual efforts to keep themselves trained, but their number is low.
Now comes the tough part. Financial transparency of media houses, which is currently lacking, is a necessity. This can be a long-term goal.
But the sooner we have it, the better. Moreover, the pressure from advertisers is too well known a fact, and it hurts the image and credibility of the media house in question.
These are inbuilt efforts which need to be backed by outside developments. The Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) needs to undertake concrete and visible exercises to come out of the shadow of political parties.
Besides, it needs to be transparent in its accounts. Allegations of financial embezzlement cannot be brushed aside anymore.
At its current state, the FNJ lacks the moral authority and teeth it needs to fight for the freedom of the press and credible media.
If FNJ needs to reform on an urgent basis, the present-day Press Council Nepal needs to go through an overhaul. Immediately. The present system of choosing people under political parties’ quota won’t do.
You cannot have those editors as members whose media get the most number of complaints over breach of professionalism and ethics and laws! The Press Council Nepal ought to be manned by people who are known for their integrity and professionalism, and its chief should be a retired Supreme Court justice whose integrity is beyond question.
Let me end by emphasizing a point: Nepal’s fledgling democracy would be in a much worse shape had it not been for the media in the country.
During the Panchayat rule, it was the weeklies – however partisan one may deem those to be – and in the post-1990 period, it was the press owned by private media houses that have performed remarkably well, despite the adverse climate they work under – lack of institutional training, poor finances, and a hostile political class.
Jayshi is with Panos South Asia. The views expressed herein are personal.
Related story
Mr Speaker, Either Prove or Apologize!
_20230114102317.jpg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
