How and when the directive will be enforced remains to be seen, but the decision is definitely a step toward ending Nepal’s still deeply-entrenched legacy of partisan journalism. The decision was daring also because the FNJ faces a leadership change in May and more so because its elections have always been an arena for political parties to wage proxy contests. It, therefore, marks an attempt to go against the wind in a day and age where the parties have even started fielding ‘panels’ in the election of not only the association of community broadcasters but also the school management committees.
The argument here is not that journalists should be apolitical. Because, more often than not, it is politics for justice and the urge to contribute to change that attracts many to the profession. It becomes problematic when journalists use the trust vested on them by the public as their watchdogs to advocate partisan interests, which is true for many weekly newspapers, while less so for the broadsheets. The latter argument holds because the broadsheets employ more diverse staffs in terms of their individual politics and that perhaps balances the net effect of partisan politics in content – to a large extent.
The same, however, cannot be said for weeklies because some are still published by political parties who also pick their journalists, and many others survive on their support (though that is not always disclosed). Even those published by real entrepreneurs tend to get co-opted by partisan interests because a major stream of their income comes from public advertising based on classifications by the Press Council Nepal (PCN), whose members, again, tend to be those close to the parties in government. (Even though the PCN is a legally-mandated self-regulating mechanism, it has not always been the best example of independent regulation).
Nepal’s history of partisan journalism goes back to the early aspirations for democracy in the country. In effect, it was journalists working in samizdat-type weeklies funded by the parties that kept political activism intact from 1960 to 1990 when the country was ruled directly by the king. The partisan credentials served its proponents well after 1990 – for bagging cushy jobs at state media institutions, for example. The incentive still remains and has made it difficult for many journalists to separate themselves from their partisan roots. Sadly, many new entrants to the profession have also begun to emulate their predecessors.
The FNJ decision is an attempt to sever the most potent link between party politics and journalism – that between those sitting in party propaganda committees and also passing off as journalists. The decision may not effectively end the exchange of favors between journalists and politicians but serves well to communicate an ideal, and can also mark a beginning of change.
The argument is not that journalists should be apolitical. Because, more often than not, it is politics for justice and the urge to contribute to change that attracts many to the profession. It becomes problematic when journalists use the trust vested on them by the public as their watchdogs to advocate partisan interests.
Some weeks ago, there was a grim report on the well-being of people making a living from journalism. Mahendra Bista, chair of the minimum wage fixation committee, wrote an op-ed piece in Kantipur on Nov 26 with stats suggesting that most employers did not pay minimum wages and also flout many other legal provisions on employing journalists. Briefly, some of the major findings were: 45 percent journalists had no appointment letters; only 37 percent had received the mandated minimum wage; 32 percent were not paid on time – 14 percent for more than two months; only 21 percent were “permanent” staff (against the legal requirement of 85 percent) of which 77 percent worked fulltime; 36 percent media organisations did not provide regular leave; and 48 percent journalists had not received annual salary increments as required by law, and other perks, including medical allowances and insurance, among others.
The Bista team also made its recommendations. One was barring errant media from receiving publicly funded ads and to ensure that all employers give appointment letters and other benefits as required by the law to their staffs. The government is responsible for following up on the recommendations, and on this, if the past is an indicator, it is unlikely that there may be much change.
“I think it is possible to enforce our recommendations, because they are both practical and flexible,” says Bista. His is particularly keen about having the provisions enforced on “at least” those newspapers that are classified as Category-A by PCN, who also receive the largest chunk of the public service advertisements (PSAs).
That could be a place to start law enforcement given that a majority of the smaller newspapers survive on shoestring budgets – mainly from government-funded PSAs.
But there is also a counter argument. How can a law be enforced only on some if everyone is supposed to be equal under the law? Further, enforcement of the recommendations may not also be possible because like the previous reports, the most recent one does not name the errant institutions. Secondly, even if it had named them, the errant ones would not have been the “big bad” corporate or the government-run media but the weeklies (irrespective of their category), and small radio and television companies. It is here that partisan politics in the media – from which FNJ seems to be making efforts to dissociate – comes into play and therefore it is almost futile to hope that any government would attempt enforcement given the possible political fallouts.
All said, the Working Journalist Act was and is still an idealistic law than something that is enforceable. Two major contentious issues are the requirement on media companies to separate almost 35 percent of their earnings for the welfare of journalists and another provision requiring them to have 85 percent permanent staffs. Over and above all, some would argue that even having a publicly-funded, permanent, committee to fix minimum wages – and not a periodic wage board that could be formed as needed – and monitor compliance, is another inconsistency and a waste of public resources.
patrapatrika@gmail.com
Related story
Taking investigative journalism to new heights
