Now that the ‘movement’ to save the shortwave transmission is over, and the decision has taken the originally intended course – unlike what happens in this land of the Jhalanaths and Bharat Mohans where even fiscal policy can change at whim – it is perhaps time to reflect on life after the BBC on the shortwave. And this is reality: Life with Radio Nepal and Nepal Television (NTV).
BBC became what it is because of how it was set up and run: Funded by the public and an ideal public broadcaster independent of the government in terms of operations. Radio Nepal (and NTV for that matter) is also publicly funded – though not largely through license fees as is the case of the BBC – but lacks the second requirement needed in a public broadcaster, which is independence from the government.
Radio Nepal (and NTV) does not have the type of resources the BBC has but does have the basic requirements needed for good programming – basic infrastructures and skilled professionals. Therefore, it is not impossible for Nepal to have a good public radio (or TV) if, say, the same individuals who had petitioned for longevity of the BBC shortwave were to take up the task of lobbying for reforming Nepal’s publicly funded state-broadcasters (and newspapers). But for some reason the passionate discussions supporting the ‘independence, professionalism, informing people in the hinterlands’ arguments there was in the context of the BBC, though equally – if not more – relevant in the context of Nepali state media, has not found many advocates.
I was among the few naysayers and those not fully committing to the ‘Save BBC campaign’ in a discussion on NNSD. I had argued that it is more important to direct a campaign to save our own state-run media from the clutches of partisan politics and for transforming them into public service institutions. But there were not many takers of this argument, though some individuals did write to me personally saying it was a thought worth consideration – an assurance that I was not talking nonsense.
There was similar thinking in what another commentator on the list had to say. Dipak Gyawali, a former minister, said that campaigning to ‘Save Nepali BBC Service’ was more of a damning statement on the credibility of our own media outlets, and urged a discussion on the shortcomings. But the idea did not generate much discussion. A third commentator not joining the save BBC bandwagon was Raghu Mainali, a community radio activist, whose position is reflected in these lines: We (intellectuals) are ready to wage another fight to save the BBC short-wave broadcast again for the British. But we have never realized a need for a fight or support to establish public service broadcasting within the country.
Turning the state media into independent public service institutions can provide a strong foundation for widening democratic space and providing an equitable platform for real public discussions, especially in a country where the media – with a few exceptions – is either partisan or driven largely by commercial interests.
The Nepali service on shortwave is now a part of history but I believe the minority voices (above) do – perhaps – still deserve a continuing discussion. That is because turning the state media into independent public service institutions can provide a strong foundation for widening democratic space and providing an equitable platform for real public discussions, especially in a country where the media – with a few exceptions – is either partisan or driven largely by commercial interests.
But building good public service media in Nepal is easier said than done. For example, the same people who seemed to agree on saving the BBC might not come to the agreement easily on how Nepali state-funded media should be run. This is because any issue in the still unsettled republic tends to be analyzed with a partisan lens. For example, those who grew up memorizing Marx’s maxims on media and communications would find it difficult to come to terms with a hands-off approach. Also deep inside, the pundits of liberalism would always prefer weaker competition to having a strong, independent public media.
Further, even though all of the campaigners for BBC shortwave would swear by democracy, their definitions for and understandings of the term differ in accordance with the ideology they subscribe to, and that would determine the place free speech and expression would have in their ideal governance structures. The differences in relation to these basic freedoms overlap with the debate of having strong public media that is independent of government.
Then there are some practical issues to come to terms with in order to even start thinking of making our state media public service institutions. Firstly, it would mean agreement on stopping the appointment of journalists that run party propaganda sheets and random party cadre as state media executives and directors, every time there is a change in government, and letting professionals manage the institutions. In a country where jobs are scarce, not many of the potential appointees may subscribe to an idea of negating their chance of digging into public resources and the spoils that come with public office. And, where there are (political) strings attached in appointments, it becomes very difficult for managers and producers to fulfill the public service remit of informing, educating and entertaining audiences fairly and impartially through programming.
Here are some more questions to think about in the context of turning Nepali state media into public service institutions. Radio Nepal has been operating since 1951 – three decades after the BBC Empire Service was launched – and it enjoyed a monopoly until 1997. Instead of leading the way with that head start, it has already lost significant audiences to independent FM stations, which could have resulted from either poor management and programming or both. Still the government continues to fund the station, without a proper assessment of how well it is received by whatever-the-number-of-listeners it may still have. Is it, therefore, justifiable to still pay for the station as it is?
Finally, many countries with good public media generally have one body to oversee public broadcasters, with management arrangements that separate the operations. However, all Nepali state-media are single entities with their own board of directors, which in a real sense only multiply the number of politically appointed policy positions available, even though they all have little policy to make but function under broad government policy. Can amalgamating the public media be a starting point towards turning them into real public media?
bbhattarai2006@gmail.com
Related story
BBC axes shortwave service in Nepali
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)