There was a related news story in this newspaper headlined: “Indian Embassy Concerned.” It was about media reports “against products manufactured by Indian joint ventures in Nepal,” of which Dabur is one. The statement added that the embassy was informed that the Indian ventures had “been approached for advertisements and (were) being threatened with negative publicity if those requests are not met.”
A little digging revealed that Dabur had filed a complaint at Press Council Nepal (PCN) on Aug 27, saying that the content on Kantipur Aja (on Aug 26) had “objectionable matter” and showed tampered Real juice packages having “foreign materials” done to “tarnish” and “malign” the quality of the product. Dabur was also worried that the same material could be telecast in the future also and wanted PCN to take necessary action to stop it and to require the station to issue a clarification to viewers of the “error committed”. Another charge was that the said reportage was against journalism ethics.
The PCN, which has been more or less defunct following controversial sacking and appointment of ministers by the information minister, has yet to take up the case. It had not commented on the controversy on Aug 29. But its chair had used a public forum to chastise the breach of diplomatic norms by the embassy statement.
Also on Aug 29, Kantipur had a page-1 story on how four Nepali media associations had reacted against the Indian embassy statement. It said the embassy had violated diplomatic norms and threatened press freedoms and sought an apology. The Nepal Media Society, Association of Community Broadcasters, Association of Kathmandu Valley Broadcasters and the Broadcasting Association of Nepal had signed the statement. There were more condemnations of the embassy step, including by politicians and also the foreign affairs committee of parliament.
Drowned in the din was the ethical question that is too important to be ignored. If the media were threatening of negative publicity if they were not given ads – as accused – it is a question that PCN needs to immediately look into. (The starting point would be an impartial review of the program in question).
If the threats for ads are true, is it also reasonable for readers to assume that all the ‘positive’ publicity we see in the papers is also backed up by ads? The fluff we see showcased as news in the business pages sometimes does suggest that.
There’s also a flip side to the aforesaid argument. If the threats for ads mentioned above are true, is it also reasonable for readers to assume that all the ‘positive’ publicity we see in the papers is also backed up by ads? The fluff we see showcased as news in the business pages sometimes does suggest that some give-and-take may be involved between the media in question, and the advertiser.
Those who follow the media closely can actually spot instances where a piece on a product and a sizable ad paid for by the same company appear in the same day’s paper. (Those with doubts can check the broadsheets of Aug 18 for evidence where some papers had an Indica advert and a news story the same day.) The ‘smarter’ publishers make sure to avoid being as blatant. But anyone who takes the trouble to check out stories that appear and the ads in the successive issues is likely to find strong correlations between the adverts and the ‘positive’ stories. And if that works for the positive, how could it not be the case for the negative?
This leads one to suspect another – possibly – more harmful possibility. Does a similar correlation exist between ‘positive’ political stories that are published, and the ‘negative’ political stories (or even those negative stories that are not published), and is there a possible give-and-take involved?
On to the next question: Is an embassy the right adjudicator of grievances advertisers may have against the media? The answer is no. But in a country where embassies are even accused of trying to micro-manage voting in parliament – and where even private contractors are allowed to use diplomatic license plates in vehicles that ferry construction materials for building apartment complexes (supposedly because there is an aging bilateral agreement that allows that) – it has perhaps become the norm.
Not long ago, at a public discussion the editor/publisher of one of Nepal’s most widely read magazines Mulyankan was asked why his publication did not carry ads of certain joint ventures, given its near-religious readership among a large section of the population. The response was that the companies in question had asked the publishers to first make a “request” at the embassy – which the editor said, the magazine did not do.
Frankly, I have still not seen a logical connection about how the Indian embassy statement was against freedom of the press as suggested by statement of the Media Society and company. If it were about the freedom of choosing what to write about, well with that also comes the principles of accuracy, impartiality and fairness and ethical reporting. Now that there is a complaint at the PCN, it needs to look into these questions and come to a verdict.
(This fortnightly column will seek to limit to issues relating to media in Nepal. Readers are welcome to send in suggestions, complaints and compliments about the Nepali media for discussion.)
patrapatrika@gmail.com
Related story
Slippery slope
