An onward march toward media professionalism in Nepal

(This is an excerpt of my short analysis of the struggle between free press and professionalism after the restoration of Democracy in 1990.)

Nepal has been a democracy in the making for more than half a century now. Theoretically, all the four Constitutions since 1948 supported the ideals of liberalism and pluralism. In the democratization process, journalists claim to have played an important role in the “upliftment of Nepalese society” (FNJ, 2008). The first step toward professionalism was the establishment of the Press Commission in 1959. The formation of a 12-member Press Council in 1972 was the next important decision that aimed to develop “healthy journalism” (Press Council Nepal, 2008). However, the history of the press goes back to as early as 1851 when prime minister Jung Bahadur Rana started the Giddhe press. Fifty years later, Gorkhapatra, a state-owned newspaper came to the scene. But the press could not enjoy full freedom, especially after 1960 when the party less Panchayat system of government controlled the press. The Council was forced to follow the policies formulated by the government of the time.

Unlike the development of media in the region, Nepal was silently left out due to its internal political instability and little geo-political significance in the region. Constitutional guarantee of the press came to a complete halt when the King dismissed the elected government and assumed executive powers in 2005. The hope for free press is revived once again after the April 2008 Constituent Assembly election which is charged with the making of a new constitution. Until then, the Interim Constitution of Nepal-2007 continues to guarantee “full freedom of the press” (The Interim Constitution, 2008). To help the press function professionally, the Code of Journalistic Ethics has been revised and amended in 2008 (Press Council Nepal, 2008).

Present Issues of the media

Though the idea of free press was upheld by the rulers, it did not thrive as a profession until after the restoration of democracy in 1990. The history of Nepali journalism has been dominated more by the diktat of the political parties who had been fighting the autocratic rule in the nation. Since the media supported the democratic ideals, it tended to naturally align with the politics. In the past two decades, the media have been operating more or less independently, both as a profession and as business.

The two biggest challenges for the Nepali media are raising the professional standards and catching up with the pace of the technology, both in content generation and distribution. The use of New Media technology in communication is still a distant dream. Less than 2 percent of the total population has access to the Internet (Towards a Digital Future, 2004). Therefore, the Nepali media are still traditional as compared to media in the western world.

On one hand there are media organizations that are engaged in traditional journalistic enterprise, on the other hand there is a need to participate in global issues (UNESCO, 2004). In true essence, the Nepali media didn’t carry out the watch-dog role until the restoration of democracy in 1990. The development of media has been supported mainly by foreign sponsored agencies. The ideology of the nation that supports any project has influenced the development of the media. For instance, a German sponsored project run by FES-NEPAL states its preference to enhance media coverage in “issues pertaining to conflict management and strengthening media role in democratization process” (FES-NEPAL, 2003). Another program implemented by USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives in 2006 focused on “transition to peace and democracy.” One of the objectives of the program was to “increase access to information and diversify public debate on issues critical to the political transition” (USAID/OTI, 2007). However, the program spent only 5 percent of the total $3.5 million budget.

Several international projects of similar nature are implemented in Nepal. But there are hardly any national or international strategies that focus on improving the overall quality of journalism. While there is a general agreement that journalists lack proper training and need specialized skills in reporting, partisan media have themselves been the biggest impediment in creating a value-based journalism. Since the development of journalism has been a fight for the freedom of press, the question of journalist integrity has received less attention.

For example, in June 6, 2001 a privately owned daily newspaper published an article by an underground Maoist rebel leader criticizing the king for masterminding the infamous royal massacre. The editor-in-chief and two executives were immediately arrested on sedition charges. The arrest led to worldwide condemnation and an appeal to release the journalists. Yubaraj Ghimire, the editor-in-chief, later said to the New York Times that his decision to publish the article was to present uncensored views of “person whose opinion is important to the nation” (Dugger, 2001, “Plot Thickens in Nepal”). The author of the article reacted to the incident after six months and wrote in the Monthly Review saying “Since a strict press censorship is imposed and the general public is subjected to one-sided royal military propaganda, the outside world is forced to buy the deliberately floated theory that the fight there is between ‘democracy’ and ‘terrorism’” (Bhattarai, 2002, “Birth Pangs of Democracy”).

Media Censorship

On February 1, 2005, King Gyanendra took absolute power by dismissing the government on charges of not holding the general election and the inability to restore peace. Immediately after he appeared on the television, telephone lines, cable and Internet connections were cut. The Army started patrolling the streets. Houses of prominent leaders were surrounded by the military. This was the second time he assumed political power after he became King in 2001 following the Narayanhiti Palace massacre that saw the death of 10 members of the royal family.

After the takeover, the fundamental rights of the citizens were curtailed. Military personnel were posted in media outlets and all news reports were monitored before they were published. There was a complete ban on FM stations that broadcast news. Equipments from stations were seized and journalists were beaten up. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in its 2006 report mentions that out of 1,066 cases of media censorship worldwide 567 alone were recorded in Nepal including two deaths. (Reporters Without Borders, 2006). Nepal was also placed in the list of “Enemies of the Internet” (p. 6). Even though the emergency was lifted on April 30, the independent media lived in great fear as a result they started imposing self-censorship. Even the state-run media faced some amount of censorship.

It was only when the press was facing such extreme censorship, Nepal got into the blogosphere. Views that could not be expressed in the mainstream media were now seen in blog sites like blog.com.np and mysansar.com. The educated Nepalese people craved not just for news but also waited for the censorship to be over so that they could see the media function the role of watch-dog, a role that was just beginning to be realized as an effective means in nation building process.

Brief history of Journalism in Nepal

The year 1950 marks the beginning of democracy in Nepal. With the end of Rana oligarchy and the return of King Tribhuvan B.B. Shah to Nepal from exile in India, democratic institutions were formed on the models of the Western countries, especially the UK. The freedom of the press has always been guaranteed with the promulgation of the constitutions in 1962, 1990 and 2006, but time and again the state has imposed restriction of some kind. There is hardly any historical record between the period of 1851 and 1960 with regards to the state of the media. When the state-run Radio Nepal was established in 1951, it had the characteristics of an Authoritarian model. But over the past decades the impressive development of community-radio stations has set a model even for commercial stations that broadcast in community-radio style. This transition from a strict control to following a Social Responsibility Model has not been that successful in the print media. The state-run Gorkhapatra that started as a weekly in 1901 was converted to a daily in 1960. However, even until today, the newspaper could not break away from the grip of the government, primarily because of the state control in appointing the management board.

The situation is similar in the state-run Nepal Television that was established in 1985. The total number of newspapers has increased by more than 60 percent since 2000. As of April 2007, a total of 4,600 newspapers have been registered, out of which 341 are daily newspapers and 1667 are weeklies. (Nepal Press Institute, 2008).

With the opening up of airwaves in 1995, commercial, cooperative and community-owned radio and television stations showed their independent presence. This breakaway from state-control and control from the political parties is the first step toward professionalism.

The community-owned FM radio stations are now networked to benefit from programs produced by other stations. In 2001 a project called Networking FM Radio Stations in Nepal (NFMRSN) was supported by Center for Advanced Media Prague and Panos Institute South Asia. The objective of this project was to “enable all radio stations in Nepal (FM/AM/SW) to benefit from shared program content by establishing a network that connects them through a mixture of internet, wireless and other new media technology” (PANOS South Asia, 2007). Nearly 50 FM stations currently run programs through such networks.

The most impressive feature of the growth is the spatial distribution of the stations across the nation ranging from lowlands to midland to remote areas. The initiative of the private sector is a breakaway from the state-centric model that was characteristic of the Southeast Asian political culture. Atkins (2002) mention that the idea of nation-building was tied to the media policy, and “television worked both to educate and promote national identification in the interests of national development and cohesion” (p. 14). Since the politics in the region has to accommodate a diverse culture, mass media was used to propagate messages that favored the ruling parties. Domestic media organizations were required to support state authorities by airing positive news about the government and ignoring the negative news of the opposition.

The idea that free media will disturb the social cohesion of a diverse society was a strong argument that leaders in Southeast Asia pursued for nearly half a century. However, the wave of liberalization in the 1990s, finally, paved a way toward free media enterprise that also influenced the scenario in Nepal significantly which brought professional interest in the practice of journalism.

(Write to me to read the complete paper. Thanks!)

Coverage of the Tibet crisis by CNN.com

Allison Rupp writes the magnificent journey to Lhasa in his article The Sky Train on CNN.com only three days before the exiled Tibetans in India began their march to China to protest Beijing’s hosting of the Olympic Games. The March 10th protest coincided with the uprising against China that forced the Dalai Lama into exile in 1959. Protests in India and Nepal were marked with violence. News of unprecedented world-wide protests were reported all over the world. The Chinese government ignored the issue for couple days, but as the protests grew more violent, China reacted by saying that the whole episode was orchestrated by the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has condemned China's statements and extreme actions.

Ever since the protests began, CNN.com has written more than 70 articles to date, and has posted nearly 140 videos on the Web site. This is a remarkable media coverage given the time span of just three weeks.

Let me briefly discuss how CNN.com reports present the Tibetan side of the story more positively or neutrally and the Chinese side of the story more neutrally and negatively. These reports cover violence in different parts of the world, mostly in India and Nepal. The write-up is based on my experience of reading and watching stories posted on the Web site over the period. I haven't employed any empirical methods to come to a conclusion, hence I must warn you the evaluation might seem subjective!

As violence continues across Lhasa and Nepal, the international community has appealed for peace. The European Union has appealed China to handle the Tibet crisis peacefully calling for respecting Tibet's cultural heritage and maintaining China’s integrity at the same time. The Dalai Lama has called this crisis a ‘cultural genocide’ and the Chinese government blames him for perpetuating violence deliberately.

In the CNN.com reports, what is most glaringly seen is the viewpoint of the Tibetans mostly and not that of the Chinese. The Tibetans have a human interest frame, whereas the Chinese have only the official version which is mostly the denunciation of the Dalai Lama. But as we go to alternative media like YouTube, there are several videos counteracting what the western media have been portraying about the protests. These response-videos and blogs have mostly targeted the western media for overweighing the Tibetan’s cause. In doing so, they have used this medium to put forth their own biased message. One of the YouTube videos shows why an independent Tibet is not acceptable to the Chinese.

The video attempts to expose the myth of the ‘crackdown’ in mainland China. It shows images that were actually taken in Nepal and printed by the western media, including the BBC, Bild Zeitung, CNN, Aljazeera, and others. Very clearly, this video itself presents a slant, but the international media haven’t been fair either in reporting the exact nature of violence that erupted in the streets of Lhasa or in Nepal, India or other parts of the world. This is an excellent example of how the gatekeepers control the message in the newsroom. The Tibet crisis also brings the question of whether international media have differing parameters in tackling issues of the Communist regimes like Russia, China, and some Latin American countries. The historical aspect of the country in the present crisis is completely ignored.

The history of how Tibet was a part of China during the Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties until the making of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 is what is often referred. China ‘regained’ Tibet in 1950 when it was under the influence of the British Colonial Empire. Historians contest whether Tibet is a suzerain of China or an autonomous region. But the Chinese consider it as part of the territory, much like Taiwan and Hong Kong. While the relationship with Taiwan isn’t what the Chinese want to discuss, Tibet’s case has brought infamy to the Chinese. A majority of the Chinese believe the Dalai Lama is funded by the CIA ever since his exile in 1959. In the news covered by the CNN.com, there is no indication of any covert funding, but the US has sponsored a radio station and a Web site. The Chinese see this as signs of anti-China policy, and actually an instance of supporting the Tibetans cause in breaking away from China.

The media have, however, not reported the history behind the present crisis. News reports have merely focused on the event itself, and long form report that occasionally report the historical facts use most of their space talking about how the upcoming Olympics will be hurt.
Once I had an opportunity to talk to a Chinese student regarding this crisis. He candidly remarked that it’s the so-called ‘fair, western media’ that actually propagates ‘Free Tibet’ slogan more vociferously than the Tibetans themselves.

The Chinese model of authoritarian press doesn’t permit independent reporting. In China, you ought to support the state, and it’s the state’s interests that matters most. The press is the product of the regime.

When the only journalist from the western media -The Economist - was invited to visit Tibet, Chinese official had hoped a more positive coverage based on the subsidy granted. However, the nature of violence was too brutal to be ignored. The magazine reports that Lhasa television “broadcast over and over again, alternately in Tibetan and Chinese, a government statement accusing the “Dalai Lama clique” of being behind the violence by a ‘small number’ of rioters.”

Where can you find a truly objective media?