The Voice of the Nation

The Kathmandu Post on Saturday

A combination of private and public media will nurture democracy and ensure pluralistic vibrancy
FEB 06 -
The Nepali state has been besieged by voices demanding transformation from all directions, but little has been said about the need to transform the archaic state-owned broadcasters and the press to make them more socially-responsible. Politicians have paid lip service to the idea from time to time, but they have never seriously considered it when they have had the power to implement change.

Interestingly, on Jan. 13, the UCPN (Maoists)’s publicity and publication department reportedly decided to establish ‘pro-public daily newspapers and television channels.’ The tendency among the Maoists to characterise anything they fancy as ‘pro-public’ is nothing new. The fact that they have a coherent and well-coordinated media strategy and they seem to regularly review its effectiveness is even less surprising. But if Maoists are such shrewd media operators (which we think they are), why do they fail to understand that editors and journalists do not sit down and conspire to write in favour of or against a group? Journalists simply respond to issues and developments as they come using tools of the trade they know best. However, the Maoists do have a legitimate claim when they allege the media of not being socially inclusive, or representative.

But the answer to their gripe does not lie in launching another Maoist mouthpiece, or another party-funded television channel. The answer lies in a publicly-funded national broadcaster and press. Converting Radio Nepal, Nepal Television, and Gorkhapatra Corporation into an independent institution with a claim to credibility will not only ensure public engagement in the political process, but will also provide an inclusive counter-media narrative to the current media discourse. If the Maoist leadership stops thinking like electioneering politicians for a moment, they have an opportunity here to take an initiative on something whose results will be beneficial to both the state as well as the public—by levelling the playing field.

The media plays and will play a crucial role in how the debate on state restructuring will proceed, which issues are conferred a degree of legitimacy, and which are sidelined and ignored. Only an independent national public service broadcaster may be able to be representative enough in a country with so much diversity. Despite good intentions, private or community-run radio broadcasters may not have the inclination or the wherewithal for a thoroughly-inclusive coverage.

As a country emerging from serious conflict, Nepal is lucky to have a vibrant private media that has played an important role in nurturing a degree of accountability. But private media has its own limitations. It is mainly urban-centric, and often gets constrained by its own political economy. A public service press and broadcaster can bridge that gap. There is no alternative to a professional market-oriented free press, but trends in Europe and the U.S. have shown that it is not without its weaknesses. The media conglomerates failed to critically report on financial institutions and their shenanigans, and to adequately inform the public of what was to come. Similar conduct in the run up to the Iraq war has brought media performance under scrutiny.

As the processes of globalisation intensify, media is also increasingly being driven by the same expansionist logic of capitalism. It is only a matter of time when this tide of expansion strikes our shore. Given the vagaries of global information economy and in the absence of a credible publicly-funded independent national broadcaster, private media alone may not be able to nurture democracy to the fullest.

Social responsibility

The idea of social responsibility in relation to the media was first introduced by the Hutchins Commission (1947) in the U.S. and has subsequently been used by Siebert and others. They have argued that a responsible press should ‘provide a full, truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning, serving as a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, and be a ‘common carrier of public expression, giving a representative picture of the constituent groups in society,’ while ‘presenting and clarifying the goals and values of the society.’

Only a combination of a successful public sector along with private media can set the stage for professional journalism with a socially-responsible component. An important sector such as the media cannot entirely be left to the whims and fancies of the market or the incompetence of the state. In the Netherlands, public broadcasting (PBS) is thriving alongside a competitive commercial broadcasting. It has led to the development of a professional free market-oriented press, with a socially-responsible public system, competing and complementing each other for the greater good.

The conversion of state-owned press and broadcasters into an autonomous public system to ensure more dissemination of public interest information in areas where private press or broadcasters have failed is long overdue. Even journalists and editors admit that Nepali private media is urban-centric and ‘parochial’. Many media critics see the proliferation of private media outlets without a commensurate demand from the public as lack of their social responsiveness, which is more the reason for the continuation of state broadcasting as an independent body governed by an independent board that produces content that reflects the demography and geography of the country.

Private media has often been criticised for its excessive coverage of politics with little content diversity. Especially, given the diversity of Nepal, only an independent PBS can cater to needs of both the privileged and the marginalised. For example, Netherlands has a proper public broadcasting system that has been fully able to compete with private commercial media and is still able to retain a big market share.� The result of the competition is often surprising, with private media producing content that normally would be a PBS forte, and vice versa.

The Dutch PBS is financed through a mixture of license fee, contributions from members, and a small amount from advertisement revenues, whereas the BBC runs on license fees. Perhaps a combination of the Dutch and the British system may work well for Nepal. The state broadcasters already have a strong market presence here, and the government will need to do very little to make it work. As C.K. Lal’s informative article published in the Nepali Times pointed out, the state broadcaster dominates the market in non-news programming. That edge can be turned around into a credible strength with editorial independence.

At the end of the day, only a healthy combination of a free market-oriented media and a public system will ensure both the vibrancy of the free market and create instruments of social responsibility and accountability. Clearly, the creation of a public broadcasting service should be central to any vision of an inclusive Nepal.