Not enough of a popular forum
2-day media dialogue finds fourth estate wanting insofar as its basic mandate goes
Bhutanese Media 21 December, 2010 – If providing a common forum for different groups to deliberate on issues, involving them in decision making processes, is one essential role media should play, more so in a democracy, Bhutanese news media is certainly not doing enough.
Media professionals, policy makers, legislators and civil society members, who mustered to decipher the identity and responsibilities of Bhutanese media and its role as the fourth estate, agreed media did not do enough to give people voice.
Participants agreed news media, mostly print, was urban-centric and did not cater to the needs of those in remote districts and illiterate sections.
Most reported news were also drawn from government sources, more of a top-down approach, than incorporating opinions from the grassroots.
This, many attributed to establishment of news organisations in the capital that stressed more on English language, despite having handful of illiterate population.
Others said the country being hierarchical in nature, people were “media shy” and preferred not to come forward. There were also those, who did not value importance of news and information.
Business Bhutan editor Tashi Dorji said, in a way, those who were literate, civil servants having major representation, refused to participate.
“Media gives space but regulations restrict people from participating,” he said, adding at times, newspapers found it difficult to fill small spaces allocated for people to write letters.
However, if people preferred not to use spaces provided, it could also mean media did not do much to win their confidence.
This also meant media needed to step up in terms of credibility building, like getting basics like factual accuracy. Publishing corrigendum and admitting mistakes media made was another aspect.
While setting up bureau offices, which was one of the strategies media could adopt to increase reach, involved costs, communications secretary Dasho Kinley Dorji said, besides using stringers, media should get more innovative and take advantage of technologies that come in cheap these days.
“Although cost is a major hurdle, media organisations should make some investments, rather than depending on the government,” he said.
Discussing on social responsibility of media, participants pointed out the importance for media to treat everyone more as humans than their consumers.
Some also highlighted the risks of failing to bring in common man’s voice, as media houses got ambitious and focused more on the elite section of society.
Bhutan Today’s editor Ugyen Tenzin asked whether stories media wrote had any impact on those at the decision making level. He referred to articles on alcohol issues every news media raised but failed to invite any response.
The solution, participants agreed, was to keep trying, considering Bhutan being more of an oral than reading society.
On media’s responsibility, some participants stressed it was the people media was mandated to serve, mainly by publishing what they needed to know.
Who decides what people needed to know?
Kunga T Dorji of Radio Valley said principally it was the editor, who should know their readers and consumers best.
He also said media should be responsible to the newsmakers, but editors had the prerogative to choose news angle or decide news coverage.
“Every organisation should have a written editorial policy which should be made public, so that they are held more accountable,” he said.
While deliberating extensively on what GNH media should be like, some said sticking to the basic principles of journalism, undeterred effort to tell the truth, and playing educational role were some of the aspects.
Former Journalist editor Gopilal Acharya said media could also be the social yardstick for GNH, to act as pointers on where the nation was heading, in guiding the society towards the GNH goals, among others.
During the discussions, participants also pondered on whether there was a need for more media organisations to come in, media’s opposition role, and the booming online forums that came with, more often, derogatory and personal remarks.
The two-day media dialogue, which ends today, is organised by Bhutan centre for media and democracy. Guiding the discourse are the two veteran Asian journalist-scholars, Kavi Chongkittavor and Cherian George.
By Kesang Dema in Kuensel