Organised by Editors' Society, Nepal (ESN)

28 March 2004

Eminent journalists gathered in Kathmandu for a one day seminar on March 28 to discuss the state of press freedom and their role in the current crisis that the country is going through. Although efforts were made by organizers to shape the discussion into one that focused on the role of the media in preserving press freedom and democracy without compromising on their professionalism, comments that emanated from the floor showed that participants were more bent on posturing, a tellingly succinct portrayal of the media sector as a whole, rather than actually probing into the professional difficulties in the current political situation and seeking a solution. The resolution read out at the end of the seminar did nothing much to help in this regard at all. The discussion, divided into two sessions, was organized by the Editors’ Society and sponsored by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) of Germany.

During the inaugural session, Pushpa Pradhan, chief editor of People’s Review, introduced the theme of the seminar saying that insecurity among journalists, sandwiched by Maoist violence and security operations, had necessitated a discussion like this. His revelation that the seminar venue had to be shifted from Bhairawa to Kathmandu citing security reasons was ample proof of the seriousness of the concern.

FES media expert P. Kharel’s address dwelt on the need for Nepalese media to remain independent of the postures taken by different political groups or international agencies for them to remain free and fair. He pointed towards how the media in more developed and mature democratic countries behaved in similar situations and urged the mediapersons to follow those examples rather than experimenting with their own versions of press freedom.

Kedar Nath Acharya, the Press Council chairman, too, saw the need for journalists to follow the code of conduct vigorously to be free and fair while reporting.

Chief Guest of the function, Minister for Home, Information and Communications, Kamal Thapa had this to say: At the moment, the democratic process remains obstructed, the nation is in conflict and press freedom has been fenced in. This is therefore a time for aware citizens to think seriously and provide a way out of the crisis which has been with us for the past eight years. I know that we live with our own faiths and ideologies, but we need to rise above that if we are to resolve the crisis and I appeal to you all to do so.

Minister Thapa also called on the media to be more sensitive while entertaining statements that could prove detrimental to the everyday lives of the Nepalese.

Govinda Biyogi, Editors’ Society chairman and also chairperson of the inaugural, said that since the nation is in a dire straits, national and international machinations need to be defeated and dialogue pursued even by the press.

The inaugural was followed by the working session where papers by three prominent personalities in the media were presented before the floor discussions took place. The working session was chaired by Taranath Dahal.

The first paper by Srish Rana provides some guidelines to come out of the posturing syndrome faced by Nepalese journalists. He diagnoses the problem of posturing as having its roots in the historical close ties between the political establishment and mediapersons at the expense of shunning even constitutional and professional norms. His conclusion is that when politicians go astray, the media sector is bound to suffer, as is the case now. Rana points to the Maoist conflict and says that politicians have not even recognized it as a national crisis, except during the Emergency Period. To retain professionalism during such times, he therefore charts out a 12 point guideline to set the standards of journalism in Nepal.

Shobha Gautam’s presentation too lambasts posturing in reporting. She accepts that it may have been necessary to restore the multiparty order before 1990. She sees it as part of the ‘mission journalism’ followed by many a pressmen then and a theme taken up by the next presenter in detail. She sees that ‘mission’ to have gone off course with biases in reporting, absence of humanitarian sensitivities and the shunning of the real sociopolitical issues.

Hiranya Lal Shrestha’s paper says that the mission is not over for mission journalists now. In fact, the mission for democracy of the pre-1990 days has expanded itself to democracy and peace, as the title of his paper suggests. He feels that only a movement for peace can offset the lust for power prevalent these days. Uniquely, he also calls on the journalists to support third party mediation, specifically through the United Nations, to end the conflict in Nepal.

The floor discussions that followed the presentation ranged from practical difficulties faced by journalists during times of crisis to seeking the roots of the conflict. Some wondered whether national efforts were adequate to quell an insurgency that could also have international linkages. Others were worried about the treatment meted out to their particular turf, for example working journalists. While some talked about the importance of following the code of conduct for greater professionalism, others saw the need for changes in the code itself as it was not being followed. Several commentators did see the need for ideological motivations or ‘mission journalism’ to continue, but one saw the mission being divided along party lines and had therefore lost its relevance.

Replying to the commentators from the floor, Hiranya Lal Shrestha clarified on some professional issues like reporting violence and maintaining the mission he had been following so far.

Srish Rana said that the media should, at least, be capable of reviewing the role of the political parties, their traditional organization system and their contribution to the conflict. He agreed that journalists should be political, not political activists as that would lead to disinformation. And, on mission journalism, he said that rather than defining democracy it would be better to vouch for constitutionalism.

Shobha Gautam said that while defining the journalistic mission, it should not be tainted by party politics. She also urged journalists not to promote the discrimination being perpetrated in the society.

The seminar ended with the chairperson of the session Taranath Dahal showing his dissatisfaction over the discussions being divided along the lines of democracy, conflict and press freedom separately, instead of discussing the linkages among them. He added that criminalization of journalism was not ‘mission’ and that the mission should be empowerment of people. Faith in armed conflict for social change is the root cause of the conflict, he said.

Dahal also read out the seminar’s resolution prepared by the Editors’ Society, viz.

• Both the sides to the conflict need to give priority to peace.
• Both sides should declare a ceasefire and seriously prepare for talks.
• An all party government party must be formed.
• The United Nations can play an effective role in mediating and the press should help in creating such a public opinion.