October 2, Kathmandu.
October 3, which is tomorrow, Saturday, marks the day when Nepal’s Constitution 2072 completes ten years since its promulgation and enters its eleventh year. Debates on the constitution have begun from various angles, and the debates are ongoing.
The context of people’s rights mentioned in the constitution is one such angle of debate. Similarly, press freedom is a major topic in debates related to people’s rights. Provisions related to the press have been made in the Constitution of Nepal based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.
The clear mention of ‘full press freedom’ in the preamble of the Constitution of Nepal makes it evident how much importance is given to this issue in Nepal. Nepal’s Constitution, Article 17, Sub-section (2), Clause (a) contains provisions for freedom of thought and expression; Article 19 for the right to communication; Article 27 for the right to information; and Article 28 for the right to privacy.
In reality, these provisions of the constitution have attempted to address press freedom. Even though the constitution has made clear provisions, it cannot be denied that the press has not been able to get a clear direction due to the inability to formulate necessary laws. Among these is the provision related to the Press Council. The Council’s Act is still from 2048 BS (1991 AD). The issue of amending or rewriting it has been raised for a long time.
Compared to this law, the constitution is new. On this basis, it can be assumed that this law has not been able to fully adhere to the spirit of the constitution. Even though the Council’s bill has been ready for a long time, the process of enacting this law has not been completed due to the inability to garner widespread consensus and its failure to be a priority for past governments. Recently, the government appears to be trying to accelerate the process of formulating a new law related to the Press Council. In this regard, some discussion processes have been initiated, which should be considered positive. In this article, an attempt has been made to draw the attention of stakeholders to some issues related to that topic.
In Nepal, a code of conduct for journalists has existed theoretically and legally since 2027 BS (1970 AD). In the same year, Press Council Nepal was formally established, and since then, the Council has been responsible for regulating the code of conduct for Nepali journalists. However, recently, debates about the concept of a code of conduct have begun at different levels worldwide, and Nepal cannot remain untouched by such debates.
The implementation of a code of conduct is very important for media and media personnel. While on one hand, the implementation of the code of conduct helps make the media credible and effective, on the other hand, it also encourages them to be responsible and accountable to the country and society. Adhering to the code of conduct is as important for a media house as it is for media personnel or journalists. It also measures how professional and responsible a media person or journalist is towards their profession.
According to the changed concept, instead of attempting to forcibly control the media in a democracy, it is better to take the path of inspiration to guide it towards self-regulation. The issue of self-regulation in media is currently a global discussion. The context of self-regulation, which began a little late in Nepal, has encouraged stakeholders to think about it in recent days.
Self-regulation should not be understood as ‘censorship’ or ‘self-censorship’. However, it is necessary to develop a broader understanding in this regard. In Nepal, self-regulation is sometimes understood as self-control, which is incorrect. The general meaning of self-regulation in media is for the media and media personnel to responsibly and accountably direct their own work and role.
In this process, state intervention is expected to be absent or minimal. Under this concept, it is believed that the media and media personnel themselves should define their work, responsibilities, policies, etc., and adhere to them. From this perspective, it is not unnatural to try to understand that this issue is related to the media’s code of conduct.
Democracy itself is a system that constantly evolves in the future compared to the present, accepting necessary values and remaining dynamic. Media is a crucial and indispensable cornerstone of democracy. The media not only connects the government and the general public, but it is also expected that in the presence of free and responsible media, the state will receive appropriate suggestions regarding the public’s views, their needs, and the conduct of governance.
Similarly, the general public is expected to gain information about state activities and needs through the media, thus becoming informed and empowered. This issue is related to the right to criticize the media or the press. It is also connected to making the state responsible, accountable, and transparent. An environment must be created where the press can perform this role unhindered. State cooperation in this task is indispensable. If the state creates any kind of obstruction in the media’s performance of this independent role, it will not be considered to have followed democratic values. It is on the basis of such facilitating role of the state that liberal democracy has started to be discussed in recent days.
Advertisement
This does not mean that the media has the freedom to do anything (misuse of rights) under the guise of the right to criticize. Such freedom should not exist. In such a situation, a question may arise: who will monitor and evaluate the role of the press? If the state itself regulates the press, there is a possibility that the people’s freedom of thought and expression and the right to be informed may be violated. Many such examples can be found worldwide. If we try to look back at the past, there are numerous such examples even in Nepal.
In the current context of ongoing debates worldwide in favor of liberal democracy, the role of the state in press regulation cannot be considered appropriate. In a situation where the state plays an interventionist role in press regulation, on one hand, the entire democracy becomes weaker, while on the other hand, there is a possibility that individuals’ fundamental rights may also be curtailed. It is in this context that the concept of self-regulation in media has come into existence. When talking about press self-regulation, it is related to communication-related institutions and general journalists.
Against this backdrop, the press is expected to define and implement its own responsibilities and editorial policy. In essence, communication-related institutions should establish and publicize their editorial policies. Similarly, communication professionals and journalists themselves also need to define their own limits. If an attempt is made to analyze it minutely, this issue can be found to be related to ethics and the code of conduct. The meaning of self-regulation is not just connected to the concerned institution creating its editorial policy, but also to its publicization. It is also the responsibility of the concerned media institution to convey such publicized policy to its consumers.
On this basis, it is also a principle of self-regulation that consumers should be able to evaluate whether the concerned media has adhered to its editorial policy or not, and in case of non-adherence, they should have the right to file complaints and grievances, which should be properly addressed. For this, this concept also expects the presence of an independent body to hear complaints and take action. On this basis, it can be said that the objective of self-regulation is to protect press freedom, create a responsible and accountable press, and protect consumer interests. Most importantly, this concept is believed to enhance the credibility of information and help strengthen the role of the press.
If we analyze the situation and mindset of the Nepali press and press personnel, we cannot say that we are separate from this concept. The only difference is that we joined its theoretical debate a bit late. As mentioned above, in essence, this concept is related to the creation of editorial policy and code of conduct, their implementation, and the addressing of grievances in the presence of a complaint-hearing body.
In Nepal too, a long time has passed since a code of conduct was formulated for journalists. Similarly, it has been a long time since the Press Council was established for the purpose of addressing grievances. Some media outlets have partially formulated editorial policies through style guides. Despite all this, the concept of self-regulation has not been fully realized theoretically in Nepal. Not only this, but meaningful debate on this has not yet begun in Nepal.
If we consider style guides as an exception, Nepali communication-related institutions have not clearly formulated their editorial policies, let alone publicized them. A style guide cannot be considered a complete document of editorial policy. Similarly, in the context of making Nepali journalism organized and dignified, no communication institutions, with exceptions, have been found to have formulated a code of conduct.
In Nepal, there is direct government presence in the formation and operation of the Press Council. On this basis, if the Press Council is understood as an organ of the state, it cannot be considered otherwise. In such a situation, it can be assumed that the state has an interventionist role in the formulation and implementation of the journalistic code of conduct in Nepal. In the presence of such a mechanism, adherence to the concept of self-regulation becomes difficult. Instead, an independent Press Council should be formed with the participation of media, journalists, consumers, advertising agencies, advertisers, civil society, and intellectuals, without state intervention.
In Western countries including America and Europe, the concept of ‘Ombudsperson’ has been implemented in communication institutions. This is a mechanism of self-regulation itself. An Ombudsperson accepts complaints from consumers, investigates them, informs the editorial team, and attempts to address them.
In Nepal, the concept and implementation of an Ombudsperson have been found to be used in some sectors other than media. Its positive results have been evaluated. Given that Communication Policy 2073 has formally accepted the concept of self-regulation, it is now necessary to focus on the implementation of debates regarding it.
The author Jha is the Chief Editorial Advisor of Nepal News Bank.
For More: Press freedom Dharmendra Jha
