2 Ashoj, Kathmandu.
Ashoj 3, which is tomorrow, Saturday, marks the completion of ten years since the promulgation of the Constitution of Nepal 2072 BS and the beginning of its eleventh year. Debates on the constitution have begun from various angles, and the process of debate continues.
The context of people’s rights mentioned in the constitution is one such angle of debate. A major topic of debate related to such public rights is press freedom. In the Constitution of Nepal, provisions related to the press have been made on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.
It is clear from the explicit mention of ‘complete press freedom’ in the Preamble of the Constitution of Nepal how much importance has been given to this issue in Nepal. In Sub-section (2) of Article 17, Section (a) of the Constitution of Nepal, there are provisions for freedom of thought and expression; in Article 19, the right to communication; in Article 27, the right to information; and in Article 28, the right to privacy.
In fact, 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 gain a clear direction due to the inability to formulate necessary laws. One of these is the provision related to the Press Council. The Council’s act is from 2048 BS. 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 comply with the spirit of the constitution. Even though the Council’s bill was prepared a long time ago, the process of enacting this law has not been completed due to the inability to gather public consensus and its failure to be a priority for past governments. Recently, the government appears to be attempting to accelerate the process of formulating a law related to the Press Council again. In this context, 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, the Journalists’ Code of Conduct has been in existence theoretically and legally since 2027 BS. In the same year, the 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 on the concept of a code of conduct have started 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 the implementation of the code of conduct helps to make the media credible and effective, it also encourages them to be responsible and accountable towards the country and society. Adherence to the code of conduct is as important for a media house as it is for media persons or journalists. It also measures how professional and responsible a media person or journalist is towards their profession.
According to the changed concept, in a democracy, instead of forcibly trying to control the media, it is more advisable to take the path of inspiration to guide them towards self-regulation. The issue of self-regulation in media is currently a global topic of discussion. In Nepal, the context of self-regulation, where debates have started a bit late, has prompted stakeholders to think 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 roles.
In this process, state intervention is expected to be absent or minimal. Under this concept, it is believed that the media and media personnel should define their own work, responsibilities, policies, etc., and adhere to them. If we look at it this way, it would not be unnatural to try to understand that this issue is related to media ethics.
Democracy itself is a system that always develops in the future compared to the present, accepting necessary values and remaining dynamic. Media is an important and essential cornerstone of democracy. While media connects the government and the general public, it is expected that in the presence of free and responsible media, the state will receive appropriate suggestions regarding the public’s views, needs, and governance.
Similarly, the general public is expected to gain information about state activities and needs through the media, thus becoming informed and strengthening themselves. This issue is related to the right to criticize the media or press. This issue is also linked 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 obstacle to the media’s exercise of this independent role, it will not be considered as adhering to democratic values. It is on the basis of such facilitative roles of the state that liberal democracy has been discussed in recent days.
Advertisement
This does not mean that the media has a license to do anything (abuse of power) under the guise of the right to criticize. Nor should it have such a license. In such a situation, the question may arise: who monitors and evaluates the role of the press? If the state itself carries out press regulation, 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 delve into the past, there are numerous such examples in Nepal itself.
In the current context of ongoing debates worldwide in favor of liberal democracy, the state’s role in press regulation cannot be considered appropriate. In a situation of the state’s interventionist role in press regulation, while on one hand, democracy as a whole weakens, on the other hand, there is a possibility that the fundamental rights of individuals 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 organizations and general journalists.
Against this background, the press is expected to define and implement its own responsibilities and editorial policy. In essence, communication-related organizations should define and publicize their editorial policy. Similarly, it is essential for media personnel and journalists themselves to define their own boundaries. If an attempt is made to analyze it closely, it can be found that this issue is related to ethics and a code of conduct. The meaning of self-regulation is not only connected with the concerned institution formulating its editorial policy but also with its public dissemination. It is also the responsibility of the concerned communication institution to make such a publicized policy accessible 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 followed its editorial policy or not, and in case of non-adherence, they should have the right to lodge 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, build a responsible and accountable press, and protect consumer interests. Most importantly, this concept is believed to help strengthen the role of the press by increasing the credibility of information.
If we analyze the state and mindset of the Nepali press and press personnel, it cannot be said that we are separate from this concept. The only difference is that we have joined its theoretical debate a bit late. As mentioned above, in essence, this concept is related to the formulation of editorial policy and code of conduct, their implementation, and the addressing of grievances in the presence of a complaint-hearing body.
A long time has passed since the formulation of a code of conduct for journalists in Nepal. Similarly, it has been a long time since the establishment of the Press Council for the purpose of addressing grievances. Some media outlets have formulated editorial policies, even if partially, through style guides. Despite this, the concept of self-regulation has not been fully realized in Nepal theoretically. Not only that, 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 systematic and dignified, communication institutions, with few exceptions, have not been found to formulate a code of conduct.
In Nepal, there is direct government involvement 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’s interventionist role remains in the formulation and implementation of the Journalists’ Code of Conduct in Nepal. In the presence of such a mechanism, it is difficult to adhere to the concept of self-regulation. Instead, an independent Press Council should be formed with the participation of media, journalists, consumers, advertising agencies, advertisers, civil society, and enlightened citizens, without state intervention.
In Western countries, including America and Europe, the concept of an ‘ombudsperson’ has been implemented in communication institutions. This is a mechanism of self-regulation. 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. With the Communication Policy 2073 BS having formally accepted the concept of self-regulation, it is now necessary to focus on its implementation through debate.
Author Jha is the Chief Editorial Advisor of Nepal News Bank.
For More: Press freedom Dharmendra Jha
