Internationally acknowledged media researcher, trainer and rights advocate, Laxman Datt Pant is the Chairperson of Media Action Nepal. His role is to advise and update Media Freedom Coalition on cases of attacks against media and journalists, and media freedom violations at the global level. In February 2022, Pant was elected one of the three co-chairs of Media Freedom Coalition-Consultative Network. He teaches Media Ethics at Tbilisi State University and Media and Globalization at The University of Georgia in Georgia. Pant is speaking in the high level panel "Multistakeholder session: The future of the media and safety of journalists organised by UNESCO on the occasion of commemoration of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists scheduled for 2 November 2023 at the headquarters of the Organisation of American States in Washington DC. Bal Krishna Sah of The Himalayan Times caught up with him and discussed the safety of journalists and the state of impunity. Excerpts:
How do you observe the state of media freedom and the issue of impunity in Nepal and globally?
There are two ways of addressing the issue of safety of journalists and the issue of impunity. When we specifically look at Nepal, we can see that attacks against journalists do not occur daily as Nepali state assets and the government actions in particular are not repressive towards journalists these days. That is when you do not criticise government actions. You do not watch the wrongdoings of governments, including the honest implementation of peace accords, mainly in relation to human rights violations in general and the media rights violation in particular. Journalists killed during the time of conflict have rarely received justice. The media fraternity in Nepal is politically inclined.
In my close observation in the Last 10 years, I have seen media people largely inclined towards political parties and business interests. That is somehow killing the watchdog and the so called fourth estate role of the media. The safety of journalists is principally constitutionally guaranteed in Nepal. It has committed and actually reflected its commitments in the constitution.
There are also specific laws guiding the media, and the media code of ethics. In recent days, we have had some laws that are pending in the Parliament. When you look into these laws, we see they reflect the fact that Nepal is a state party of several treaties. But Nepali governments, in last one decade, have failed to address the issue of impunity in relation to the safety of journalists. The government has failed to address the issue of impunity. Alsom journalists show inclination towards power centres.
Constitutional bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission, have entirely failed to watch the government's actions in relation to abuse of human rights in general. We had a great opportunity in Nepal because Nepal has implemented a very ambitious United Nations plan on the safety of journalists and the issue of impunity. NHRC had to reinforce and implement a mechanism to safeguard free expression and safety of journalists. But they did nothing except participate in national, regional, and international conferences.
The current government has failed to address the issue of impunity for crimes against journalists. Why?
Because they don't want to address the issue of impunity. Those engaged in killings and issuing threats and attacking journalists and independent and critical voices were activists of the then warring parties that are now part of the government. They now don't want to address the issue of impunity fearing trials against them. They were warring parties then, but are now part of the state system. Though their ideologies do not matc, but they are in a coalition government.
So who killed journalists then? They may have been police officers or Maoist combatants. But they are now part of the government. They don't want to talk about atrocities that occurred then. That's why the international community, despite the fact that Nepal has ratified several international treaties of human rights concerns, including ICCPR, they don't want to address the issues. This has tarnished Nepal's credibility among the international community. Nepali authorities are reluctant to address the issue of impunity. The direct implication of non-implementation of the government's commitment to address impunity issues has a direct impact on the lives of journalists. Their reporting is sort of not critical. I hardly see critical reporting these days in media outlets. In media reports, they talk about who said what, but they do not report the root causes of prolonged impunity in Nepal. So that has created a sort of self-censorship among journalists.
You are afraid of being critical and afraid to talk about the wrongdoings. To overcome these things and to show the real democratic nature of Nepal, authorities must show commitment to fundamental rights provisions, to its commitments to international human rights principles. So that Nepal's credibility increases and that will create an enabling environment for journalists to work.
How successful is Press Council Nepal in performing its responsibilities?
Press Council Nepal's main objective in its statute is to look after the implementation of the Journaliss Code of Conduct. But in the last few years, Press Council Nepal's works are not in line with its own mandate. So, they are looking into what you as an individual are expressing in social media.
They are supposed to look at the content for what is unethical. Based on the indicators, they can say if it is unethical. So many critical voices, journalists who are expressing on social media, have been targeted by Press Council Nepal.
There is immediate reform required in relation to the mandate of Press Council Nepal to able it to implement the journalists' code of conduct and to contribute towards ethical journalism. The failure of Press Council Nepal is a glaring issue in the realm of media regulation and ethics. One of the primary reasons for its failure is the lack of expertise and understanding about the working modality. PCN today is influenced by the government, which undermines its ability to impartially address grievances and maintain media integrity.
The constitutional bodies are not acting robustly to provide a safer sphere for journalists and media. Why?
Most of these bodies are appointed politically. They don't have commitment to the victims and survivors. Constitutional bodies have tremendous power. They are independent. But their appointments are made in terms of political quotas. And they serve their masters. Their master is the government, the Cabinet, prime minister, concerned authorities and ministries.
However, in public, because of fear of both social media and mainstream media, they agree that they do respect this. We want our government to be accountable, but in reality, despite their power, they are not instrumental in upholding a democratic norm. So, I would say, partly, not entirely, they have failed to reflect Nepal's spirit of international commitment to human rights principles.
So, I think an independent, transparent and accountable process of appointment is needed so that they are independent experts, whosoever comes there, they should come through some competition, expertise and education level. Then finally they will somehow be able to contribute towards the same.
Self-censorship and biased reporting are widely seen these days. What is your take on that?
Self-censorship is the result of authorities' attachment to the media, and fear of authorities. These prevent addressing the issue of impunity. Action is not taken against culprits. For example, in recent days, you have seen in Nepali media outlets that there is a sort of gender discrimination in the newsrooms. Some women journalists, they spoke out on social media that they have been harassed in the newsrooms, but action is not taken. So, what would happen the next day? Another female colleague of a female journalist starts censoring herself - 'I should not also talk about this. Otherwise, the same thing could happen to me.' Fear of power. Not always necessary that the fear comes from authorities. Biased engagement of journalists mainly deals with two things; political engagement, expecting f benefits from government entities and political parties and other business interests.
So, yes, both self-censorship and biased reporting have a direct impact on the quality of journalism. As for the watchdog role of the media, if you are censoring yourself enough as a reporter, as a journalist, you are unable to play the role of watchdog. And though we have democratic system you won't be able to serve public interest in the media.
Because, the media is just a medium. You are connecting people. So, if their voices are not heard, the issue of credibility looms large. So, I urge the Nepali media to be brave and courageous enough to question authority. The foremost thing is to disassociate yourself from power shakers. Then you will have the guts to criticise.
Criticism is not a bad thing. And in journalism, you don't need to please everyone. Let people be unhappy. But if you are contributing towards the greater cause of bringing public voice through media, then that is what the contribution of journalism would be.
On the bias reporting, after COVID-19, we are talking about sustainability of media outlets. Yes, it is required because advertisement is the only legal means of income for media outlets. So, media outlets should also think about some sustainable way.
A version of this article appears in the print on November 02, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.