The conclusions of the International Advocacy Group for Press Freedom in Nepal, which completed its eight-day visit to Nepal (its first was in July 2005), are by and large correct in that the media situation has not at all improved over the past eight months. The mission, a body of 12 organisations, at a press conference on Saturday, said Nepali journalists, all the more so those working in the districts, are still facing threats, maltreatment, attacks, arrests, etc. The Maoists too have been pulled up. In a positive gesture, the delegation collected different shades of opinion on the state of media freedom, including those from government and opposition leaders.

There are conflicting interpretations of media freedom, just like definitions of democracy, varying from person to person, whether the interpreters belong to this or that camp. However, like democracy, any definition of media freedom is best understood in terms of its universal acceptability. Those in government, such as Cabinet vice-chairman Dr Tulsi Giri, however, argue that there is total media freedom in Nepal. He cites examples of strong criticisms of the government. To a limited extent, this may be true. But according to many, even this is due to the massive domestic and international pressure in favour of democracy and media freedom.

The government has adopted the policy of selective punishment. The lack of freedom from fear with the Damocle’s sword of reprisal hanging overhead is also forcing a heightened sense of self-censorship. The recently amended media laws (through ordinance) seek to cow journalists down into submission, by providing for tough actions such as the seizure of their IDs for behaviour unpalatable to the government. It is another matter that it has not been able to implement the amendment fully for reasons that need no elaboration. Of greater worry is the government’s talk of introducing extra measures soon to ‘discipline unruly journalists’. It has already been using its one-window advertising policy, a mix of carrots and sticks, in relation to the media. Though any newspaper proud of its independence must

not fashion its editorial policy on the basis of whether it gets the advertisements or not, yet it is not unfair to ask for a set of professional criteria such as a newspaper’s circulation as the basis for eligibility for official adverising revenue, which, after all, is the taxpayers’ money. There is no doubt that the media should act responsbily, but it is not for those in power — all the more so this unelected bunch — to sit in judgement and award rewards or punishment.