Press Rights and Responsibilities Ranjit Rauniyar

The arrest and detention of the editor and the two directors of one of the publications few weeks ago has and continues to inspire mighty condemnations. The noise created both here and abroad does not at first, appear to leave much scope for contradictions. However, while the initial charges of ‘treason’ were excess, the arrests were necessary if only to motivate us into a thoughtful debate on the rights and responsibilities of the press. The pretext of "freedom of press" and the defense in which the editor reportedly had said: "Practice of journalism worldwide is basically to inform the reader, and that is what we did," sounds cute but is distinctly misplaced.

The rights enshrined and affirmed in a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of press has not been sufficiently understood. The backdrop of the last few weeks bring into relief the necessities not only of a free press but more vitally, a responsible press especially for a young, emerging democracy such as ours.

The media plays a tremendous role in shaping opinions and, in any nation, which enjoys a free press, is perhaps the most potent tool for political, social and economic persuasions. On the flip side however, any power without responsibility as the eminent English journalist Baldwin warns us, has been "the prerogative of the ‘harlot’ throughout the ages."

Opinion pieces don’t enjoy the license to overlook factual and corroborative necessities. It is ironical that the June 12th. editorial of The Kathmandu Post entitled "Dubious Motive" making an argument for press freedom notes somewhere along "…Nepalese had to rely heavily on foreign media, that often carried half-baked and unsubstantiated reports." [Emphasis added]. Mr. Bhattarai has offered no supporting evidences for his half-baked and unsubstantiated claims and it seems Kantipur had decided that any such supporting evidences were not important enough. Mr. Bhattarai’s commentary is at best based on tabloid type gossips, conjectures, insinuations and questionable motives and Kantipur has willingly pandered itself to his prejudices and to his penchant for creating instability.

It is well known that the best journalists are also the worst cynics. The hallmark of good journalism is to ask the toughest questions and to dig for the truth no matter how deep and unforthcoming they are. Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist David Broder had once remembered the principle by which he was indoctrinated: "If you think your mother loves you, check it out." Our emphasis on sensationalism could damagingly compromise the ability for accurate and balanced reporting. As is taught in journalism schools around the world: "Opinionated sophistry cannot take over the straightforward exposition of facts."

The press exists to inform the public - not contaminate it with innuendoes. By publishing a volatile opinion piece, Kantipur could have potentially incited a storm when, in these times of national crisis, all we are seeking for is for some sense and tranquility. In any press, there is something deeply essential about fairness and fact-checking –and of course, as journalist Marvin Kalb puts it – avoiding "the practice of printing or airing unchecked rumors simply because they are out there."

It is crucial to contextualize media rights and responsibilities with the realities of the nation. The wholesale import of American type idealism of free press does not necessarily serve the best purpose for a country that is ill prepared for them. Henry Grunwald rightly argues in his column in Time: "Chaotic western concepts of freedom cannot be applied to societies based on order and stability. This ideal requires a knowledgeable and participatory citizenry."

The Hrithik Roshan episode revealed that it is not too long before rumors in Nepal become realities or at least create perceptions of it. The implications of Mr. Bhattarai’s opinion piece can be best understood by the story of the fabled Chicken Little’s proclamation that the sky was falling. But as previous instances in Nepal has demonstrated, it is not too long before the Foxy Woxys and the Goosey Poosey’s of Nepal, start echoing the same proclamation so that by the end of it we are all pointing out to the falling sky. For those who want to inflame their biases, and hold on to anything coming their way, nothing is stoppable. Every wonder why they say that "a nod is as good as a wink and the rest is interpretation."

It is instructive to note that, for a country where the notion of a ‘free press’ has been in existence only for a decade, we need to ask if we have a diverse enough press that is adequately mature and proficient in the task of newsgathering and news dissemination. Except for a handful of indigenous publications and one national TV channel, there aren’t sufficient media alternatives that mitigate or neutralize the effects of possible biases and inaccuracies in reporting. Kantipur Publications is a dominant part of the media community in Nepal and its ability to influence, incite or subdue cannot and should not be taken frivolously because as someone pointed out "the enjoyment of all rights in a free community depends on the good faith of those who claim them."

Nepal is not unique to this. Worldwide, the call has always been to balance ‘freedom’ of press with ‘responsibility’ of the press. For example, in the European Union, Article 10 recognizes the freedom of the press, but the right is subject to "necessary conditions" or restrictions to protect "national security," "the right and reputation of others," and "to prevent crime, disorder…."

In Canada, there are two laws that put demands on the freedom of the press: the law against publishing propaganda and the law against knowingly spreading false news that is likely to cause injury to public interest.

Finally even in a country like the US, the citadel of the free press world, the emphasis has always been to balance rights with responsibilities. For example, in the US there is a prohibition of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater because it may cause panic. Mr. Bhattarai’s piece is no less menacing than that "fire". Moreover, the US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his opinion, had said: "But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." And so is the opinion piece by Mr. Bhattarai, which during such fragile and sensitive times - makes staggering and fierce claims clearly of a "nature" that creates "clear and present danger."

We must begin to ask questions that relate to the role of the media in our society. If the media expects the highest standards of scrutiny and integrity from every aspect of a society, then it is only fair that the media also submit itself to a self- analysis and a self-restraint process.

We come to expect certain things from the media - most of which is that the media will not publish anything that is untrue. In this sense, the press must deserve our trust and not take it for granted.

We cannot idolize Mr. Bhattarai’s opinion piece as a matter of free speech or primary to an unfettered public debate because all we are doing here is sponsoring sensationalism under the liberal defense of a "free press." Journalists should understand their critical role in society and hold themselves accountable to its highest standards.

Journalists have always been very vital to every society – who stand on the front lines and serve as proxies and custodians of our freedom of speech. As the media in Nepal continues to evolve, and continues to define its character in a young democracy, the burden on it is not only to expand its scope and bring depth and diversity, but also to continue to deserve our trust and respect. ( Received through email-chief editor).

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Letter | Past