Media cultivated against a section of people

By I. P. Adhikari

How do you imagine state of media professionalism when untrainedpeople are the member of a publication house? And especially if suchpeople are state sponsored, will there be existence any form ofindependent media?Bhutanese king few months back had said that he wanted to see privatepublication houses in Bhutan. Not less than a week of his wishes anonline news portal began its service in Bhutan -- www.bhutantimes.com.Of course, this is the first media body and a second media housegerminated from within the country.Early this year, the Bhutanese authority stated that it had permittedtwo media houses to operate from coming April. The first one is theBhutan Times and the other is Bhutan Observer -- both of them to comeweekly. Ironically, Bhutan Times was a weekly newspaper published byBhutanese in exile. Edited by Sagar Rai, the paper was being publishedfrom Damak. But when Rai left Damak for his higher studies, the paperwas closed.The other newspaper Bhutan Observer has been published by People'sForum for Human Rights and Development and edited by S K Pradhan, thechairman of the organization. The publication is being halted afterthe arrest of Pradhan in allegation of murder of R K Budathoki,president of Bhutan People's Party in 2001.The new publishers in Bhutan adopted the same name for their newnewspapers. This has the historicity to tell. The only and the fistnewspaper of Bhutan, Kuensel's publication was also started by twosouthern Bhutanese in 1960. In 1979 the newspaper was nationalized andturned to be a government mouthpiece.Let me close the story of media history in Bhutan and focus on the motives of the new publications in the country.

The Bhutan Observers
the ministry of information.

The Bhutan Times in its news portal hasmentioned its objectives to fight with the Nepalese media who havebeen supporting the cause of 100,000 exiled Bhutanese.The sole objective stated by the publication is to let the world knowthat the people in UNHCR-run camps in Nepal are not Bhutanese. One ofits members mailed me recently and told that they were set to \'killthe so-called refugees out of hunger\'. The new media body furthermentions that the world community has not heard the appeal of Bhutangovernment because of the lack of media campaign.For what I should be happy with this advertisement is that at leastthe Bhutanese monarchs and his allies have now realised the importanceof media. For years the Bhutanese people have been barred from readingnewspapers, listening radios or looking televisions. This is thepositive symptom to lead the Bhutan into open world. Further, if thegovernment was really happy with the existence of media, let it allowthe international media persons work freely and let the internationalnewspapers and televisions not censored.The only objective set by The Bhutan Times to fight with the Nepalesemedia against their support to the exiled Bhutanese clarifies that thehouse was being run by the ruling elites and their supporters. Themedia house has said that its prime focus would not be to buildmainstream journalism in Bhutan but to act as an agent of governmentto defend the international support for Bhutanese refugee cause.Objectively, it is clear that the forthcoming media would neither be aprofessional newspaper nor be an informer to the general Bhutaneseabout the incidences happening.The question is that what meaning does it carry when being called aprivate media body carries the chanting of government atrocities and",has not yet publicized its objectives -- let it only had submitted tothe ministry of information. The Bhutan Times in its news portal hasmentioned its objectives to fight with the Nepalese media who havebeen supporting the cause of 100,000 exiled Bhutanese.The sole objective stated by the publication is to let the world knowthat the people in UNHCR-run camps in Nepal are not Bhutanese. One ofits members mailed me recently and told that they were set to 'killthe so-called refugees out of hunger'. The new media body furthermentions that the world community has not heard the appeal of Bhutangovernment because of the lack of media campaign.For what I should be happy with this advertisement is that at leastthe Bhutanese monarchs and his allies have now realised the importanceof media. For years the Bhutanese people have been barred from readingnewspapers, listening radios or looking televisions. This is thepositive symptom to lead the Bhutan into open world. Further, if thegovernment was really happy with the existence of media, let it allowthe international media persons work freely and let the internationalnewspapers and televisions not censored.The only objective set by The Bhutan Times to fight with the Nepalesemedia against their support to the exiled Bhutanese clarifies that thehouse was being run by the ruling elites and their supporters. Themedia house has said that its prime focus would not be to buildmainstream journalism in Bhutan but to act as an agent of governmentto defend the international support for Bhutanese refugee cause.Objectively, it is clear that the forthcoming media would neither be aprofessional newspaper nor be an informer to the general Bhutaneseabout the incidences happening.The question is that what meaning does it carry when being called aprivate media body carries the chanting of government atrocities and
difference to be a private media than to be a sister publication ofthe state-owned mouthpiece Kuensel.The publishers have stated that the people in the refugee camps arenot the real Bhutanese but are a group of antagonists who are tryingto defame the image of Bhutanese identity. Very poorly informed andtrained people might have begun the publication, it seems. Let them beinformed that their government have categorized the refugees inKhudunabari camp and agreed that over 75 percent of the peopleregistered there are Bhutanese, may be they are called criminal orvoluntarily migrated people. If they really believe that journalismhas to carve the reality of an incident, let them sent one of theirreporters to talk with people in the camps and access the facts.An independent and professional media takes side of neither partiesinvolve in a struggle. Media in their neighbor India had never leftthe spaces to boycott the rebellion groups\' news. And even incommunists China, the newspapers bravely and openly wrote about themass massacre of 1989. The CNN and BBC, who are very much concernedwith the nationality and identity issues also vividly carried the newsof Bin Laden and other terrorist groups. See the example in Nepalesemedia, with whom they are set to compete. They have immensely carriedout the news of the groups to which the government has put the tag ofterrorists.It is not a subject of debate that nationality issue is above otherthings. But ethics of media does not allow a publication house to settarget to fight against certain ethnic group. The government, if keenon development of professional media industry, should not allow suchgroup to continue its works.But the case of Bhutan Times is different. It is not meant fordevelopment of private media body but is similar in tone with the",1]

works against a section of people fighting for democracy. This has nodifference to be a private media than to be a sister publication ofthe state-owned mouthpiece Kuensel.The publishers have stated that the people in the refugee camps arenot the real Bhutanese but are a group of antagonists who are tryingto defame the image of Bhutanese identity. Very poorly informed andtrained people might have begun the publication, it seems. Let them beinformed that their government have categorized the refugees inKhudunabari camp and agreed that over 75 percent of the peopleregistered there are Bhutanese, may be they are called criminal orvoluntarily migrated people. If they really believe that journalismhas to carve the reality of an incident, let them sent one of theirreporters to talk with people in the camps and access the facts.An independent and professional media takes side of neither partiesinvolve in a struggle. Media in their neighbor India had never leftthe spaces to boycott the rebellion groups' news. And even incommunists China, the newspapers bravely and openly wrote about themass massacre of 1989. The CNN and BBC, who are very much concernedwith the nationality and identity issues also vividly carried the newsof Bin Laden and other terrorist groups. See the example in Nepalesemedia, with whom they are set to compete. They have immensely carriedout the news of the groups to which the government has put the tag ofterrorists.It is not a subject of debate that nationality issue is above otherthings. But ethics of media does not allow a publication house to settarget to fight against certain ethnic group. The government, if keenon development of professional media industry, should not allow suchgroup to continue its works.But the case of Bhutan Times is different. It is not meant fordevelopment of private media body but is similar in tone with the
image as the government mouthpiece. The world community really doesnot believe on what it writes. So the ruler chose a second method toput sand on eyes seeking to introduce some flexible policies in media.Nowhere in world has the media being initiated by the king, the onlyexample is in Bhutan.Bhutanese king says that he has submitted all executive powers to theministers but all works have been done only after his direction.Decisions of cabinet have never been implemented before therectification by the king.I don\'t have many things to tell the king at this time but amconcerned with the new publication house being another governmentmouthpiece in the name of defending nationality. A professional mediabody never hampers nationality

democracy being defined by the ruler. Kuensel has so far developed itsimage as the government mouthpiece. The world community really doesnot believe on what it writes. So the ruler chose a second method toput sand on eyes seeking to introduce some flexible policies in media.Nowhere in world has the media being initiated by the king, the onlyexample is in Bhutan.Bhutanese king says that he has submitted all executive powers to theministers but all works have been done only after his direction.Decisions of cabinet have never been implemented before therectification by the king.I don't have many things to tell the king at this time but amconcerned with the new publication house being another governmentmouthpiece in the name of defending nationality. A professional mediabody never hampers nationality.(Adhikari is president of Association of Press Freedom Activists. Hecan be met at apfa2004@yahoo.co.uk)
Copyright peacejournalism.com

FOR THE CORRECT SEQUENCE
http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=8080