By P.R. Pradhan
The government has decided not to provide its advertisements to private sector media, opting instead to place them only in government mouthpieces.
There has long been a debate that, in a democracy, the government should not run media outlets. Questions were raised about privatizing the government-owned media house, Gorkhapatra Sansthan—which publishes the Gorkhapatra and The Rising Nepal dailies—after the advent of multiparty democracy in 1990.
In Nepal, tabloid newspapers have played a remarkable role in promoting and strengthening democracy and patriotism. These publications have often acted as a voice of opposition when governments deviated from their course. Even today, tabloid newspapers remain influential in exposing scandals impartially. Recently, the Jana Aastha weekly published a report submitted to the government by a commission led by former Special Court former chair, Gauri Bahadur Karki, on the September 8–9 Gen Z movement. The government had previously refused to make this report public.
The 1990 Constitution guaranteed press freedom, including provisions that prevented the government from banning or suspending newspapers. However, this also opened the door for business interests to enter the media sector, at times undermining journalistic integrity and exploiting media freedom. Big media houses increasingly focused on profit-making and building bargaining networks. Some have been accused of manipulating taxes and exploiting working journalists. Others are alleged to have received funding from foreign interest groups, advocating external agendas while suppressing the voices of the Nepali people. It is the government’s responsibility to investigate media owners involved in financial or tax irregularities, as such activities may also fall under money laundering.
The media environment began to deteriorate with the rapid expansion of large media houses after the 1990 political change. As the number of outlets grew without a corresponding increase in readership and viewership, unhealthy practices emerged within the sector. Today, the number of media outlets—newspapers, television networks, FM radios, and online portals—is disproportionately high relative to the size of the audience and market. In fact, newspapers are being registered without any fee or deposit, contributing to their unchecked proliferation. Had the government required a reasonable deposit, this surge might have been controlled.
It is also evident that some media houses, in pursuit of revenue, have engaged in unhealthy competition, including offering heavy discounts on advertisements. Advertisement agencies have often acted as brokers, while some government officials responsible for allocating advertisements have misused the system for personal gain. To address these issues, the government proposed establishing an Advertisement Board to centralize and fairly distribute government advertisements across private media, including tabloid newspapers. However, due to bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption network, this initiative was not effectively implemented.
In 2005, when King Gyanendra assumed executive power –although, critics blame that he exercised an autocratic rule–efforts were made to save and support tabloid newspapers through the introduction of a “One Window” advertisement system. This mechanism provided an additional subsidy of around 30,000 to 40,000 rupees to such publications. Government advertisements were collected by the “One Window Committee” and distributed proportionally among media outlets. The system proved effective, but it was scrapped following the political changes of 2006. The current Advertisement Board concept is largely modeled on that earlier system.
In conclusion, the idea of the government running media outlets in a democracy is neither practical nor an efficient use of public funds. At the same time, halting advertisements to private sector media reflects an authoritarian tendency. Therefore, the government’s decision requires reconsideration and correction.
Login to add a comment