Journalism of deception

Two weeks ago news came of a death of a journalist in Jhapa. The cause of death was not immediately known but the Jhapa Chapter of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists quickly concluded that Yadav Poudel's murder was linked to a story on prostitution he had covered.

In Kathmandu and across the country there were angry protests. Journalists, media houses and facebookers condemned the killing as a cruel blow to press freedom and demanded stern action against the perpetrator(s). The prime minister, not to be left behind, pledged immediate action and said that the murder of a journalist was an attack on democracy and human rights.

Preliminary police investigation, however, ruled out Poudel's profession as the cause of his death. Apparently inebriated, Poudel had embraced the wife of the hotel owner and Yubaraj Giri, the would-be publisher of his paper who was also drunk, had pushed Poudel from the hotel rooftop in the ensuing scuffle. Intriguingly, Poudel's story on the prostitution racket run by Som Dhakal and his wife Manju happened in the same hotel from where he fell to his death, raising suspicion about the owners' involvement.

Many journalists suffer attacks because of what they write. This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) ranked Nepal number six among countries where killers of journalists are not prosecuted. But every other scuffle in a bar, tea-house or local watering hole that involves a journalist is not necessarily a blow to press freedom.

Poudel may have been killed for the story he wrote, but if the murdered in question was not a journalist would the Nepali media have so easily jumped to conclusions? Maybe reporters themselves would have gone through the standard journalistic practice of cross checking evidence before dishing out a verdict. But journalists in Nepal consider themselves to be above the purview of professional scrutiny. They suffer from a false sense of moral superiority and are so self-obsessed, they make no effort to hide it. What else explains the ridiculously high number of headlines in dailies that read: 'Theft in Journalist's House' or 'Journalist's Bike Stolen' or 'Journalist Bereaved'?

The power and privileges that come with being a journalist have led most to think that they are an exclusive class of citizens who can get away with anything. Just look at the op-eds in any major daily, there is a real disconnect between the pundits and readers. Writers sway from one point of view to another from month to month and don't think readers deserve an explanation. Someone should read to them what they wrote last year.

They openly lobby in favour of certain political leaders while viciously lambasting others, they incite fear and spread cynicism. They shamelessly front as the public relations officers of politicians. Circumstances change over time and so can one's beliefs, but when writers exhibit an utter lack of core values, it becomes hypocrisy and double standards.

We know there is a problem when supposedly sane writers suggest we should not make a fuss over rule of law because those laws were made by status-quoists and don't deserve to be followed. We know there is a problem when in all these years not a single writer can muster the courage to question the use of violence as a political tool.

Most journalists lament that writing is not enough and they want to make the world a better place. Indeed, the world could do with some improvement, but here's the deal: writing with honesty and integrity is enough. We may not have to pass an exam and obtain a professional journalists' license, we may not have to go to the people every few years and seek their endorsement like politicians, but the least we can do is to be honest to ourselves and to our readers.

Perhaps writers can never be completely objective because all writing is inherently manipulative. But they can surely be honest enough to tell readers up front where their loyalties lie. At least they can spare us the shock of discovering that our favourite columnist is a card-carrying member.

Read also:
Give and take

Mind what you speak, but speak your mind, ANURAG ACHARYA
Nepal's transition is not being driven by issues at hand, but by those that will follow once the constitution is declared

3. ushaft
Brilliant piece. Liked it very much. I have some additional observations of my own too:

1. Has anyone tried writing to Nepal's journalists? Or tweeting? Please let me know if you received a reply too. I think it is easier to get responses from a scientist or professor of Nobel-prize stature, but Nepal's journalists (well, not all of them - but enough to generalize) are so smug with themselves that they think responding will make them look "ordinary." I am not talking about responses to the nonsense that many readers write, but about questions and clarifications regarding what they wrote.

2. The op-ed writers. Oh dear. The salaried writers, many of who I don't even know what they are known for, many who held some position in the past and some who hold some academic degrees. Is it necessary to give them space every week? Don't they ever run out of things to write? We have too few pieces by subject experts like the academicians, researchers or scientists, but too many by people whose only job is to write. And what happens? Should these op-ed writers also share the blame for the collective state of the society? Each week, they spit this or that verbal phlegm on some section of the society or some politicians or some period of history and so on, but how can one forget that the writers themselves have been in very influential positions for a significant part of our nation's recent history? They were in positions capable of shaping up much of our society's mindset, and in fact by repeating the same things over and over for decades, they have succeeded in doing so. Could you do us a favor of a little bit of introspection, please?

3. There is something called a conflict of interest and full disclosure. If a writer has some formal or informal affiliations, the readers ought to know about them. For example, a shareholder in a company reviewing a range of products that his company specializes in, will probably be inclined to write favorably of his company's products. It is the duty of the writer and also the publisher to make sure that the readers are not misled, by providing full disclosure or trying to avoid conflicts of interest. In contrast, op-ed writers in Nepal's daily newspapers are personal media-managers to many political honchos. They are furthering certain agendas and doing so in the name of logic and reasoning, while in the background, the driving forces could well have been personal gains or a much bigger design. People who know of the writer's affiliation might well trash their writings, but what happens of the many readers who take what is published with utter seriousness? We have seen that a lot of our people are gullible enough to be swayed by propaganda and ready to fight and die for them. Can the writers escape by blaming others for the problems in our societies? And proudly continue to write every week?

4. On core values and beliefs: What to expect when Fulbright scholars who enjoyed the best of the best in the democratic and free world themselves are inclined in preaching to Nepali people that their betterment depends on a system whose set of values are neither democratic, not development-oriented. I think the American and other western governments should be more careful to make sure they do not export promoters of hate and backwardness to our country. The plague of intellectual decay could be very harmful to us.

Posted on: 20 APRIL 2012 | 12:31 PM NST

18. Satyajeet Nepali

"...but the least we can do is to be honest to ourselves and to our readers."

Well-written, well-said. Keep the faith. Hope you really live up to these values and make them more widespread in the journalism world of Nepal (which so far has been highly disappointing to say the least, as I point out in my comments to the editorial).

Very refreshing and encouraging to see that young journalists like yourselves are honest enough to recognize the hollowness and sham of it all, and bold enough to express the truth. I now hope you can and will do something about it.

Tell you what, have the courage to strike out and start your own media establishment in the service of your values... before you get co-opted and corrupted by the (tainted) establishment you now serve!

Posted on: 24 APRIL 2012 | 1:07 PM NST

20. Kiran

"We know there is a problem when supposedly sane writers suggest we should not make a fuss over rule of law because those laws were made by status-quoists and don't deserve to be followed."

Very true.

That was in an op-ed in one of the prominent newspapers,and look at the headline from the same newspaper from yesterday.

Janamukti Party Leaders Warn to Hang Anti-Federalists.(Apr 24th Kantipur)

The newspaper editors by not criticizing such remarks, and instead giving it prominent space are encouraging the belief among certain people that it is ok to hang people who don't agree with the views supported by the editors. This is just a way to silence the population by fear and intimidation. The same tactics is employed by the Maoists by labeling individuals as enemies of the people.

In the ethnic states controlled by people with such views,it is very unlikely that the rule of law will be respected. People with different views will simply be hung or eliminated like in North Korea or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Posted on: 25 APRIL 2012 | 7:35 AM NST

23. bibek P
Thanks to Rubeena for having the courage to write this. It amazes me about the level of crap Nepali people can tolerate in their daily diet. Information is a part of diet today and if you scan the newspapers, there is more shit than food.

Look at what Aditya Adhikari wrote (mentioned by #20). Also look at what the high-caste elites of Terai CK Lal and Prashant Jha regularly write and still get away with, criticizing some people with names like "bahun gatekeepers." See what regular op-eds in Kantipur and Kathmandu Post are made up of. Read their editorials and news stories clearly siding with one faction of the Maoist party and their agendas.

Come on fellas, isn't it the time to take sides? When defenders of our democracy and rights are being attacked so vigorously, can we be just standing in the sidelines? That is what the Maoists did to a lot of people in the villages during the war. They were silenced, maimed, and decapitated and we did not say a word. Today, they are doing the same in Kathmandu. They are labeling people with different hate words and provocative statements. They are constantly pushing their agenda of terror.

When will we take sides and protect the people who will protect our rights? Is it enough just to say "great job Rubeena" or does it require some duty on our part also?

Here goes a famous poem by Martin Niemoeller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Posted on: 26 APRIL 2012 | 1:38 PM NST

24. Santosh gurung

Rubeena Mahato, you have well kept the true spirit of a professional journalism. I observe you as being a neutral writer, and somehow respectful of others as well. The integriety part is the most which you have an agenda to talk, I liked it. Many fuss journalist are after a cup of RAKSI, a BEER, snack, a Dinner, a lunch or some bucks for any manipulation of the story and let the target victim of the story die in terror or crusify and vice versa. If some one reading it now just question yourself? Do they or not, For instance many journalist write just for accusing obession, they look for rival parties or persons to find the source of the news,views, they collect the pages of accusation, allegations and start blackmailing to be just a fantastic reporter with out border. I laugh at them and it is phony they are just there for making or earning their living through pluralism and double roles in society. Mostly the news and stories come up on the media are really deceptions, manipulations, edits and that's the lie made for make belief, they are constructions and cover alls. JUST JUNK, Media writers mostly cheat, deceive making readers confuse and belief their story as such a astounding discovery or research, inventions. They love scandals and try to make it a invention. At the other side they have powers to do so and they misue that.

You are speaking your heart as I understood and you are writing your honesty. I go with and have respect for carrer journalist and writers like you, may you be?. No fear factors, have to take risk for some positive change. WE all know and every writer or reporter knows how disgusting, stupid, deceiving, crook of crap he or she is for to report and abuse others. That's why I agree and call for news, views, or reporting corruption investigation desk should be a new twist chapter in CIAA framework.

Posted on: 26 APRIL 2012 | 7:18 PM NST

26. WHO LOVES READING NT
Well. I read the article and all the comments. Good article, I agreed. BUT MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN OVERSEAS AND ACTUALLY NOT IN NEPAL.

I HAVE A FEW COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO RUBEENA.

1. WHAT IS THE PROOF THAT WHAT EVER YOU ARE SAYING IS CORRECT AND YOU YOURSELF WRITE HONESTLY. MIND IT I HAVE BEEN READING YOUR ARTICLES FOR LONG.

2. WHAT ARE THE REACTIONS FROM THE FELLOW JOURNALISTS (particularly, those who write for dailies and for op-ed) TO THIS PIECE?

3. I HAVE NO IDEA, IF RUBBENA IS A JOURNALIST OR JUST WRITE FOR NT, BUT THE LAST QUESTION IS: HAVE YOU EVER TRY TO ACCESS THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT NEPALI JOURNALISTS HAVE WHILE THEY WRITE.

Its obvious that no one is perfect but being so harsh on those who actually try to bring news to us.

I would say, its not journalists to be blamed for such writing but THE CULTURE WE DEVELOP IN OUR OWN SYSTEM BY CORRUPTING EVERYTHING AND TRYING TO PLAY A FOUL BLAME GAME.

I HOPE RUBEENA HAS ANSWER TO THIS. PLS DO.

thanks,
Malik Somesh

Posted on: 27 APRIL 2012 | 3:42 PM NST

30. manish
#26: i find it strange how instead of going after arguments, you go after who people are and where they are from. it is no more a secret in nepali media fraternity that in the cloak of independent analyst, many editors and writers operate as media managers of political actors. examples of this have been presented by some commenters above. they don't feel necessary to explain to the readers many questions hidden inside their motives, agenda and arguments. expecting them to respond to criticism or suggestion is plain stupid. it is right and necessary to expose them to their readers. it cannot be called blaming. thanks to rubeena for her service to the readers.

you sound like you are related to the article or the writer in some way. or maybe you are just jealous. this is a subjective piece; it may be right or it may be wrong. but i've found that rubeena has consistently maintained high standards of honesty and integrity in her writing. if you think you have examples to counter this (because you have been reading from long)- what prevented you from listing them?

Posted on: 29 APRIL 2012 | 5:39 PM NST

31. ASP
#29

The writer's choice of the word "apparently" when describing the condition of the dead before the death is ironic because it undermines the very point she is trying to make about the lack of ethical journalism in Nepal's mediascape.

The use of the word places the writer's objectivity into question. Besides truthfulness and accuracy, objectivity is the third key element of ethical journalism.

Granted that not all columnists are journalists held to a code of ethics. Granted, too, that regular columnists and occasional contributing writers are allowed to inject a level of subjectivity (i.e., opinion) into the writing. However, Ms. Mahato comes off as sanctimonious in this column. She uses words that portray subjectivity, not objectivity.

If, in fact, the dead was inebriated before the death, why, then, is the need to use the word "apparently"? Plus, she doesn't directly quote the police as describing the condition of the deceased. (And I haven't even made any comment about the poorly constructed third paragraph.)

Note to #29: The news article you provided the link for doesn't say the deceased was "drunk". It merely says the deceased had been drinking. There's an important difference.

Posted on: 29 APRIL 2012 | 11:44 PM NST