Guidelines for Nepal media

IN Media Freedom | 24/02/2005

Twelve instructions that the media in Nepal are expected to follow, followed by reviews of what appears in the press.

In a February 7 order, the District Administration Office Nepalgunj in Nepal instructed members of the media to falsify news in favour of the government, which since February 1 has been under the absolute power of the king. The order follows a February 3 notice from the Ministry of Information and Communication to the effect that all and any media reports opposing the takeover by the king have been banned. The arrest and detention of large numbers of democrats, human rights activists, journalists and students have thus not been reported. All independent media have been silenced. In Nepalgunj, the instructions given to journalists were as follows:

"1. Newspapers registered in Nepalgunj and that have been publishing regularly are required to publish remaining within the parameters of this notice, after receiving a copy of the notice.

2. No newspaper/ media should publish news that could adversely affect the country`s sovereignty, unity and peace and security.

3. Nothing should be published that would be against the Royal Family and the Royal Proclamation of February 1.

4. Do not publish news on the strikes called by the Maoists and their sister (frontal) organizations and about the human and material loss of the security forces and government offices.

5. It is alright to mention losses suffered by the Maoists in actions by security forces but do not publish information on accidental civilian losses other than what is mentioned in the statement issued by the government spokesman.

6. It is alright to publish information on civilian losses caused by the Maoists.

7. It is alright for the press to verify information on Maoist activities and movements obtained from various sources with the security forces.

8. It is alright to point out weaknesses and mistakes and irregularities at government offices after through testing (investigation) and where possible with proof, but do not publish unfounded (reports) that could assassinate the character and discourage government employees.

9. Do not publish information and activities of political (parties) and organizations related with them; publish activities of social, religious, economic organizations.

10. Do not publish news on the Maoists and other political organizations by quoting news and articles published or broadcast in foreign (media). Also do not publish news on activities of Maoists in Indian Territory.

11. Compulsorily make available, free of cost, one copy of publications for monitoring to the monitoring committee.

12. Abide by other directives of the Information and Communications Ministry."

What has been appearing in the Nepal Press

PRESS REVIEW

Deshanter (Feb 13) weekly had a front page story asking "Would democracy be restored within 100 days"? The story was an analysis on the remarks by the American Ambassador James Moriarty on Feb 11. The ambassador said the king had asked for three months to let his government perform. He added, we will wait and observe the government activities (before taking a decision on aid). The paper also reported detention of J.P. Gupta and had a separate story on what the parties were doing in terms of planning opposition against the February 1 takeover by the king.

Deshanter editorialized on press freedoms, even though it stopped short of demanding and end to the restrictions. It said, "Censorship during emergency is not new the world over…"adding, that "agreement and disagreement were also as essential for democracy". The paper also carried an op-ed piece that touched upon the reactions by foreign governments and added that a long term resolution of the Maoist insurgency was not possible by sidelining the parties.

Sunday`s Chalphal weekly reported the work of parties towards making a new strategy and also wrote about the leaders/ party workers in detention or house arrest. It editorialized on press freedoms, attempting to impress on the rulers reasons why the press needed the freedoms that are currently curtailed. Page five of the paper provided a timeline of what happened in Kathmandu after the royal proclamation. Conspicuous by its absence was the commentary by various politicians of the UML, something that had largely regular in the paper before the February 1 takeover.

Himal Khabarpatrika (Feb 12-26, 2005) came with an editorial notice explaining that some articles could be "imbalanced" because of the "special censorship" (meaning, not only that done by editors themselves in accordance with a government notice issued earlier). The 72-page fortnightly had about 28 "holes" marking spots where the censors had deleted the text. Some stories had a few lines missing, while others had lost almost everything. The one-page article by Kanak Mani Dixit, which attempted to report the international reactions to the royal proclamation, had 10 holes where the comments about need to restore democracy and free political leaders from detention were deleted.

The censors did not even spare a story on Cambodia, which had lost a paragraph. The censors also seemed to have looked at the profiles of the new ministers quite closely—the story on the foreign minister did not have a headline, and chunks of text were missing from the write-ups on others members of the cabinet.

Among the dailies, Rajdhani, had a page one story on a press statement by the Nepali Congress party announcing non-violent protests for the restoration of democracy to begin on February 18, Democracy Day (Falgun 7th). It was on Falgun 7th that the then banned political parties had launched the movement for the restoration of democracy in 1990. The report said that the UML and the NC (Democratic) were also planning protests.

Sanghu weekly on February 14th reported that the parliamentary parties were not going to side with the Maoists, and also had a report on UML`s efforts to dialogue and reach agreement with other parties (on opposing the royal move). The stories essentially summarized what had happened the week before, and also included the comments made by the American Ambassador to Nepal. The paper reported on an appeal by the UML calling on all parties to come together to tackle the crisis facing Nepal, and also called on the Maoists to immediately stop attacking political workers and to review their past policy of attacking party workers. Sanghu editorialized on infectious diseases that could spread during the hot dry months.

Not all newspapers have hinted of opposition to the royal move. Among the supporters include, Jana Bhawana (February 14) which had a headline asking "who were those spreading rumors among the foreigners" and reported the stories that had appeared in Chinese papers after the royal takeover and explained the positive changes taken place after February 1. The paper also had a report on leaders of different parties and civil society preparing a collective statement in support of the royal move. The paper also carried a long list of government officials who it said were supporters of the Nepali Congress and UML. Its editorial was fully support of the royal move, and warned ministers to guard against making promises and concentrate on rectifying what had gone wrong in the past.