Author: लक्ष्मीविलास कोइराला /राजधानी दैनिक

In a collective choice of national envisioning Nepali media have performed vital roles. They remained hostile witness of special condition of Nepal– political transition from violent conflict to civil peace and assumed constructive roles to awaken citizens to the state of democracy, defend their rights and shore up their informed participation in public affairs. It is definitely tough because of high political dynamics, erosion of formal institutional governance and hitch in the process of achieving the fundamental tasks set by the Nepali Constitution. Democratic functions of media presuppose freedom of the press, editorial freedom and public security. It is critical to engage with the public in a reflective, rational communication and enforce each other’s’ accountabilities to restore Nepalis’ confidence in the polity.
The self-perception of media is obvious: custodian of public interest. But their effort for self-emancipation from instrumental image remains. Any event, issue or policy the public find useful is reported in the press. Internal structures of media are, hence, critical to their democratic roles. News is public goods. Any effort to cover, privatise, twist, deform and suppress the marketplace of ideas cuts the very public duty the media fiercely stand for, mirror the pulse of public and provide outlet for the public to express through letters to the editor column. Public’s right to know, ingrained in the Nepali Constitution, seeks free flow of information through the autonomy of media from the corruption of society’s dominant interests. This freedom is neither cost-free nor without certain democratic requirements.
Nepalis access to information is central to know the condition of democratic order and allay the social tensions oiled by hazy communication controlled by the power of technology, ideology, interest and identity. This is why autonomy is eagerly defended by journalists, publishers, owners, courts, civil society and citizens. Without the autonomy of public sphere for deliberation and action where media are situated, neither democracy in the internal life of cultural industries is possible nor does it enable them to work in the public interest beyond flexible economic and technological control. The ways Nepali journalists frame public issues and provide the flow of news and views are thus pertinent in filling the basic preconditions for their own constitutional needs.  Democratic functions of media entail:
Politicisation of citizens: Journalists are the most valuable means to translate political concepts into everyday language to make them clear to ordinary Nepalis, carry out informed debate and engage them in deliberation as a public duty.  Politicisation, not partisanisation, of citizens frees them from tribal swamps and increases consciousness, volunteerism and accountabilities. As a watchdog of democracy, free and fair media protect the freedom and rights of citizens against the encroachment by powerful actors – the state, polity, government, political parties, corporate groups and even militant ones. Democracy is at stake if only the powerful voice is taken up as a voice of reason. In a country of minorities like Nepal micro minorities are conscience keepers.
A culture of pluralism in the media suffers if their voices are silenced. They can add little to shape public opinion, democratic will and national identity. Interest groups for reasons of power, wealth and advertisement of their products tend to be enclosed rather than opened to the contesting views about national issues. Group-enclosed media fail to cultivate a civil society central to defend civic ideals, virtues, practice and judgment. They reflect only the partial reality in news, views, agenda and will and fail to release the potential for a pluralist sense of justice. They suffer from moral inversion and irresponsibility.
Sensitivity to human condition: The struggle of Nepali journalists to rationalise public institutions and society constitutes the core debate to influence the democratic evolution of this nation. This involves also media rules and sincere implementation of Right to Information Act, Working Journalists’ Act and many associated laws that safeguard their rights, freedom and integrity including the rights of citizens to seek and get essential information pertaining to public affairs. Nepali journalists have an important duty to defend the social justice of media workers in the government and corporate sector, who find it difficult to maintain a balance between the values and needs required by their profession to defend and the profit imperative of media owners.
But, there are grey areas too. Small media houses keep no boundary between owners, reporters and editors as they play multiple roles and respond to Nepal’s diverse public sometimes even exposing the emptiness of mainstream media analysis who often seek to privatise the public sphere, degenerate national politics and jump on the bandwagon of global trends. The sensitivity to context requires media to overcome structural injustice, uplift society towards modernity, democracy and human rights and their role in instilling democratic consciousness connected with language, bodily expression and action.
Primacy of public interest: The collection of views of public figures and ordinary citizens, articles, opinions and facts on political matters is important to frame public agenda. Knowledge about legal, social, economic, political and ecological issues allows Nepalis an informed participation in public affairs and continuous rationalisation of laws, norms and practices. This makes political change orderly and peaceful. Nepalis require not only a multitude of facts but critical perspectives about issues, needs and concerns. Very often in a hurry to produce first news facts are at times fabricated. Social media of Nepal are prone to this vice though they are considered a boon to individual self-expression and human closeness. Still, they are searching a sense for their future.
Any penchant for this evil stifles the media credibility, code and ethics and evades them from the duty of fair communication. In a varied society like Nepal, cultural-sensitivity of journalists is essential to normatively work towards highlighting the common ground and inform, educate and excite public interest to resolve problems. Obviously, vocational ethos precedes private interest of journalists. The rate of geopolitical incursion into Nepal’s cultural industries reflects the hidden warfare of media houses and the use of their muscle to dispel journalist groups’ howling about its negative effects on the nation.
Scrutiny of the circuits of predators and feedback to citizens are their public duty. Since the rules of political morality are created by leaders, Nepali journalists must inform the public and provide them a critical sense of inquiry to judge their attitude, behaviour and action towards their given duty to achieve the interest of the public in common. The democratic functions of media are: muster public interests, express their demands, channel demands, communication between leaders and citizens and support for the public strategy of collective action in the entire course of democratisation.
Freedom from Thought-Conditioning: Media freedom is a sign of the state of democracy in Nepal. Law-based freedom protects the polity and social cohesion. The element of freedom is heavily loaded with the responsibility to society. The evolution of rational analytical skills has spread the values of greater openness to social change and put critical questions on blind faith, institution, authority and legitimacy patterns. The conscious control of ideas, institutions and practices has moved private life (domestic violence, child abuse, respect to elders, suicide, etc.) into a matter of state law, expunged the division between the public and the private sphere and even politicized the social rights.
Freedom of the press is central to citizens’ free will. Popular sovereignty and right to information are allied. In old days, freedom entailed liberty from government authority only. But now owing to the de-centering of power, the sources of threat to this freedom have become diffused. Ironically, the operation of media under the structural condition of spatial, social and economic inequity has tapered the vigour of right to information. The weak public security makes Nepali media less immune from the fear of attack by violent groups. The growth of secure national communicative space is essential condition of public life in Nepal and the visibility of weak public. The ruthless competition among the media owners in the urban areas for the supply of information and commentary has turned them commercial while the rural and remote parts face information deficit, financial crunch as advertising agencies are almost nil, suffer from a lack of professionalism and other vital prerequisites. This gulf, monopoly, censorship, inadequate laws, condition of insecurity and rights abuses, etc. cut media’s authority to speak truth to power and foster the civic culture of decency in both virtual and real world.
Public exposure to vital issues such as human rights, federalism, democracy, livelihood, elections, foreign policy issues, climate change, peace etc. awakens their interest in national politics and socialises passive citizens into the participant political culture of the nation. Similarly, total conformity to the opinion of readers, viewers and listeners with the purpose of pleasing them weakens the power of the public to critically examine the issues at hand. As a result, media socialisation has become cacophonous. Media persons must try to find a rational option over contesting ideas and find a common ground for the fair balance of interests of all Nepalis. This alone can contribute to public opinion and rational will-formation thus cultivating democratic functions essential for a civic culture.

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues) 

Nepali journalists have a greater moral liability to act more sensitively to justly represent the population. Journalism is a public responsibility in a fundamental sense
While Nepal, through the approval of new bills, has been heavily engaged in institutionalizing the concept of federal democratic republic, the journalistic part of informing citizens is equally worth considering. Informing people on issues and events that matter to them is journalists’ public responsibility. Amidst the trends and tides of modern infotainment media powered by consumer markets, maintaining journalism as public service is definitely fraught with tough challenges and struggles. Nevertheless, the fundamental purpose of journalism “to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing,” as stated by Kovach and Rosenstiel, has not changed. Since journalism is about the democratic empowerment of the general public, its practitioners, despite their own belief systems, cannot explicitly distort its essential meaning. The journalistic coverage of business issues helps to stimulate the economic development of the country. Thus, journalism has a deep-rooted existence as public service to date despite a growing commercial influence. Practically, journalism functions to inform people about both positive and negative occurrences from a public perspective. Those with a positive intention of transforming their society or with a motive of positively managing contradictions and conflicts can make use of facts and data supplied by journalism.

State of Nepali journalism 
Nepali journalism, though market-driven trends create overwhelming pressures, faces a severe challenge of eschewing the growing disconnect from mass suffering. News-inducing forces may be far more powerful and equipped than the large-sized, structurally and socially marginalized sections of population. Considering this burning reality, pursuing journalism to be the voice of the voiceless appears a bit more idealistic in the contemporary world. However, it is a living truth that journalism itself is a democratic ideal geared toward creating a civilized society. The major cornerstone of a civilized society is a truthful moral character, which is never possible without truthful information dissemination. Hence the rationale of journalism founded on public interest principles.

The Nepali society today is in an acute need of good governance, accountability and transparency. Mere piles of laws and regulations alone cannot ensure good governance, which really requires an uninterrupted environment for the mental and moral development of citizens from the very beginning phase of life. Frequent media coverage of public issues is distinctively for building mental and moral pressures for concerned stakeholders to become responsible for the consequences their decisions and actions bring about. Informing citizens about policies and the status of their implementation, journalism facilitates a democratic atmosphere of checks and balances. As an organized means, journalism develops a desirable level of transparency of public affairs. This is an important way of promoting the quality of democracy.

News media have a greater potential to become a truly invigilating force capable of keeping the state and people alert in all fronts. A considerable increase in the number of media outlets means an acute need to seek not only a greater degree of quality but also rich coverage diversity and wide-ranging thematic elements in addressing federal, provincial and local concerns. Honoring Nepali audiences’ right to develop a broader democratic outlook with the help of far-sighted and diversity-minded journalism would be appreciable. Equally important, an advanced verifying and analytical culture remains a need as far as covering vital public issues, such as public health, public education, public transport, and public security is concerned. These areas of media coverage are crucial toward making democracy ever more vibrant.

It’s a public service  
Preeminently, journalism is a public service marked by the necessity of the utmost degree of honesty and loyalty toward the general public. Facts and data obtained from various sources cannot be distorted. However, a lot of creativity needs to be used in the process of gathering authentic and valuable details from various sources and processing them into understandable, usable and analyzable informational products, from which stakeholders across the country can benefit to varying degrees. Journalism, with its macro and micro-specializations, entails the values enshrined in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent specific human rights treaties and their optional protocols. While journalism functions to protect and promote people’s fundamental rights, it has to be equipped with a serious sense of social responsibility as well.

Considered positively, journalists are also top-ranking knowledge workers. It is mainly up to journalists themselves to assume this grand role, not to be imposed. The reason why journalism can be internalized as an eminent knowledge economy profession is that it involves a lot of critical and analytical capacity without which it becomes ludicrous, or even a partisan tool.

Journalism does have wide-ranging and long-term political, socio-economic and cultural impact, noticed and unnoticed, on the human society as a whole. It, in reality, is a primordial knowledge profession that can be geared toward enabling information recipients to become not only critical and analytical citizens but also wise and independent decision-makers. This being the potential of journalism, it needs to be founded on ethical conduct and wisdom to utilize media freedom as best as possible. In fact, current practices of journalism—heavily influenced by diverse constraints, especially the financial ones—give us the impression that our immediate priority should be to reduce the degree of superficialization, which surely cannot be conducive to enhancing critical and analytical citizenry so vital for making democracy work productively at grassroots level.

In a country like Nepal marked by natural, economic and socio-cultural diversity, our journalists have a higher moral liability to act more sensitively and large-mindedly to justly represent the population in a proportional and comprehensive sense.

Although journalism can be a profession like any other area of human service, there is no need to allocate a commercial role to journalists just because they draw living costs out of their profession. Journalism, obviously, is a public responsibility in a fundamental sense. Journalists and media entrepreneurs are interdependent. Media entrepreneurs take risks and provide a ground for journalists to carry out their journalistic responsibilities. In the same way, journalists draw public attention to media institutions, which provide space for commercial publicity. Journalists work for quality information marked by accuracy, truthfulness and diversity through which audiences can be retained or increased.  Due to its immediate and long-term impact on all sectors, journalistic practices involve much insight and wisdom.

The duty of producing authentic information so necessary for the general public is a great job. In the long-run, the skill of gathering facts and data, analyzing and interpreting them can render promising journalists noteworthy issue analysts. They can utilize their art of knowledge economy as a vital capital for multiple intellectual purposes. Their psychological pattern of writing, the habit formed to inquire issues and events that matter to people and the updating nature can really empower them enough to become important assets of the nation.

सहकर्मी सम्पादक तथा प्रकाशक मित्रहरू
नमस्कार ।

आशा गर्छु– तपाईंहरूलाई बेसै छ । मलाईचाहिँ केही नैतिक, सार्वजनिक र पेसागत लज्जाबोध, असहजता र बेचैनी उत्पन्न भएकाले यो पत्र तपाईंहरूलाई लेखेको हुँ । सुरुमै स्पष्ट पार्न चाहन्छु– यो पत्र कसैलाई गाली गर्न वा होच्याउन होइन, पत्रकारिताको पेसागत मर्यादा र स्तरीयतालाई पुनः एकपटक सम्झनुपर्ने आवश्यकतातर्फ तपाईंहरूलाई घचघच्याउन अभिप्रेरित छ ।
समय–प्रसङ्गमा पटक–पटक उठ्दै आएको मतमतान्तर अहिले फेरि सार्वजनिक रूपमा सुरु भएको छ । पत्रकारितामा प्रयोग भइरहेको ‘तिमी’ सर्वनामप्रति लक्षित गर्दै प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा ओलीले हालै प्राज्ञहरूलाई सार्वजनिक सम्बोधन गर्दा व्यङ्ग्योक्ति दिनुभयो– पत्रकारले त मर्यादित शब्द प्रयोग गर्न बिर्सिसकेका छन् र घरमा बाबुआमालाई पनि तिमी नै भन्दा हुन् । ठ्याक्कै त होइन उहाँको आसय यस्तैजस्तो लाग्छ । यस अभिव्यक्तिपछि त ‘तिमी’ को विवाद छताछुल्ल भयो ।
पत्रकार पाखुरा सुर्किएर तिघ्रा बजार्दै मैदानमा उत्रिएका छन् । एकथरि पत्रकारले त एक स्वरले शाब्दिक धाँधली नै सुरु गरेका छन् । केही पत्रकारको दाबी छ– हाम्रा परिवारमा पनि तिमी शब्द बोल्ने गरिन्छ । त्यसैले यो प्रयोग स्वाभाविक छ । उनीहरू बुरुक्क उफ्रिएर अर्कोखाले फेसबुके अभिव्यक्ति दिन्छन्– यिनीहरूलाई के अब ‘बक्स्योस्’ भन्नुपर्ने ? पत्रकार थप तर्क दिन्छन्– तिमी पछि ‘तपाईं’ चलाउँदा भोलि ‘हजुर’ किन नचलाउने भन्ने प्रश्न आउला । तिमी शब्द पनि आदरार्थी नै हो । आफूले गरेको अभ्यास आफैँलाई चित्त बुझेन भने सच्चिउँला । नत्र यो हाम्रो पत्रकारिताको शैली हो, इत्यादि ।
यसमा मेरो खरो प्रतिवाद छ, मित्रहरू । मेरालागि यी तर्क होइनन्, अहङ्कार हुन् । निजी अहङ्कारको पक्षपोषण पेसागत मर्यादा होइन । अहङ्कारले सधैँ अप्ठ्यारा कुरालाई आदर्श मानेको हुन्छ । सार्वजनिक रूपमा हामीले गरिरहेका यस्ता कच्चा बौद्धिक हमलाले पत्रकारिता पेसालाई नै रुग्ण बनाउँछ । यसका लागि म यहाँ केही सन्दर्भ, उदाहरण, दृष्टान्त र भाषाका सर्वोपरि मान्यता राख्न चाहन्छु ।
भाषाशास्त्रीहरूका अनुसार भाषामा प्रयोजनपरक भेदहरू (ल्याङ्ग्वेज रजिष्टर) हुन्छन् । भाषाका प्रयोजनपरक भेद भन्नाले भाषा प्रयोग गर्दाका बखतको प्रवृत्ति वा मनोवृत्ति, मिजास, अपनाइएको रूख वा चेष्टा र औपचारिकताको स्तरजस्ता कुरालाई जनाउँछ । सामान्यतया यी भेदहरूलाई अति औपचारिकदेखि अति अनौपचारिक गरी पाँच भाग लगाइएको छ– स्थिर वा अगतिशील भेद, औपचारिक भेद, व्यावसायिक÷प्रोफेसनल भेद, अनौपचारिक भेद र आत्मीय वा वैयक्तिक भेद ।
नेपाली भाषाको प्रयोजनका हिसाबले साथीसँगाती समूहको अनौपचारिक वृत्त र पारिवारिक तथा वैयक्तिक नातासम्बन्धको आत्मीय वृत्तमा मात्र तँ र तिमी सर्वनामको प्रयोग हुने गर्छ । यस्तो भाषा पारस्परिक हुन्छ । साहित्यको भाषा सिर्जनशील र गतिशील हुन्छ । यसमा व्यक्ति होइन, पात्रहरू हुने हुँदा पनि साहित्यमा ‘तिमी’ सर्वनामको प्रयोग स्वाभाविक मानिँदै आएको छ । यसबाहेक प्रयोजनका हिसाबले स्थिर वृत्त, औपचारिक वृत्त र व्यावसायिक
(प्रोफेसनल) वृत्तमा सञ्चार वा सम्बोधन गर्दा तँ र तिमी सर्वनामको प्रयोग मान्य छैन । यी अवस्थाहरूमा भाषाको प्रयोग नियमबद्ध, व्यवस्थित, प्रामाणिक, सर्वस्वीकार्य र स्थापित वृहत्तर सामाजिक नियमद्वारा निर्देशित हुन्छन् र हुनुपर्छ । पत्रकारिता औपचारिक पेसा हो, यसले ‘स्ट्यान्डर्ड’, सन्तुलन र तटस्थताको सिद्धान्त अवलम्बनको वकालत गर्छ । पत्रकारिता, विशेषगरी समाचारको भाषा अनौपचारिक होइन ‘स्ट्यान्डर्ड’ भाषा हो ।
शपथ लिदाको भाषा, अदालती फैसलाको भाषा, पाठपूजाको भाषामा गतिशीलता पाइँदैन । यो भाषा स्थिर र अति औपचारिक हुन्छ । त्यस्तै औपचारिक, व्यावसायिक सञ्चारको भाषा नियमबद्ध ढङ्गले व्यवस्थित गरिएको हुन्छ । यो बढी जानकारीमूलक, तथ्यपरक तथा वस्तुगत हुन्छ, बहुआयामिक हुन्छ । प्रामाणिक र स्तरीय सामाजिक अभ्यासहरूबाट निर्दिष्ट हुन्छ ।
यस अर्थमा प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा ओलीसँग मेरो आंशिक असहमति छ । उहाँले ‘पत्रकारितामा तिमी सर्वनाम प्रयोग गर्नेहरूले परिवारमा बाबुआमालाई पनि तिमी भन्छन् कि क्या हो’ भन्ने आसय व्यक्त गर्नुभएको छ । यसमा मेरो असहमति के हो भने घरमा बाबुआमालाई ‘तिमी’ भन्ने गरेकै भए पनि पत्रकारितामा ‘तिमी’ भन्ने छुट हुँदैन, पाइँदैन । पत्रकारिता अनौपचारिक वा मनलाग्दी पेसा होइन । यो आत्मीयताको सिद्धान्तमा आधारित भएर पनि चल्दैन । (बरु पत्रकारितामा सिर्जनशील लेखनका सीमित विधाहरू हुन्छन्, तिनमा चाहिँ ‘तिमी’ सर्वनाम प्रयोगमा ल्याउन सकिन्छ । उदाहरणका लागि फिचर लेखन, संस्मरण लेखन आदि ।)
नेपाली भाषामा ‘तपाईं’ शब्द न त चाकरीको शब्द हो न त भारदारी वा बहिष्कृत नै । यो शब्द नेपाली सामाजिक मर्यादाअनुसारको संस्कारी र शोभनीय सर्वनाम हो । नेपाली व्याकरणकारले ‘तपाईं, यहाँ, उहाँ’ आदि शब्दलाई द्वितीय र तृतीय पुरुषलाई सम्बोधन गरिने आदरार्थी र मानबोधक सर्वनामका रूपमा परिभाषित गरेका छन् । यसैगरी, केही नेपाली व्याकरणकारले ‘बक्स्यो, बक्स्योेस्’ जस्ता सर्वनामलाई
‘प्रभुत्व’ जनाउने अर्थमा प्रयोग हुने भनी परिभाषित गरेका छन् ।
यस्तै अर्को पक्ष पत्रकारितामा पनि जातिवाचक नाम, समूहवाचक नाम र व्यक्तिवाचक नाममा दिइने सर्वनाम एउटै हुँदैन । जात, पद वा समूहलाई मात्र उल्लेख गर्नुपर्दा त्यसमा ‘तिमी’ र ‘उनी’ सर्वनाम प्रयोग गर्न मिल्छ । जस्तै बाहुनले पाठ गरे, सञ्चार मन्त्रालयका सचिवले भने, सिपाहीहरू हिँडे, खेलाडीहरू मैदानमा उत्रिए आदि । तर, व्यक्तिको नाम उल्लेख गरिसकेपछि भने ‘तिमी’ सर्वनाम अशोभनीय र अपाच्य हुन जान्छ ।
म तपाईंलाई सन्निकट विगतको एउटा घटना स्मरण गराउन चाहन्छु । नेपालमा २०४६ सालतिर बहुदलीय व्यवस्था पुनस्र्थापना भइसकेपछि तत्कालीन राजाले प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई ‘तिमी’ भनेर सम्बोधन गर्दा धुवाँधार आपत्ति जनाउने पनि नेपाली पत्रकारिता नै थियो । त्यसबेलाको नेपाली पत्रकारिताले व्याख्या गर्दै औँलो ठड्याएको विषय थियो– जननिर्वाचित प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई ‘तिमी’ भन्नु यो सरासर सामन्ती हैकम हो । राजाले ‘तिमी’ भन्दा सामन्ती हैकम हुने, त्यही शब्द तपाईं पत्रकार र सञ्चार संस्थाले जननिर्वाचित राष्ट्रपति, प्रधानमन्त्री, मन्त्रीहरू, न्यायकर्मीहरू, विभिन्न पेसा र वर्गका महानुभावलगायतलाई दैनिक र बारम्बार औपचारिक रूपमा लेख्दा र प्रसारण गर्दाचाहिँ तपाईं पत्रकार सामन्त ठहरिनु नपर्ने उन्मुक्तिको विशिष्ट कारणचाहिँ के होला मित्रहरू ?
पत्रकारितामा सर्वनाम प्रयोगबारे पहिला पनि धेरै छलफल र बहस भए । शरच्चन्द्र वस्तीहरूले यो बहसको नेतृत्व गर्नुभएको थियो । ओहदा वा शक्तिका आधारमा सर्वनामको प्रयोग हुनुहुँदैन भन्ने मान्यता त्यसबेला स्वीकार गरिएको कुरा हो । म यहाँ केही उदाहरण दिन्छु । विक्रम संवत् २०५१ सालमा रेडियो नेपालको लोकप्रिय कार्यक्रम ‘घटना र विचार’ मा कुन्दन अर्याल, शार्दूल भट्टराई, गोकुल बाँस्कोटा, सुरेश आचार्य र मलगायतका साथीहरू बसेर समान सम्बोधनका लागि सबैलाई ‘तपाईं’ शब्द प्रयोग गर्ने र राजालाई पनि सम्बोधन गर्दा ‘बक्स्योस्’ नभन्ने र यसका ठाउँमा ‘कर्मवाच्य’ प्रयोग गर्ने निर्णय गरेका थियौँ । जस्तो कि ‘श्री ५ वीरेद्रबाट फलानो कार्यक्रमको समुद्घाटन भयो ।’ त्यसबेला रेडियो नेपालका एक उच्च अधिकारीले स्टुडियोमै आएर राजालाई अपमान गर्न पाइँदैन भनी आपत्तिसमेत जनाएका थिए । यसखाले अभ्यास त्यसबखतका विशेषगरी केही वामपन्थी र नेपाली काँग्रेस समर्थक साप्ताहिक पत्रपत्रिकाले समेत प्रचलनमा ल्याएका थिए ।
अर्को अलि भिन्न उदाहरण छ । हामी (म, घमराज लुइँटेल, जितेन्द्र राउत, मधु आचार्य) ले २०५४ सालमा रेडियो सगरमाथाबाट प्रसारित कार्यक्रममा सबैलाई समान रूपले ‘तपाईं’ सर्वनाम प्रयोग गर्ने निर्णय ग¥यौँ । त्यसो गर्नुका पछाडिको हाम्रो तर्क थियो, मान्छेलाई पद, उमेर, जात, लिङ्ग र शक्तिका आधारमा होइन, उसको स्वाभिमान र गरिमाका आधारमा समान ढङ्गले सम्बोधन गरिनुपर्छ । हामीले यस्तो शैली निर्धारण गरिरहेका बेला गोरखापत्र, कान्तिपुरजस्ता पत्रपत्रिकाले राजालाई ‘बक्स्यो’, ठूला ओहदावालालाई ‘तपाईं’ र किसान, मजदुर, दलित, महिलालगायत आमजनतालाई ‘तिमी’ सर्वनाम प्रयोग गर्दथे । कान्तिपुरमा यो चलन २०६२ सालसम्म चलेको थियो । त्यसपछि उसले सबैलाई ‘तिमी’ लेख्न थालेको हो तर २०६४ सालमा गणतन्त्र घोषणा नहुँदासम्म तत्कालीन राजालाई भने ‘तिमी’ लेख्ने आँट गरेको थिएन ।
अर्को एउटा प्रसङ्ग पनि मलाई सधैँ याद आउँछ । जसलाई म नेपाली पत्रकारिताको प्रतिनिधि चरित्रका रूपमा लिने गर्छु । जुन सम्झिँदा मेरो मनमा निकै खिन्नता हुन्छ । कान्तिपुर दैनिकको दुई वर्षअघि २०७४ फागुन ७ गते प्रकाशित रजत विशेषाङ्क ‘रजत यात्रा’ को पहिलो लेख कान्तिपुरका सम्पादकको थियो– ‘हामीले हिँडेको बाटो’ । यो लेखमा कान्तिपुर प्रकाशन प्रालिका अध्यक्ष तथा प्रवन्ध निर्देशक कैलाश सिरोहियालाई तीन ठाउँमा ‘सर’ शब्दले सम्बोधन गरिएको छ भने एक ठाउँमा ‘उहाँ’ सर्वनाम प्रयोग गरिएको छ । तर, त्यही लेखमा पूर्वराष्ट्रपति, प्रधानमन्त्रीलगायतलाई ‘तिमी’ सम्बोधन गरिएको छ । अनि पत्रिकाको अग्रभागमा प्रकाशित समाचारमा पनि प्रधानमन्त्री, सरकार तथा समाजका विभिन्न ओहदामा रहेका व्यक्तिलाई
‘तिमी’ शब्दले सम्बोधन गरिएको छ ।
सो अखबारको त्यही बयानमा ठूलो स्वरमा भनिएको छ, ‘यो हाम्रो शैली हो । ‘तपाईं’ लेख्दा त चोर र बलात्कारीलाई पनि तपाईं लेख्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । त्यसैले हामीले सबैलाई तिमी लेख्ने निर्णय ग¥यौँ ।’ यस्तै खोचे तर्कले पत्रकारिताको शैली निर्धारण गर्ने हो भने मित्रहरू, तपाईंका नाकको डाँडीमै ठोक्किनेगरी चोर औँलो ठड्याएर म प्रश्न गर्छु– त्यसो हो भने के यसको अर्थ ‘तिमी’ लेखेर राष्ट्रपति, प्रधानमन्त्री, प्रधानन्यायाधीश, सरकारी कर्मचारी, प्राध्यापक, डाक्टर, इन्जिनियर, नर्सलगायतका प्रतिष्ठित पेसाकर्मीहरू, समाजका विभिन्न ओहदा र पेसा व्यवसायमा संलग्नलगायत आमनेपालीलाई चोर र बलात्कारीकै दर्जामा राख्नुभएको हो ?
सो अखबारले तिमी सर्वनाम प्रयोग गर्नुको सार्वजनिक बयान पनि त्यही रजत यात्राकै ‘कान्तिपुरको तिमी’ शीर्षकको आधा पेज लामो लेखमा छ, ‘वर्ग–विभेद आदरार्थीमार्फत भेदभाव गरिरहेका रहेछौँ ।अनि सम्बोधनमा रहेको भेदभाव हटाउने निचोडमा पुग्यौैँ ।’ सामन्ती चेतलाई क्रान्तिकारी लेपन लगाउँदालगाउँदै पनि यसरी नेपाली पत्रकारितामा डोकाले छोपेको ‘बिरालो म्याउँ’ गरिहाल्छ । आफ्नो मालिकलाई चाहिँ नेपालकै सर्वोच्च व्यक्ति ठानेर ‘सर’ र ‘तपाईं’ नै सम्बोधन गर्नुपर्ने ! बाँकी सारालाई ‘तिमी’ । मित्रहरू ‘तिमी’ लेख्ने होडबाजीले सामन्ती संस्कारको जुवामा थाहै नपाई हामी आफैँ पो नारिइसकेका छौँ त ।
जहाँसम्म सबैलाई समान रूपले सम्बोधान गरेको भन्ने कान्तिपुरलगायत मिडियामा कार्यरत तपाईं पत्रकारको तर्क छ, त्यसमा मेरो जिकिर छ ‘तिमी’ शब्द नै किन रोज्नुभयो ? यो सर्वनाम प्रयोगमा ल्याएर के गर्न खोजेको भन्ने प्रश्नको उत्तर तपाईंसँग छ ? सबैलाई समान सम्बोधन गर्न ‘तँ’ सर्वनाम पनि रोज्न सक्नुहुन्थ्यो र ‘तपाईं’ सर्वनाम पनि । तपाईंले ‘तँ’ सर्वनाम किन रोज्नुभएन त्यो तपाईंलाई नै थाहा होला तर तपाईंहरूले ‘तपाईं’ सर्वनाम रोज्न नसक्नुको विशेष कारणचाहिँ मलाई थाहा छ । किसान, मजदुर, दलित, महिला र सर्वसाधारणलाई ‘तपाईं’ शब्दले सम्बोधन गर्न नदिने मुख्य तŒव तपाईं पत्रकार र कर्पाेरेट मिडियाका मालिकभित्र जमेर बसेको सामन्ती वंशाणुगत चेत हो । राष्ट्रपति, प्रधानमन्त्री तथा विभिन्न ओहदामा बसेका व्यक्तिलाई ‘तिमी’ भन्न सुरिने च्याँखे क्रान्तिकारी आडम्बर । दम्भ अनायासै हामी पत्रकारमा पलायो र समानताको जामा पहि¥याई नेपाली सामाजिक अपेक्षा र सार्वजनिक मर्यादाभन्दा निकै तल गिरेर मालिकले लगानी गरेका सञ्चारमाध्यमले प्रयोग गर्नलाई सर्वनाम रोजेको हो– ‘तिमी’ ।
‘तिमी’ को वकालत गर्ने पत्रकार मित्रहरू ! म तपाईंलाई चुनौती दिन्छु– के सार्वजनिक रूपमा भन्न सक्नुहुन्छ– ‘मिडिया मालिक र पत्रकारसिवाय सबै व्यर्थका मानिस हुन् । यिनीहरूलाई हामी आफ्नो निगाहका आधारमा मनखुसी सम्बोधन गर्न पाउँछौँ ।’ होइन भने राजतन्त्र कायमै रहेकाबेलामा राजसंस्थाले दुईपक्षीय भेटमा प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई सम्बोधन गर्दासमेत अस्वीकार्य ठानिएको ‘तिमी’ सर्वनाम आज सञ्चारमाध्यमले औपचारिक रूपमा पटक–पटक लेख्दा वा बोल्दाचाहिँ कसरी मान्य र क्रान्तिकारी हुन्छ ? एकपल्ट आफैँतिर फर्केर हेर्नुहोस् । सञ्चारमाध्यमका मालिकलाई गणतन्त्रका राजा, महाराजा बनाएर हामी पत्रकार गणतन्त्रका भाइभारदार बन्ने दुस्साहस त गरिरहेका छैनौँ ? अरू ओहदा, पेसा, वर्ग, समुदायमाथि हैकम र प्रभुत्व लाद्न त उद्यत छैनौँ ?
पत्रकारको स्वतन्त्रता भनेको अरूको स्वतन्त्रतालाई मुखरित गर्ने सूत्राधार बन्नलाई हो, उनीहरूको मानमर्दन गर्नलाई होइन । अरूका अधिकार र सम्मानको रक्षा गर्नु पत्रकारका लागि अगाडि बढ्दै जाने सिँढी होे । जसको अधिकार र सम्मानको रक्षा गर्नुपर्ने हो, जुन आमजनता (पाठक, दर्शक वा श्रोता) सञ्चारमाध्यमका लागि भगवान् हुन्, तिनैसँग पौँठेजोरी खेल्न थाल्छौँ, तिनैलाई अपमान गर्छौं भने राम्ररी बुझे हुन्छ, यो एकोहोरो शङ्ख फुकाइ हो । हामी पेसागत आर्यघाटको नजिक पुगिसकेका छौँ । जिम्मेवार पेसाकर्मीका नाताले हामीले आवारा अभिव्यक्ति होइन, सार्थक जवाफ र समाधान खोज्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । सच्चा र प्रतिबद्ध पेसाकर्मीका लागि गल्ती–कमजोरी सच्याउनु पनि एउटा आनन्ददायी क्षण बन्न सक्नुपर्छ ।
पत्रकार मित्रहरू ! तपाईंहरूसँग जोरी खोज्नु मेरो काम थिएन । तर, पेसाप्रतिको निष्ठाले गर्दा यसो गर्नैपर्ने सन्दर्भ आयो । बाँकी कुरा भेटघाटका बेलामा नै गरौँला । अहिलेलाई यति नै ।
तपाईंको उही सहकर्मी मित्र ।
(वरिष्ठ पत्रकार मैनालीको हालै प्रकाशित लेखको सम्पादित अंश ।) –सम्पादक

Media deserve talk. In modern democratic dialogue, it has been customary to frequently debate over media quality, performance and related issues. Media freedom, media diversity and media equality are closely related terms in vogue. These three elements, when enhanced, add to the strength and quality of one another; they become the cornerstones not only of advanced media performance but also of a full-fledged democracy. As integral elements, they identify a democratic society in its true form. However, misunderstanding these elements will result in their misuse, with dire consequences beyond measurement.

Relative perceptions of media freedom, media diversity and media equality are natural as meaning construction itself is a social process of transactional relations for the optimal co-existence among stakeholders. Freedom, diversity and equality in media spheres reciprocally influence ever upgradable processes. They should not be understood in an absolutist sense. To whatever extent possible, Nepal would do better by adhering to the principles of freedom, diversity and equality in media actions. Working to develop a working culture of these principles would do much justice to the ideals of Nepal’s federalism and advanced democracy with republican spirit. While anomalies and irregularities are being reported in the process of applying the constitutional provisions of federal democratic republic in the country, media could be instrumental to monitoring and highlighting power stakeholders’ strengths and weaknesses not with a monolithic mindset but with an inclusive spirit.

Question of conscience 

Media freedom, as officially demonstrated, is the right of media and journalists to obtain information on behalf of people. A conventional way of understanding media freedom is related to legal provisions that state to what extent media and journalists can act autonomously as media and communication entities. Since this is something concerned with legal criteria, this understanding of media freedom involves a restrictive sense. However, debate has to move beyond it as far as practically utilizing media freedom is concerned. In a broader sense, media freedom is a morally guiding tool for both media institutions and their communication professionals to utilize media knowledge and skills for wisely gathering and reporting issues and events that matter to people. Doing good for public wellbeing is more a matter of self-conscience than that of legal definitions that predetermine things. Media does good to people in the sense that it helps them to take wise decisions. This argument does not mean that legal provisions are to be undermined. Legal provisions exist there for the primary reason of a possible need to curb evil intentions that may infiltrate into freedom exercises in any form to harm public interests for vested ones. The point here is to understand media freedom as an issue of developing and utilizing maximum wisdom to produce the best information possible for public wellbeing, de-energizing intentions and activities that harm people. Media freedom should be more an opportunity to do the best and most than a precautionary issue of do’s and don’ts.

In a deeper sense, it takes media vision to see media freedom. It takes sharper self-conscientiousness to utilize more media freedom. Nepal needs to come out of the seven-decade parrotism and to feel freedom, which must be above partisan ceilings that cultivate development-hindering prejudices.

Moreover, moral conscientiousness mobilizes media minds to use freedom to explore the unexplored and to tell the untold. Exposing ground realities as empirical information becomes the pursuit of media freedom, while liberating masses from misperceptions and misguidance. In essence, moral self-conscientiousness is the best device with which to perceive and cultivate media freedom. Nevertheless, it is natural for us to heed legally defined means of media freedom when stakeholders, especially the political ones, try to quench their own thirsts.

While Nepal has a large number of media outlets, with content and ethical debility, the notion of media freedom as moral self-conscientiousness is the need of the day. Deeper thematic and perceptive insight, with broader vision and higher goals and values, is what could make a big difference. With media freedom as self-conscientiousness in practice, those making attempts to hijack democratic media freedom under different pretexts are defeated in-depth.

Indeed, media’s power-monitoring role deserves insight-building through conscience and wisdom. This can be a way of reducing superficiality resulting out of invisible psychological prejudices. Utilizing media freedom self-conscientiously and without self-censorship may sporadically cause some unintentional mistakes. However, an attempt to imprison the entire media sector as a long-lasting solution in the name of barring sporadically occurring unintentional errors is not the right of addressing the problems from a democratic perspective.

Diversity matters 

The nature is characterized by diversity. Different elements within it are functional. Conflict, the situation of differences, exists in the nature. However, human beings, with their narrower visions and craving mindset, conflagrate conflicts into violence that ultimately harms all. Since unity amidst diversity has been a common goal of our society, it is natural for media sector to have perceived diversity as one of its vital functional elements.

Media sector could address diversity to cultivate and promote social justice for an inclusive and harmonious society, enriching and productivizing democracy in an ultimate sense. Thus, paying media attention to diversity denotes a conscious effort to consolidate and harmoniously unify the country, minimizing all kinds of latent and patent attempts at negativizing socio-cultural differences for vested interests. Social space for media to address diversity is adequate due to the existing social inequalities and community needs.

Media diversity involves the perception of democracy being the prime tool to utilize diverse socio-cultural aspects of society as an unlimited capacity-generating source for development and productivity. Media diversity mainly consists of politico-economic and socio-cultural heterogeneities, with media representation of diversity in contents, human resources and institutional aspects. Impact of media diversity can be seen in the nurturing of social, opinion and source diversity, widening the spectrum for higher democratic exercises.

Media equality 

Difference is the law of nature. Diversity means a series of inequalities. Yet we talk of equality in every sector, including media. Why? The question of media equality is to bring media mindset into a logical professional framework so as to address the issues of media freedom and diversity in a more reasonable and democratic way. Media equality is a principle of social justice to be fairly and independently represented by media sector. It raises the issue of reasonable proportionality of political and socio-economic representation based on the degree of public significance. Related to the responsibility of creating a public sense of fair representation and human dignity, any amount of possible exercise of media equality can impart a feeling of democracy, especially with the country’s deprived section enjoying greater access to freedom of expression and opinion through media outlets.

In a nutshell, media freedom, media diversity and media equality are cousins of democracy. They deserve promotion.

The author is a freelance media researcher with academic specialization in Mass Communication and Journalism