Like the political, constitutional, industrial and social structures of the country, the media sector also needs a deep review, introspection and reform. The flood of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ has made the sensitive role of credible, responsible and accountable journalism even more necessary. In this context, Kantipur has started a series of debates to give special place to criticism, critique, review and suggestions. We look forward to the participation of stakeholders and experts in an objective and responsible debate.

Journalism is not a profession free from greed. However, the way journalism is becoming criticized is not normal. And, it is impossible to find a solution without finding out the reason for this. 

Why is journalism itself being questioned about the activities of the state? Isn't it because journalism has forgotten to question those in power and governance that journalists and the press are being questioned? Here I will discuss the growing public criticism of journalism, its economic-political dimensions, and possible steps to reduce criticism.

In a democracy, no person, institution, or profession is above question. If such a situation exists, there is no democracy. Journalism is considered the pillar of democracy, that is, the fourth organ of the state. Journalism has been given this honor because it questions the activities of other organs of the state and plays a role in holding those in power and authority accountable.

Therefore, questions and praise about journalists who warn about the activities of others and journalism are both common issues. Praise encourages better work, while criticism helps correct weaknesses.

However, criticism of journalism is increasing all over the world. According to last year's Gallup survey, only about 31 percent of Americans said they had trust in journalism, the lowest in history. 36 percent said they had "no trust" in journalism.

Such surveys are rare in Nepal. The latest survey by the Sharecast Initiative showed that public trust in the media in Nepal is relatively higher than in other institutions (about 57.5 percent), but the results of the survey have not gone unquestioned.

Journalists and the journalism sector are currently under physical attack, ranging from general criticism to psychological ones. Media organizations were also attacked in the destruction of Bhadra 24, while most of the issues of corruption and good governance raised by young protesters were exposed by journalism.

Not only has the number of 'trolls' targeting journalists on social media increased - politicians, interest groups, the state and the general public have increased their criticism of journalism. The role of journalists or the weakness of journalism in promoting government instability, rumors and public discontent is being considered. An impartial debate is needed on how much of a role the press world plays in this.

Why is criticism increasing?

There are many dimensions and reasons for the increasing criticism of journalism. Many of them are under the control of journalists and the journalism profession, while many are outside its control. And, they are inextricably linked. The global trend of right-wing and populism has also played a role in this. However, for the sake of convenience, it will be discussed here in three parts. They are, the problem of content, the partisanship of journalism, and the economic and technological impact.

Content, or 'content'-related questions 

Criticism of journalism is increasing on the basis of content. To understand the reality of this, it is first necessary to understand how the 'content' of journalism is changing. Information technology is changing all types of journalism, whether traditional or digital. Technology has made the traditional concepts of 'time and space' (time and space) secondary in journalism. Like

, in traditional newspaper journalism, news came every day. Only a limited amount of content could be published, because space was limited. Now all media is available online. Journalism has become an instant profession. Readers, listeners or viewers scattered around the world are available for ‘content’ at any time. They need a new dose every now and then.

Not only journalism, but the entire ‘information ecosystem’ is dependent on the attention of potential readers, viewers or listeners. Since their business depends on ‘attention’, ‘attention manipulation’ has flourished to divert people’s attention. In other words, this can also be understood as the ‘clickbait’ trend. Such a trend has created a post-truth situation, where readers, listeners or viewers get confused by facts and false information. Algorithms promote that information, which has more of the characteristic of going viral than the truth.

There is a saying in journalism – be first as much as possible, but not second. That is, whoever ‘breaks’ the news first, finds more readers, listeners, and viewers. This rush is even more intense on news portals, because they have to compete with social media. Newspapers, radio, and television are tired of this race. The rush to ‘break’ the news has made many news and content incomplete, misleading, and false, which has weakened public trust in the entire media world.

In this mess, the structural problems of the media have been added. As social media has taken away advertising, the press world is facing financial shortages, so investment in manpower, technology, and overall ‘content’ in the newsroom has dried up. There is unhealthy competition among media for limited advertising.

Many private media are struggling to get regular salaries. Programs like timely training and orientation for journalists are becoming rare. When journalists have to struggle even for minimum wages, it is natural that there will be a shortage of investigative, compelling and critical content.

Unless journalists themselves are financially independent, their pens cannot be empowered. On the contrary, journalists are at risk of falling into various compromises and temptations. If we examine the financial health of the media, it seems that whatever the Nepali press is doing should be considered 'gain'. However, if we analyze it on the basis of 'content', the questions that are being raised about journalism should be considered very minimal. Therefore, while debating the issue of Nepali journalism, its financial condition cannot be forgotten.

The presence of journalists in the newsroom has been dwindling in recent times. Mature and experienced journalists have either left on their own due to changing technology and workload, or the media houses have given them various 'schemes'. If we leave aside the exceptions, the priority of the media is new entrants and apprentices, so that the media can be run with limited expenses.

In that case, the media has started to confuse events and information in the name of news. News has been decided on the basis of speeches, press releases, statements or network posts, which have overshadowed the current issues. 

For example, the Gen-G rebels did not want a change in the system, but rather sought a change in political leadership, programs, working style, good governance and opportunities within the country. However, in the light of that rebellion, the party name, leadership, flag, election symbol, office or in the maze of reunion is being beaten by the sting of change. The media has also promoted such a romantic phenomenon to the fullest, as if this is the main agenda of the day.

Nepali journalism had been complaining for a long time that they had to bear the brunt of ‘false and sensational information on social networks like YouTube and Facebook’. Nowadays, many established journalists have migrated to YouTube and the network. The boundary between the network and the press is gradually becoming blurred. Now many journalists and media outlets are influenced by the sensational style of social media, from which the 'dolerekheti' called 'revenue sharing' is flourishing.

The educational and academic aspects of journalism cannot be forgotten in the weakness of 'content'. Our teaching culture, study/research and the overall educational landscape are becoming weak. The curriculum is not updated according to the times. The same or similar people dominate in the creation and teaching of curricula from secondary level to doctoral level. Some professors themselves are not 'updated' in their subjects. Let alone private colleges, even the emphasis of universities is not very visible in study, research and knowledge creation. The overall effect of this is reflected in our weak critical awareness, understanding and practice of journalism.

The flood of content has also weakened the 'focus' of journalists and media. We have so many events and topics that it is not even possible to 'follow up'. As every media outlet chases after every incident, there is a drought of complicated issues and investigative material, and there is no diversity in the content. Therefore, only when the media pursues a specific issue can some resources be available, and there can be diversity in the content of the news.

The aforementioned trend has weakened the ‘content’ in journalism, and errors are recurring. Journalists and the journalism profession have reached a defensive state. Journalists themselves are fact-checkers, but there is a situation where they have to fact-check their own content. However, if criticism has increased on the basis of the content or ‘content’, it should be taken positively. Because this shows that the reader’s interest and expectations towards the media are still intact.

Partyization of Journalism

Ideological leanings and partisanship have been institutionalized in journalism in Nepal. 9,340 members of the Federation of Journalists are affiliated with various parties and their trade unions. With the exception of exceptions, it is difficult for them to have a critical view on the policies, principles, and behavior of the party or leader to which they are affiliated. As the political network/branches of journalists have spread, the questions of journalists have become weak, and the content of the media has also become dull.

Aristotle says that man is a ‘political animal’, because man has social qualities including speech and moral conscience. Since man himself is a political animal, the question may arise as to how journalists can distance themselves from this. However, having political awareness does not mean that ‘journalists should be affiliated with a party’.

Journalists who are caught in the partisan yoke often argue, ‘We enter the newsroom with the shoes of thought and argument taken off outside the door.’ However, thought or argument is not on the feet, which can be easily removed like shoes. It is in the mind, now how can one work in the newsroom by keeping the mind outside?

Ideological inclinations are reflected in the words and voice of journalists, even if it may not be intended. In principle, in journalism, news should play the role of ‘gatekeepers’ in this. But, how can the news desk or editorial leadership itself remain separate from ideological leanings? Again, in the race of digital journalism, the practice of ‘breaking’ or ‘live’ news is weakening ‘gatekeeping’ itself.

Journalists are also pressured by awards, honors, and favors from parties and ideological, cultural, and economic mechanisms close to them. Awards and honors are also effective public relations strategies that discourage critical journalism.

In addition, excessive coverage of parties, their leadership, and political issues in journalism has drowned out the voices of the voiceless and complicated issues. Although issues such as inflation, corruption, food quality, and access to health and education for the lower classes are occasionally raised in the media, there has been no practice of establishing or getting them to be included as agenda items.

As journalism has become biased towards parties, the distance between journalism and the public is widening. Parties and their leaders are communicating with the media more than with the citizens, and the media is also promoting the speeches of the leaders and party politics more than with the issues of the common people and the rural areas. As public trust in parties has declined, the media, especially the youth, is becoming increasingly hostile. The decades-long standoff between parties and media workers is fundamentally responsible for this.

If the economic and political history of Nepal over the past two decades is written in the future, the weak presence of contemporary journalism will also be forcefully mentioned. Because, despite the presence of thousands of media and media workers, they failed to question and hold accountable those in power and authority. This is not only a failure of Nepali politics, but also a failure of journalism.

Economic and technological impact

It was mentioned above that the economic health of the media has deteriorated and ‘content’ has been affected due to information technology. Here, in particular, the excessive number of media, investment opacity, advertising drought, and the weak distribution system of ‘content’ with the media will be discussed.

According to the Press Council Nepal, there are more than ten thousand registered media outlets across the country, although most are not regular and operational. In many of those that are operational, the investors and sources of investment are not clear. Political parties and leaders, businessmen, middlemen and interest groups are like an 'open secret' connected to the operation of the media. 

For example, the issue of who, where and how invested in Gorkha Media was not clear until the investigation report of the parliamentary committee formed on the cooperative problem was made public. Whether the investment was legal or not is being judicially examined. In some cases, since the investor and editor are from the same or the same family, it seems that it is difficult to keep both economic interests and editorial independence alive.

Also, the advertising market has 'crashed' due to weak industrial production in the country. The limited government advertising has also gone mostly to government media. The rest are being raided by employees and middlemen. The remaining advertisements have been snatched away by global technology companies such as Meta, Google and ByteDance (TikTok).

Even today, the news media has a key role and future in ‘content’ production. However, it has been swallowed up by algorithm-driven social networks in ‘content’ distribution and advertising. Again, Nepali journalism is already seeing a flood of news that has already started to drift towards social networks. 

The ‘views-based’ (based on the number of viewers) business model of the media also seems to be responsible for this. In particular, the practice of online news ‘subscription’ is not very common. Some media, including ‘Naya Patrika’ and ‘Setopati’, have not tried. However, few Nepalis, who are used to consuming information casually, have shown the desire to pay for online news and read it.

The media’s interest also seems to be focused on grabbing the attention of the audience by making headlines about ordinary topics. Multiple headlines are woven online for the same event or speech, which has tarnished the essence and reputation of journalism. If journalism were to move towards a commercial model based on ‘subscription’ sooner or later, ‘clickbait’-inspired headline-making would gradually be discouraged.

It is strange that the media is surviving in such a situation. Some are dragging their feet while enduring losses, but some organizations are thriving even without advertising. This also raises suspicions that their financial source is not advertising or ‘subscription’ but ‘content’. Therefore, while debating journalism, the aspects of media-economy and investment-transparency cannot be separated.

The way forward 

An impartial, transparent and fearless media is the minimum condition of democracy. This condition will be fulfilled only if the credibility, integrity and public trust in journalists and journalism can be restored. The blame cannot be shifted to others, but rather, if we move forward with serious self-examination and leave behind the weaknesses and failures of the past, that trust can be earned 

There are some immediate measures to protect the reputation and integrity of journalism and some that can be gradually assimilated. For this, first of all, the flood of ‘content’ in journalism requires a review and change. Newsrooms must promote quality over quantity when it comes to ‘content’, even if it means losing listeners and advertising at first! The media must follow the issue, and the voice of the people must be given priority over party 

and speeches of leaders. Also, young and fresh faces must be given priority over those who have failed and ‘tested’ time and again.  Just as old faces in politics have become tiring in the eyes of the people, the minds of readers, listeners and viewers are also tired of the media and media personnel who carry them.

Second, partisanship must be discouraged in all respects. It is not easy for those who have been associated with parties for decades to become independent together. However, partisanship can be discouraged from the moment journalists are hired to their responsibilities. A condition can be made that journalists declare that they have renounced party affiliation before entering the newsroom. In addition, media content should become a subject of public interest and comment. The media should also start the practice of making news and commenting honestly on each other's content. The conscious and intellectual class, civil society, and the general reader should constantly be vigilant in this regard. 

When journalists are given political responsibilities, there should be public interest and discussion on their previous roles or content. Isn't it possible that they have obtained that responsibility by using journalism? Not only in the newsroom, but also in all the structures that have been set up to address the weaknesses and issues in the journalism sector, including the Press Council Nepal, the Federation of Nepali Journalists, and various trade unions, the practice of making appointments based on party affiliation should be stopped.

Third, the 'subscription' or advertisement-based 'revenue' model that Nepali journalism has been adopting since the past should be reviewed. Online news portals are unlikely to move to a 'subscription' model sooner or later. However, such a practice cannot be done by any one organization alone, it requires the participation of many more. Instead, the practice of charging a fee for 'content' but cultivating sensational 'content' solely for the purpose of attracting viewers must be discouraged. Several YouTube channels registered as online televisions have adopted this style to cultivate views. The Press Council and responsible media themselves should take a fair debate on this and, if necessary, take regulatory steps.

'Crowd funding', digital 'subscription', and audience investment may be possible options for diversity in the 'revenue' model. The most effective solution is to arrange for the media to have a share of the advertising fees received for sharing content with technology companies. However, Nepal cannot do this alone.

However, journalism does not survive by diversifying the 'revenue' model. It is equally important to review the subject matter, i.e. 'content'. For that, content that is separate, detailed, and with different angles from the information and content that is already scattered in the network and cyber world must be presented, so that potential readers, viewers, or listeners cannot ignore it. For this, skilled and experienced journalists and cost cutting are not needed, but rather. Along with

, it is necessary for journalism academics and training institutions to teach timely knowledge and skills. Now, journalists will not only need to know how to write or speak, they will also have to learn how to take photos and videos, edit them, and use AI.

Investors also need a certain degree of psychological flexibility. At least they should be able to understand and explain that money does not become overnight in journalism like the stock market or Khasa trading. It is better for those who cannot be patient not to invest in the media. Instead, if they can keep the idea that journalism is a 'good deed carried out for the public good' despite the financial investment, journalism will be saved. Trying to make journalism only profitable puts pressure on the newsroom and content.