A well-respected and prominent Bhutanese journalist who has a large following in Bhutan recently posted on his Facebook wall : "Bhutan one day could be crippled by political corruption which is why the institution of Monarchy is so important for the long term stability and the continued existence of Bhutan."
In Bhutan - where the Kings have been loved/are loved, where the institution of monarchy is highly respected because of all five King's who have placed the interest and the welfare of the country and people before themselves for as long as a 100 years - a statement like this seems fair and taken at face value it is well meaning.
It, however, takes much more to see through such a statement; especially when it is coming from a journalist who has built his reputation with great investigative pieces that have exposed large scale corruption leading him to become extremely popular and held in high regard by the common people.
While in all fairness the journalist has a right to make any ambiguous statements he wants, I sought more clarification because I really wanted to know if there was more to what he meant with this statement. Was he : i) asking that Bhutan eventually return to being a monarchy ii) that the monarchy have more say in the present system or iii) that the institution of monarchy which is a constitutional monarch, continue to remain this way?
Again, let me reiterate, taken at face value it is a fair statement in that the Institution of Monarchy is important and does provide the checks and balances to a democratic system. However, we need to strike the right balance and Bhutan - as of now - does have that, and I wanted to be clear that that was what he was implying.
Following up to the post, he explained himself by saying that i) Bhutan really didn't want democracy in the first place when the elections were first held in 2008, thereby indicating that democracy is/was really not what Bhutanese people wanted (or need?) ii) That there was a real danger that we could be crippled by political corruption because this is what has happened to most developing countries ending up like Nepal or some countries in Africa and iii) because "there is no democracy if the same democracy uses it to hound its critics, create new oligarchies and greatly increase corruption and abuse of power at a staggering pace."
But the use of the word "Oligarchies" or to imply that Bhutan has "Oligarchies" is not only a hyperbole but also painting a false picture of the ground situation. An "Oligarchy" in the true sense of the word are power structures that countries like Russia or Nepal have, where opposition members, or those who oppose the ruling class or powerful few disappear, are imprisoned, or even worse gunned down in cold blood.
In my opinion it is dangerous then that a journalist who is held in such high esteem; whose word is taken for its worth by the common people, would mis-lead them in to thinking that this may be the situation in Bhutan.
I also think that anyone who thinks that they are praising the institution of monarchy by saying that Bhutan did not want democracy is actually undermining the confidence and trust the Fourth King placed in his people by giving up his powers as King. There were reasons why the King stepped down of his own volition and paved the way for Democracy in Bhutan. His country had to make a start somewhere and he made those sacrifices that few, very few, leaders in this world make/have made.
So for a country and its people that were handed down these freedoms on a silver platter; freedoms that we did not have to shed blood over; freedoms that were essentially spoon-fed slowly to us until we were strong to stand on our feet (and seek it ourselves); one has to wonder then as to why a journalist who has built his reputation on these very freedoms would so easily dismiss the democracy that was founded from it.
I should say that this journalist has actually earned his respect and renown for the work he has done. He has also stood up to authority, having supposedly even stormed out from one of the press conferences held by the current Prime Minister who is said to use these sessions to scold the journalists.
But as a journalist I think we have to be a little objective here. I come from a period in time in Bhutan's media history where the paper was scoured from top to Bhutan by officials before it went to print. So for journalists who took to their keyboards after press freedom it may be hard to understand if I say that I would take a scolding session any day over having to send my whole paper up for approval before it went to print.
To be fair let me also say that I do not know what threats or restrictions that some journalists may have received from officials for their stories, hence making them vent (albeit sometimes by exaggerating the situation). I don't know if these threats have amounted to them losing their jobs, making their lives extremely difficult, or think of imprisonment? But I do know that so far no journalist in Bhutan has been harmed or gone to prison.
At a time when we had no democracy (in the mid 90's) and no press freedom, I was demeaned at a public gathering and threatened with imprisonment by a very high ranking person in Bhutanese society for a report I had done exposing how that person's company had defied a National Assembly legislation. Many were surprised because it was perhaps the first report that targeted someone so high up and that I had actually managed to get that story in print. They were also surprised that nothing happened; that I didn't go to prison.
Maybe if I had written that story a decade earlier, I probably could have suffered such a consequence, or even better my story would never have seen the light of day. But times were changing and behind the scenes a King was preparing for bigger changes and had greater designs for his country and people. This little incident was nothing. People in positions of power were going to see worse.
2008 came, Bhutan is now a democracy, one still in its infancy. The system (democracy) is not perfect nor will it ever be or have there been; it is a continuous struggle to make it one. Some in Bhutan, however, feel that it is not getting any better. But in the eyes of others it is not so bad comparing it to other democracies, the desired changes don't come/happen overnight. (Be prepared for the trials and tribulations of a democracy, if anything journalists should be the first to know.) The Prime Minister has said that with the lack of a larger opposition in parliament the media has assumed that role keeping the checks and balances on the government. And surely enough the media has assumed that role. Some are doing a good job of making a critical analysis of the governments performance and exposing corruption by high ranking officials, while others less so.
But it is also clearly evident that the media has also become increasingly irresponsible. Political partisanship has seeped into their reporting, the quality of the use of the English language has deteriorated, facts are checkered, and the whining and complaining never ceases to stop. But that being said, the government may also have done things that have indirectly gagged the media and denied the full freedoms that we claim to have - otherwise why the complaints? For example the only Television Station that had proposed to have an act passed by parliament to have editorial independence and gain public broadcasting status was quietly shelved and strangely the print media has not followed up on it.
There have also been telephone calls made by certain officials asking certain papers/journalists to refrain from writing certain stories. And there was also an alleged rumour that a Minister called one newspaper for the removal of a woman journalist.
What is playing out on the media landscape in Bhutan is something that would make for an interesting study. The Bhutanese media, while doing a good job of keeping the people informed and tackling corruption, is also in some ways beginning to function like any government bureaucracy. Apart from a few, many don't seem to want to risk what many journalists around the world would in their quest for truth. Sadly, having just emerged from a culture where the "Royal Government of Bhutan" did everything for its people, it looks like we are still waiting to be spoon-fed. Or take for instance the other example where some media houses called upon the government to restrict issuance of licenses to new applicants in print media because they didn't want to share the advertising revenue. In no place in the world would the media, who believes in freedom of speech and expression, call for more curtails from the government (with selfish self-interests) as the Bhutanese media people have done.
In our naiveté, we Bhutanese people seem to have no idea how people all around the world have struggled for their freedoms wrested from the hands of their rulers with revolutions, wars, and bloodshed to arrive at systems determined by the people. In Bhutan, we have been blessed to have a King who consciously made that decision and worked hard through the decades to give that to his people. If some think they are praising our Kings with their rather pessimistic views of the democracy that has been given us, I think otherwise - even if I may be one of the very few. I think it undermines the visions of the Fourth King and our other Monarchs if we keep asking to be spoon-fed all over again and not take upon ourselves the responsibility of building upon what was painstakingly laid out for us.
In Bhutan - where the Kings have been loved/are loved, where the institution of monarchy is highly respected because of all five King's who have placed the interest and the welfare of the country and people before themselves for as long as a 100 years - a statement like this seems fair and taken at face value it is well meaning.
It, however, takes much more to see through such a statement; especially when it is coming from a journalist who has built his reputation with great investigative pieces that have exposed large scale corruption leading him to become extremely popular and held in high regard by the common people.
While in all fairness the journalist has a right to make any ambiguous statements he wants, I sought more clarification because I really wanted to know if there was more to what he meant with this statement. Was he : i) asking that Bhutan eventually return to being a monarchy ii) that the monarchy have more say in the present system or iii) that the institution of monarchy which is a constitutional monarch, continue to remain this way?
Again, let me reiterate, taken at face value it is a fair statement in that the Institution of Monarchy is important and does provide the checks and balances to a democratic system. However, we need to strike the right balance and Bhutan - as of now - does have that, and I wanted to be clear that that was what he was implying.
Following up to the post, he explained himself by saying that i) Bhutan really didn't want democracy in the first place when the elections were first held in 2008, thereby indicating that democracy is/was really not what Bhutanese people wanted (or need?) ii) That there was a real danger that we could be crippled by political corruption because this is what has happened to most developing countries ending up like Nepal or some countries in Africa and iii) because "there is no democracy if the same democracy uses it to hound its critics, create new oligarchies and greatly increase corruption and abuse of power at a staggering pace."
But the use of the word "Oligarchies" or to imply that Bhutan has "Oligarchies" is not only a hyperbole but also painting a false picture of the ground situation. An "Oligarchy" in the true sense of the word are power structures that countries like Russia or Nepal have, where opposition members, or those who oppose the ruling class or powerful few disappear, are imprisoned, or even worse gunned down in cold blood.
In my opinion it is dangerous then that a journalist who is held in such high esteem; whose word is taken for its worth by the common people, would mis-lead them in to thinking that this may be the situation in Bhutan.
I also think that anyone who thinks that they are praising the institution of monarchy by saying that Bhutan did not want democracy is actually undermining the confidence and trust the Fourth King placed in his people by giving up his powers as King. There were reasons why the King stepped down of his own volition and paved the way for Democracy in Bhutan. His country had to make a start somewhere and he made those sacrifices that few, very few, leaders in this world make/have made.
So for a country and its people that were handed down these freedoms on a silver platter; freedoms that we did not have to shed blood over; freedoms that were essentially spoon-fed slowly to us until we were strong to stand on our feet (and seek it ourselves); one has to wonder then as to why a journalist who has built his reputation on these very freedoms would so easily dismiss the democracy that was founded from it.
I should say that this journalist has actually earned his respect and renown for the work he has done. He has also stood up to authority, having supposedly even stormed out from one of the press conferences held by the current Prime Minister who is said to use these sessions to scold the journalists.
But as a journalist I think we have to be a little objective here. I come from a period in time in Bhutan's media history where the paper was scoured from top to Bhutan by officials before it went to print. So for journalists who took to their keyboards after press freedom it may be hard to understand if I say that I would take a scolding session any day over having to send my whole paper up for approval before it went to print.
To be fair let me also say that I do not know what threats or restrictions that some journalists may have received from officials for their stories, hence making them vent (albeit sometimes by exaggerating the situation). I don't know if these threats have amounted to them losing their jobs, making their lives extremely difficult, or think of imprisonment? But I do know that so far no journalist in Bhutan has been harmed or gone to prison.
At a time when we had no democracy (in the mid 90's) and no press freedom, I was demeaned at a public gathering and threatened with imprisonment by a very high ranking person in Bhutanese society for a report I had done exposing how that person's company had defied a National Assembly legislation. Many were surprised because it was perhaps the first report that targeted someone so high up and that I had actually managed to get that story in print. They were also surprised that nothing happened; that I didn't go to prison.
Maybe if I had written that story a decade earlier, I probably could have suffered such a consequence, or even better my story would never have seen the light of day. But times were changing and behind the scenes a King was preparing for bigger changes and had greater designs for his country and people. This little incident was nothing. People in positions of power were going to see worse.
2008 came, Bhutan is now a democracy, one still in its infancy. The system (democracy) is not perfect nor will it ever be or have there been; it is a continuous struggle to make it one. Some in Bhutan, however, feel that it is not getting any better. But in the eyes of others it is not so bad comparing it to other democracies, the desired changes don't come/happen overnight. (Be prepared for the trials and tribulations of a democracy, if anything journalists should be the first to know.) The Prime Minister has said that with the lack of a larger opposition in parliament the media has assumed that role keeping the checks and balances on the government. And surely enough the media has assumed that role. Some are doing a good job of making a critical analysis of the governments performance and exposing corruption by high ranking officials, while others less so.
But it is also clearly evident that the media has also become increasingly irresponsible. Political partisanship has seeped into their reporting, the quality of the use of the English language has deteriorated, facts are checkered, and the whining and complaining never ceases to stop. But that being said, the government may also have done things that have indirectly gagged the media and denied the full freedoms that we claim to have - otherwise why the complaints? For example the only Television Station that had proposed to have an act passed by parliament to have editorial independence and gain public broadcasting status was quietly shelved and strangely the print media has not followed up on it.
There have also been telephone calls made by certain officials asking certain papers/journalists to refrain from writing certain stories. And there was also an alleged rumour that a Minister called one newspaper for the removal of a woman journalist.
What is playing out on the media landscape in Bhutan is something that would make for an interesting study. The Bhutanese media, while doing a good job of keeping the people informed and tackling corruption, is also in some ways beginning to function like any government bureaucracy. Apart from a few, many don't seem to want to risk what many journalists around the world would in their quest for truth. Sadly, having just emerged from a culture where the "Royal Government of Bhutan" did everything for its people, it looks like we are still waiting to be spoon-fed. Or take for instance the other example where some media houses called upon the government to restrict issuance of licenses to new applicants in print media because they didn't want to share the advertising revenue. In no place in the world would the media, who believes in freedom of speech and expression, call for more curtails from the government (with selfish self-interests) as the Bhutanese media people have done.
In our naiveté, we Bhutanese people seem to have no idea how people all around the world have struggled for their freedoms wrested from the hands of their rulers with revolutions, wars, and bloodshed to arrive at systems determined by the people. In Bhutan, we have been blessed to have a King who consciously made that decision and worked hard through the decades to give that to his people. If some think they are praising our Kings with their rather pessimistic views of the democracy that has been given us, I think otherwise - even if I may be one of the very few. I think it undermines the visions of the Fourth King and our other Monarchs if we keep asking to be spoon-fed all over again and not take upon ourselves the responsibility of building upon what was painstakingly laid out for us.
21 comments:
One rational voice...so refreshing, in the midst of all these half-baked theories and 'vaulted' opinions emerging out of the country from self-proclaimed political and media experts, going to the extent of writing the obituary of democrary in Bhutan...didn't realise Bhutan had a plethora of such experts. Wonder then why the state of Bhutanese media is in such a sorry state!!!
Very critical and professional piece...keep going, pal!!
Hi Sonam,
Nice one, although I do not agree with you on a number of issues. But we will discuss that when you get here.
Until a couple of weeks back, I had said that some journalists were immature and, like you have understood, irresponsible. But now it is my understanding that the problem is even grimmer than I had thought. Some journalists are dangerous and a threat to the country. Unfortunately, the DPT government is so handicapped by their need to be the good two shoes because of their absolute majority in the Parliament that they are unwilling to act. This inaction may turn out to be too costly for the country.
Regarding the media’s request to the government to limit or suspend issue of additional license for print media, I support them. It makes sense - we do not need additional trash. The market cannot support so many print media. Those that are already in the market are suffering. We need the market forces to naturally weed out the most incompetent and the lethargic. Those that are still standing at the end of the day will grow bigger, reach wider, pay better to their employees and put out copies that we can read without having to cringe in embarrassment.
I support the government in assisting the media houses in improving their capability and capacity. The government should help them become more professional. Government should help in building a pool of professionally trained reporters and journalists.
BUT, I am totally against the government succumbing to the unreasonable and self-defeating demand of the media houses that the government’s ad be equally distributed among the media houses. That is the surest way of murdering the spirit of enterprise. It will throttle initiative, creativity and inventiveness among the media houses. To do that would be a disservice to the healthy and responsible growth of the media in Bhutan.
You have touched a very critical point with very valid supporting facts that for sometime I questioned my respect for Tenzing Lamzang (The Name you didn't Name) but I chose to uphold the respect because I think he is just a human who is doing all the dirty jobs alone and could be frustrated at that point when he wrote that obituary like statement of Bhutanese Democracy. Even if he meant that statement he must have enough justifications to convince us because he is one journalist who chose to work for his country and fight corruption like no one has ever done, at the cost of many good relationships.
But by this I am trying to say that Democracy has failed, it can't, it only needs more responsible people to work more.
Very thought provoking piece. Keep writing for Bhutan because you are among a very few who know so much and can make difference.
First @ LP Tashi, thank you for your feedback!
@Yeshey Dorji, thank you for your feedback too ;), however, you are contradicting yourself a little Dasho when you say that you are against the govt succumbing to the unreasonable and self-defeating demand of media houses about equal distribution of ad revenue and then saying that you support restriction of issuing new licenses. And the reason why I say this is because if you want to prevent "throttling initiative and creativity" then you basically have to allow new players/publications into the field. The market/readers will decide who is worth staying and this will weed out the irrelevant, unsellable publications that fill up their pages with spreads of Kim Kardhashian instead of important news about the country.
On advertising revenue too, it is a shame that the media houses opposed what the MOIC proposed. That it should go according to circulation figs of that publication. Restricting licensing (esp for publications) is basically stifling freedom of speech and the right to express. I don't see how restricting/preventing new publications from coming into the field will improve the quality of the media because you are then left with the same people who then became complacent in their work because there is no competition and they are not threatened. Allowing a level playing field will keep them on their toes. Publishing/printing is like any other business. Imagine if grocers suddenly came out and asked the govt to stop issuing licenses because there are too many groceries (in their opinion) and that there is a limited market or that they sell the same stuff? Does it make sense? But I appreciate you posting your comment and truly enjoy having these discussions. When I come next we MUST sit down for a meal to thrash out some of these issues key Dasho (haha)
@ PaSsu, thank you too for your feedback. I hope that this piece is in no way perceived as a personal attack against the journalist. Frankly I have great admiration for his guts to stick his neck out when so few are willing to. However, I just felt that it was all the more important to say what I had to say because of his standing with the common people and how I saw it differently. People who attain that status can be perceived to say or do no wrong (sometimes) and just as we see how others need checks and balances all of us need it too. I also am in full agreement with you that we need to work more on our democracy (esp by journalists) than simply condemn or give up on it.
Dear Sonam,
It is not the same thing.
I support restrictions being put on further issue of print media licence because we already have more than enough of them in the market, to the extent that some of them are on the verge of bankruptcy. I would not support the government if there were a monopolistic situation.
Preventing over supply through curtailment is one of the measures that government can adopt so that the existing businesses do not fail. Failure of businesses impacts lots of people, not just the entrepreneurs. Therefore, government intervention is needed. It is good for the existing businesses and it is good for the misguided new aspirants. It is poor business sense to enter a market that is already over saturated.
The whole purpose and logic behind “licencing” requirement is that it enables “regulation”. I accept that it is the decision of the investor whether to invest in a certain venture of his choice, and up to the readers to decide if he will remain in business but it is not that simple. There are repercussions that go beyond monetary loss.
Hi Dasho. I understand your concerns but the argument can also be made that there are enough of other businesses in the market too. Enough of bars, restaurants etc etc. In fact because it is the media/ print publication, all the more there should be no curtailment - whether there are enough or not; whether they are on the verge of bankruptcy or not (not for us to say but the person/company running the paper/publication) - of such a business because it is about freedom of expression and press and this is what distinguishes it from other businesses. Printing/publishing is Not about making money. Of course it should make enough to keep afloat but at the end of the day, it is IN business to serve a higher purpose/a cause so to speak and that is why it is one business that should not have its license restricted. Restricting it means we do not encourage freedom of press - its simple as that. If we go by that logic we should instead be restricting liquor/bar licenses and many other businesses that I see are harmful to society ?
Kudoos to all,
My folks here share a very good concern for and about the government. I am highly praised by the debate here and I end up supporting the view that Bhutanese Media are lagging the responsibility. In fact, advertising personal life story about what Kim Kardashian did or does is not something that our Children want to learn about. Not just the growing children, but also me and you. It is absurd.
Rolling over to the point about the issue of new license, it is a simple logic to say that the freedom of press and expression is not guaranteed. I say that it is not the government's responsibility to see if a company runs at profit or at loss. What government could actually do is to encourage people to explore new ideas, and not to forget about the accomplishment of creativity and excellence in this small country like Bhutan as expressed by the fifth Druk Gyalpo, shall be one of the key factors for Bhutan to be not ‘spoon-fed’ time and again either from the rule of Monarch or from any ‘alien companies’.
This is an alarming situation for the people of Bhutan but I am positive about the ‘Education for All policy’ that has explored the heights at about 59.5% literacy rate in Bhutan. Now we have over 82% students (boys) receiving scholarship abroad, over 48.7% of the literacy rate in Bhutan are women, and with the possibility of continuing education under the Non-formal Education (herein after NFE) policy that has approximately 13,829 learners in 747 NFE centers within Bhutan, I am positive that Democracy in Bhutan shall uphold Bhutan to a self-reliant and business as usual, Gross National Happiness at its out most stake.
Just one problem is that Democracy should not reach to hands of those who are futile.
This may be a fantasy, but I have a feeling that the ones in this page could make up a good government.(haha)
Keep writing and lets’ educate each other. Happiness for life.
Dear Sonam,
I think you are mixing lemons for oranges.
It is my belief that the media houses have much bigger responsibilities than restaurants and bars. They have a much larger obligation to society than merely being able to dish out palatable phaksha paa. There are a host of other reasons why media houses cannot be compared with those of the bars and restaurants. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to go into the details.
I disagree that imposing restrictions on issue of new licenses is tantamount to suppressing freedom of the press. Please rethink again. My experience is that understanding the absorptive capacity of the market is important so that existing businesses can grow. The government’s responsibility is to the healthy growth of the existing businesses and not to those that are as yet unborn. It is not correct to say that it is entirely the decision of the aspiring investors for the simple reason that their decisions have a direct bearing on the fate of others.
The restrictions can be lifted once the market base expands.
But they are both fruits ;). Aside from that fact, I will say you have a point in that YES, the press has a much bigger responsibility than a restaurant or bar owner but that is not the point. How can you say that stopping issuance of new licenses will make the existing media houses more responsible? Apply that logic to the running of any business (lets call it the responsible kind) here. We can argue all we like but talk to any media person in a thriving democracy and they will tell you that this is how freedom of press/expression is curbed, by imposing restrictions on the right to print/say/express. My point is that this is shocking because it was not something that the government proposed, but the media houses who should instead be fighting for the right of anyone to print/publish/express themselves - no matter what the quality, no matter what it is they might want to say. One of the strongest features of a true democracy is the freedom of press/ speech/to express/to publish.
While I complain about the media, it has to be understood also that these are phases that we will have to go through before we get better. After all its barely been 10 years even since we had freedom of press. And like everything else even after decades, we should be prepared not to have a perfect media situation just as we will not have a perfect democracy either. However, this does not mean we don't strive to make it one. Look at the US, one of the oldest democracies in the world. Do you think that their media situation is perfect? No, but given the freedom it is one of the strongest. And just because the media situation is not idyllic does not mean we deny people the right or the opportunity to do things while saying it is ok for others. Who are we to say it is ok for you to run a business while not others? This is not the principle of what democracies are made of. We may as well say that we do not have democracy then because the very institution that should be fighting for the rights to freedom of press are/were asking for restriction of it. In this situation, it seems that the government has been doing much to encourage freedom of press while those that have the freedom to exercise it are asking for more controls; not for themselves but for others.
How can a market expand if it was restricted to begin with?
Dear Madam Sonam,
I think you are not grasping what I am saying and I think you are confused about the “freedom of the press” in relation to the point you are trying to make. Let me offer you my view.
Suppression of the freedom of press can only apply to instances where the government has disallowed a media house to print what they like – not to the restrictions put on the issue of new media licences.
I do not think Bhutan is behind any other thriving democracies with regard to freedom of expression, freedom to print as they like and say as they like. In fact I would say that our media have been, by your own admission, irresponsible to the extent that they have said things they ought not to have. And, regardless of their irresponsibility, the government has not taken action against them.
We need to make a stand if the government disallows the media to print something that is truthful and accurate and meaningful. By the same token, we also need to make a stand where the media prints something that is incorrect, spiteful and disruptive.
The restriction requested for by the existing media houses, in my opinion, is good because frankly, there are too many of them, way beyond what the market cannot support. In fact, it is my belief that they should be halved from the present strength. Here again please do not be confused that in asking for the halving of the number of media houses, I am supporting the idea of suppressing their freedom. I am not.
In my view, where it is not possible to cancel existing licences on the grounds that there are too many of them, the next best thing is to suspend issue of new licences.
You have also misunderstood my “The restrictions can be lifted once the market base expands”. By this, what I am saying is that the government can resume the issue of more licences once the market becomes larger, once more demand is generated through expansion of economic and other activities, through increase in the number of readers, through increase in advertising needs etc.
The meaning of freedom of press:
freedom of the press
noun
the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0840079.html
Encyclopedia
press, freedom of the
press, freedom of the, liberty to print or to otherwise disseminate information, as in print, by broadcasting, or through electronic media, without prior restraints such as licensing requirements or content review and without subsequent punishment for what is said. Freedom of the press, which has been limited not only by governments but at times by churches, is absolute in no country. In modern democracies it is rarely attacked by overt forms of censorship but is often compromised by governments' ability to withhold information, by self-censorship in reaction to various pressures, by selective government “leaking” of information or disinformation, and by other factors.
In the United States, freedom of the press and the broader freedom of speech (see speech, freedom of) are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and are considered fundamental rights of the people. In practice, though, some kinds of speech and publication (e.g., obscenity or violations of copyright) are considered outside the amendment's purview, and others, like commercial speech (advertising or product claims), receive a reduced level of protection. In addition, broadcasters are subject to government licensing requirements. The protections to be afforded users of on-line computer services, the Internet, and other new means of publication are the focus of a developing debate; in 1996 a federal district court panel struck down the new Communications Decency Act, holding that Internet communications were entitled to the same degree of protection as printed communications.
Sections in this article:
Introduction
History
Bibliograp hy
Read more: freedom of the press — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0840079.html#ixzz1xs3z6WqG
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sw03000_.html (ICL Sweden Freedom of Press Act)
OK OK Aama Sonam,
I will try one last attempt.
The Press can only print when they have been given a licence to do so. What we are talking here is of those that are being denied the licnece and NOT the right to print.
You are not suggesting that the government is supressing those that have already been issued a licence, are you?
"The meaning of freedom of press:
freedom of the press
noun
the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc."
The above in not applicable to Bhutan because our laws in force require that you first obtain a media licence to engage in the media business.
The above is applicable only in places where the law does not require the obtaining of a licnece to engage in business related to media.
wow...those words of endearment " Dear Madam Sonam" sound ominous---either its is of "endearment" or out of frustration and I sense that its the latter...hahaa...but thoroughly enjoyed your differing points of view..
LPTashi,
Dear Madam Sonam and I go back years ... so a little bantering is allowed - even in disagreement :)-
Awesome Post Madam Sonam,
thoroughly enjoyed the debate with Dasho yeshey and You :D
What do you say on China Bhutan Relations that Lyochen has opened up in Rio ?? Would liek to hear from you ...
Looking forward for the post ..
Tshewang
Thank U Tshewang!
On China/Bhutan relations if you look at my posts on Bhutan International (on this blog) you will see that I am very concerned about China, given its historical behaviour (well even today) with its neighbours. One can make the argument that diplomacy helps solve many problems. That is true but judging from track records I dont think we can say that will work in this case. I just hope that people who are heading the government will realize that we have to tread very carefully when it comes to China. I have no idea how that Rio thing happened or why. It will be interesting to know what happens henceforth.
Thank U to Wangchuk too, for your participation and raising some relevant points!
Post a Comment