Submit your Article

In any democracy, the media serves as both a watchdog and a gatekeeper that exposes state wrongdoing, holding authorities accountable, and maintaining a vital check-and-balance role. Criticism of those in power is not only tolerated but often encouraged as a safeguard against abuse. Press or media councils are intended to be independent, self-regulatory bodies that facilitate editorial freedom and protect media independence.

Across the world, press councils typically function as independent institutions with a primary mandate to uphold press freedom and promote ethical journalism. They do so in two key ways: by drafting and enforcing journalists’ codes of conduct, and by sensitizing newsrooms to adhere to those standards.

Press Councils in established democracies

In healthy democracies, such codes are prepared and enforced by professional associations, while governments may provide financial support but are barred from controlling the body that safeguards ethics. The composition of press councils is also kept free from political interference.

In Australia, for example, the Press Council is composed of an independent chair, public members with no media affiliations, nominees from both large and small publishers, and independent journalists. Members are appointed through a transparent process, usually nominated by professional associations. Its role is to promote ethical journalism, arbitrate complaints, facilitate fair outcomes, and set professional standards—without the authority to impose fines or censorship.

The United Kingdom’s Press Complaints Commission, established voluntarily by the media sector to avoid statutory regulation, is funded by the industry through a levy and composed mainly of lay members to ensure independence. In Germany, the Press Council operates as a non-profit association under private law, formed by media organizations to defend press freedom and enforce a voluntary Press Code. Similarly, the Swedish Press Council—the oldest in the world—and Finland’s Council for Mass Media are self-regulated, industry-led bodies that interpret professional standards, handle complaints, and safeguard free expression, with transparent funding from industry and, in some cases, limited state support that does not compromise independence.

Censorship attempts threaten Nepal’s press freedom

In Nepal, however, the government appears to be moving in the opposite direction by pushing forward new media laws and policies that risk undermining press freedom, in disregard of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and communication, as well as international human rights commitments.

Under the Press Council Act, Press Council Nepal (PCN) is already structured to allow deep political influence. The proposed Media Council Bill continues this trend, retaining the same structure and functions but adding harsher penalties and granting even more direct political control. This politicization, reinforced by the Federation of Nepali Journalists’ (FNJ) party alignment, has transformed what should be an independent guardian of ethics into a tool for political control, in stark contrast to self-regulatory and independent models elsewhere.

Currently before Parliament, the Media Council Bill is widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate state control and impose censorship. It does so in three ways: curbing the independence of media organizations, particularly the FNJ; centralizing political influence over council leadership positions; and tightening state control over key regulatory and media institutions, including the Press Council Nepal (soon to be the Media Council), the Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) authority, state-owned broadcasters like Radio Nepal and Nepal Television, the Gorkhapatra Corporation, and the national news agency Rastriya Samachar Samiti. This consolidation has weakened the FNJ’s institutional independence and eroded journalists’ courage to question authority, with many speaking out only superficially while remaining silent on authoritarian overreach.

Political capture of FNJ and Press Council

In recent years, the FNJ has increasingly aligned with political parties, with its leaders openly courting appointments to the Press Council, National Information Commission (NIC), Minimum Wage Fixation Committee, state media outlets, and other committees. This political capture is mirrored in the structure of the proposed Media Council, where party affiliation rather than independence is the decisive factor. The result is a troubling nexus designed not to strengthen journalism, but to control, censor, and silence it.

Even when the FNJ has called for amending problematic clauses in the Bill, parliamentary committees have largely ignored those appeals—knowing that the FNJ no longer carries independent authority, having traded it for political patronage. The fact that Press Council Nepal has been without a chairperson for over three months, with board appointments heavily politicized, underscores the extent of party control—not only over the Council but also over the FNJ, once a key defender of press freedom.

Criminalizing journalism

Some of the Bill’s most troubling provisions directly undermine constitutional rights, including Article 17.2(a) (Freedom of Expression), Article 19 (Right to Communication), and Article 27 (Right to Information).

Clause 29 empowers the government to issue directives to the Council, which must then direct media houses accordingly. This is reminiscent of the Rana-era censorship edicts that dictated what Gorkhapatra could or could not publish. It risks creating a media environment where only government-approved content survives.

The Bill also allows the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology to recommend Council office bearers, without any mechanism to assess their expertise, integrity, or independence. While terms are set at four years, Clause 10(2)(1) grants the government sweeping authority to remove members at any time, opening the door to direct political control.

Clause 18 introduces fines of up to NPR 1 million for alleged violations of the code of conduct, with imprisonment for those unable to pay. This treats ethical lapses as criminal offenses. Further, under Clause 18(2), the Council could compel journalists or outlets to pay full compensation demanded by complainants, an instrument that could easily be weaponized to cripple independent media financially.

The case for evidence-based reform

What Nepal urgently needs is an independent, evidence-based baseline study to map the evolving media landscape, assess media and digital literacy, and examine how press councils function in established democracies. Such a study should guide genuine consultations to improve the Bill, ensuring reforms are rooted in best practices rather than political expediency.

Consultations must be inclusive, drawing in independent voices from media, academia, and civil society—not only politically affiliated organizations or factional journalist groups that reinforce party-media nexuses.

Reform of the Council’s formation process is crucial. Professional associations, not individuals, should nominate council members. The government’s role must be limited strictly to facilitation, with no influence over appointments. Similarly, office bearers must be accountable to the public, through mechanisms such as parliamentary hearings informed by evidence and consultation feedback.In any democracy, the media serves as both a watchdog and a gatekeeper—exposing state wrongdoing, holding authorities accountable, and maintaining a vital check-and-balance role. Criticism of those in power is not only tolerated but often encouraged as a safeguard against abuse. Press or media councils are intended to be independent, self-regulatory bodies that facilitate editorial freedom and protect media independence.
Across the world, press councils typically function as independent institutions with a primary mandate to uphold press freedom and promote ethical journalism. They do so in two key ways: by drafting and enforcing journalists’ codes of conduct, and by sensitizing newsrooms to adhere to those standards.

Keeping politics out of media governance

Strict eligibility criteria are needed for Council leadership. Individual journalists should serve only as representatives of recognized professional associations, not as politically active actors.
A troubling pattern has emerged of journalists distancing themselves from political parties only weeks or months before seeking Press Council appointments—only to continue political activities informally. One notable case involved a former FNJ Vice-Chair who resigned to contest internal elections of the ruling Nepali Congress; after losing, she returned to the FNJ and is now considered for a Press Council leadership role.
To prevent such practices, candidates should be required to renounce party membership for at least five years before being eligible for Council leadership. Political cadres and those affiliated with party-linked organizations must be barred from serving as Chair or Board members. Only then can the Council regain credibility as an ethics body tasked with safeguarding press freedom, rather than serving as an instrument of censorship.
Without such safeguards, the proposed Media Council Bill risks entrenching political control, eroding Nepal’s fragile democratic gains, and silencing the very voices that democracy depends on.

The author is the founding chairperson of Media Action Nepal and teaches Media Ethics at Tbilisi State University, Georgia

Laxman Datt Pant is a dedicated advocate for independent media, widely recognized for his commitment to media development and press freedom on a global scale. He is the founder of Media Action Nepal, established in 2015, which has now completed nine years of impactful work. Under his leadership, the organization has produced 23 concrete studies and publications on various dimensions of media freedom, directly benefiting over 7,000 journalists—primarily through capacity building, mentoring, legal support, and the documentation of day-to-day press freedom violations across all 77 districts of Nepal.

Pant has strengthened Media Action Nepal’s engagement with global media development and press freedom initiatives, leading the organization to become an active member of key international networks, including the Consultative Network (CN) of the Media Freedom Coalition (MFC), the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD), and the ACOS Alliance. Furthermore, he served as the elected Co-Chair of the CN for 30 months, effectively presenting civil society organizations' concerns to the MFC and advocating for stronger protections for journalists worldwide.

Media Action Nepal has worked closely with diverse stakeholders to advance media freedom and journalist safety. However, challenges regarding the effectiveness of the constitutional and regulatory bodies such as the National Human RIghts Commission (NHRC) and  Press Council Nepal remain a concern. International collaborations continue to play a crucial role in strengthening Nepal’s journalism, ensuring the sustainability of independent and accountable media in the country.

Media investment

In established democracies worldwide, media investment follows clear guidelines that ensure ethical standards, diversity, and responsible ownership. In contrast, Nepal lacks such regulations, allowing anyone with financial resources to invest in media—without accountability for ethical considerations such as gender sensitivity, conflict sensitivity, or journalistic integrity. The focus is often on revenue generation rather than responsible reporting. If the current trends persist, journalism in Nepal may face severe credibility challenges in the next five to ten years. Without urgent reforms in investment policies, ethical standards, and training, Nepal’s media landscape risks becoming an instrument of political and financial interests rather than a pillar of democracy. If this trend continues unchecked, the media landscape will suffer irreparable damage in the next decade.

Political influences

The integrity of journalism is under increasing threat as more journalists openly align themselves with political parties and business interests, raising concerns about the credibility of media in Nepal. The integrity of journalism will be severely compromised if journalists continue to align themselves with political parties, proudly joining their ranks. While there are exceptions, the current trend sees many journalists closely tied to political factions, and even business groups, which jeopardizes the credibility of the media sector. This growing political and corporate influence creates a crisis for unbiased reporting. If journalists can distance themselves from their interest groups, it would greatly benefit the field. However, if they find it difficult to completely separate, they should at least strive to minimize their involvement and maintain a sense of objectivity. This would help preserve the integrity of journalism and ensure that reporting remains unbiased and credible. However, there are still individuals dedicated to independent journalism, and if their numbers continue to rise, there is hope for positive change in the field. Unfortunately, I don’t see that shift happening in Nepal at the moment.

Policy reforms 

For journalism to regain its integrity, Nepal must implement stronger policies that regulate media investments and promote journalistic independence. A well-structured policy should encourage media organizations that uphold their watchdog role, accept criticism, and prioritize public interest over political or business affiliations. The newsroom should be a space for diverse perspectives, fostering inclusivity and pluralism rather than merely chasing profits. One of the most pressing concerns is the growing entanglement of journalists with political parties and business groups. To counter this, policy reforms must ensure that media professionals maintain their independence by minimizing their ties with vested interests. Some policy changes are already taking place at the federal, parliamentary, and provincial levels.  These reforms must align with Nepal’s constitutional provisions on fundamental rights, as well as the country’s commitments under international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Local to global concept

Our local insights and observations are now being discussed at the global level, focusing on media freedom, journalism integrity, and credibility, all of which are essential for enabling journalists to maintain their role as watchdogs. In the context of global media discussions, we believe Nepal’s media environment will not deteriorate like that of other countries. The state of journalism in neighboring countries does not match the integrity we uphold in Nepal, and this is something we should truly value and praise. However, a key fault line in Nepal’s journalism is the tendency of some journalists to align too closely with state interests, which is fundamentally problematic. While it’s important to acknowledge the positive aspects, we must also remain critical and hold power to account. If reforms are not implemented in this context, the state of journalism in Nepal will remain stagnant, likely unchanged over the next decade.

Journalism education

Nepal’s education system has long been driven by student enrollment rather than industry needs, with universities offering subjects like law, mass communication, social work, and psychology primarily to attract students. However, journalism schools and departments have failed to evolve in response to the media industry’s demands in terms of faculties, teachers, labs etc. While institutions have introduced journalism degrees across various universities, there remains no structured policy requiring journalists to possess formal academic training in the field. While it may not be essential for all reporters to hold a journalism degree—since expertise in specific beats, research, and training can compensate—editors, who oversee content integrity, must have a strong foundation in journalism. Editorial responsibilities extend beyond news selection; they encompass ethical decision-making, upholding media integrity, and ensuring editorial independence. 

Journalism training

Without proper training, editors risk becoming overly reliant on business interests, ultimately compromising journalistic standards. Strengthening journalism education and enforcing industry-relevant qualifications, particularly for editorial roles, would enhance the credibility of the media sector. A well-trained editorial team can safeguard journalistic ethics, maintain integrity, and resist external influences, ensuring that Nepal’s media continues to serve the public interest rather than corporate or political agendas.

Career pathways

One of the major shortcomings of journalism education in Nepal is the lack of follow-up on graduates’ career paths. Universities and colleges rarely track where their students end up, missing a crucial opportunity to assess the effectiveness of their programs. To address this, Nepal must introduce policies that balance theoretical education with hands-on training. Newsrooms operate under intense deadlines, ethical dilemmas, and editorial pressures—things that cannot be fully grasped in a classroom setting. Universities and colleges must establish production labs where students can experience real journalistic work. These labs should provide on-the-job training, where aspiring journalists learn news writing, reporting, editing, and multimedia production in an environment that simulates actual newsroom conditions. 

Hands-on experience

Colleges don’t necessarily need access to a traditional newsroom; they can introduce alternative methods such as publishing press releases, releasing podcasts, and starting blogs to provide students with content creation experience. If a student manages to secure at least 10 bylines during their four-year bachelor’s program, they would graduate with a strong portfolio, making them more prepared for the job market. Without structured, hands-on training, new graduates will continue to enter the field unprepared, leaving them vulnerable to external influences and compromising the integrity of Nepal’s media landscape. 

AI in journalism

AI can assist journalists in various ways—generating content, analyzing large data sets, transcribing interviews, and even detecting misinformation. When given well-structured commands, Artificial Intelligence (AI) can produce high-quality write-ups that save time and improve efficiency. Despite its advantages, complete reliance on AI without critical thinking can be detrimental to journalistic quality. AI-generated content that is left unedited and unverified can lead to misinformation. A journalist using AI is still responsible for the final output. AI should be seen as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for journalistic integrity. To navigate AI-driven journalism effectively, digital literacy is essential. Journalists must understand AI’s limitations, biases, and the importance of human oversight. AI is a powerful assistant, but it cannot replace the investigative instincts, ethical judgment, and storytelling skills of a human journalist.

Press freedom

Freedom of the press is the cornerstone of democracy, serving as a safeguard against any form of external pressure or manipulation. In the context of Nepal, the digital landscape has created opportunities for greater independence in media, allowing the press to function more freely. However, the situation remains complex. Many journalists in Nepal have left their positions, particularly in mainstream media outlets, due to insufficient wages and a lack of job security. In addition, the pervasive culture of impunity further complicates the issue. Nepal is often ranked as a high-risk country in the impunity index, which highlights the dangers journalists face in the line of duty. Despite the existence of legal provisions for punishing crimes against journalists, these measures often fail to provide real protection or accountability. We have encountered numerous cases where journalists face subtle attacks, including being followed, having their national services cut off, and being prevented from pursuing a future in the journalism sector. Constitutionally and legally, press freedom is protected in Nepal; however, investigative reporting is not safeguarded, and the watchdog role is not strengthened.

Inclusive and independent media are the basics of democratic elections. They play an important role in voters’ literacy by connecting political parties and people. Staying away from spreading mis- and disinformation, as well as hate speech, could help the media maintain its credibility alongside its hard-earned freedom. Journalists act as defenders of human rights and gatekeepers of mis/disinformation, so it’s crucial for them to thoroughly check and verify information by applying fact-checking measures to disseminate accurate and verified news stories during elections. Be it during elections or in normal circumstances, the lasting principle is accuracy, balance, and credibility for which journalists should adhere to the standards of ethical reporting to promote inclusive media content to uphold democratic and participatory elections. While the majority of Nepali media continue to contribute towards ethical and inclusive media content providing space to diverse voices and watching upon election frauds, recent actions of the state apparatus against the independent media are both disappointing and threatening. State apparatus controlling media As elections to the provincial assembly and the federal parliament taking place on Nov 20 gear up, the state apparatus particularly Election Commission Nepal (EC) and Press Council Nepal (PCN) along with the conventional political parties have been engaged in reminding the media about its role in maintaining ethical integrity. The recent actions of the EC, a constitutional body responsible for holding free and fair elections, and the PCN, a regulatory body for media in Nepal, are against the fundamental rights provisions on free and independent media. The act of the commission asking a news portal to remove news stories claimed to have been associated with an electoral candidate is not only an attack against independent media, but it reflects the level of EC authorities’ understanding and defining ethical code of conduct for media. The commission as such has no right to ask media outlets what to write and what not to write. On the other hand, the PCN officials are plagued with confusion on the interrelationships of ethics and freedom. The daily warning letters issued by the PCN to media outlets including newspapers for a couple of months got widespread criticism from the experts and advocates of free and accountable media. A warning letter to summon the editor and cartoonist issued by the PCN to a daily newspaper for publishing a cartoon about a leader’s failure to fulfill past election commitments reflects PCN’s serious lack of understanding about its dual mandates of defending the free press and implementing journalists’ code of conduct. A serious review of the mandate of PCN including appointment procedure of the office bearers is immediately required. Media’s political inclination Criticisms surrounding PCN’s officer bearers’ political inclination including openly participating in political rallies, calling for voting to a group of candidates i.e. women, and lobbying with leaders to get appointments are some crucial problems that need to be discussed immediately. It’s true that a section of journalists who associate themselves with political parties via media-related sister organizations has enabled a critical voice against the independent media. They take pride in being members of the political parties on one hand and advocate for free media on the other. This has provided space for the state apparatus to attack the integrity of the free press, often monitoring the content of professional media outlets. It’s obvious that PCN in its current capacity and mandate could not effectively monitor the journalists’ code of conduct as they continue to serve political interests. It’s high time that the EC should look into suspicious political activities of the PCN and journalists who engage themselves in elections-related political activities including direct publicity campaigns, rallies, and other engagements. It has, however, no right to seek clarification from the media in their work towards the production and dissemination of the news content. It’s worth reminding the EC and the PCN that the fundamental rights provision under the Article 19 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees the right to communication. It states, “No publication and broadcasting or dissemination or printing of any news item, editorial, feature article or other reading, audio and audio-visual material through any means whatsoever including electronic publication, broadcasting and printing shall be censored.” The article reads no radio, television, online or other forms of digital or electronic equipment, press or other means of communication publishing, broadcasting or printing any news item, feature, editorial, article, information or other material shall be closed or seized nor shall registration thereof be canceled nor shall such material be seized by the reason of publication, broadcasting or printing of such material through any audio, audio-visual or electronic equipment or press. Analyzing interrelationships between media freedom and ethical standards in line with human rights principles and the constitutional guarantees, consulting media rights advocates and experts, and observing local realities on how elections and media integrity can be maintained could probably provide some good vibes to these authorities enabling them to respect free and accountable press. Similarly, commercial and independent media outlets should institutionalize the ‘ombudsperson’ practice to empower their staff, particularly reporters for ethical reporting. Way out Amid the high possibility of political publicity and information distortion plagued by propaganda and disinformation, Nepali media needs to be sensitive about their content. The state and regulatory bodies should play a facilitating role. The democratic state apparatus should not show an authoritarian character to suppress an independent and inclusive voice. An immediate and/or future reviews and wider consultations are required while issuing a code of conduct for journalists during elections. Only a collaborative approach among stakeholders that focuses on values of free and accountable press could help counter misinformation and hate speech to ensure free and fair polls. A constant media watch upon the electoral system rather than approaching it just for news sources is another effective way to prevent authoritarian attacks against media and elections integrity. Both media scrutiny towards the independent functioning of the electoral organs and introspection on media ethics would reflect well on informed electoral decisions. The author is the chairperson of Media Action Nepal and is an internationally recognized media rights advocate