It’s not easy to predict but in the coziness of warm bed, I decided to predict how Nepali media, especially in connection with social media, is going to change in upcoming year. Feel free to add your own predictions in comments!
I’m prediction that 2013 will see introduction of mobile news applications (for iPhone/iPad/Android) by mainstream media, more social media integration by mainstream media and more media outlets! Continue reading…
On Wednesday, Dec 19, Rajdhani national daily newspaper published a front-page photo of Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and Chief Justice Khilraj Regmi. The five-column photo shows Regmi standing while PM seems to be bowing to CJ with his hands joined together.
The captain says: “Need Support Your Honor: Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai who is also the Minister of Law greeting Chief Justice Khilraj Regmi during his participation in a program organized to mark 22nd anniversary of Justice Council.”
Wikileaks, a website dedicated to leaking secret documents, is a subject of debate, both legal and journalistic, since it began publishing memos sent to and from US State Department and 274 US embassies around the world. The diplomatic documents, some classified as secret or confidential and many unclassified, do not reflect the official policies of the world’s most powerful country, however they represent the attitudes and opinions of American diplomats, which has put the US in an uncomfortable position.
The US tried its best to stop the publication since Wikileaks informed it about having such documents. When US issued a warning that publication of the memos could put lives in danger, Julian Assange – the website’s founder and public face – cleverly asked the US to categorically point to the memos that are sensitive. The US, which denied any communication and comments, tried to block the way through many means including forcing firms in their land to withdraw services that they were rendering to Wikileaks. Amazon withdrew hosting, EveryDNS withdrew domain name services (meaning that when somebody types wikileaks.org, the internet is unable to find the server computer where the site is stored) and popular financial transaction service provider PayPal dropped their accounts (which constrained the donation collection by the site). Continue reading…
Last week, Naya Patrika, a daily tabloid, printed main story on a sex video of a rising female movie star. The story became buzz of the town, albeit on whispers, and was loud on internet as the video, first available on YouTube, was available to download on many online forums.
The video, reported about six-month old, showed the female actress and model in explicit sexual act with a married DJ. A private video – but of course of ‘big news’ for the paper: big because it attracted more than 500 comments in less than three days on its website (the second most commented story on the site had 273 comments, printed two months ago).
Before indulging into what was right and what was wrong, let me look into similar incidents in Nepal.
There were at least two similar incidents when the debate of media ethics on publication of such materials emerged. The first was publication of the nude photo of a top actor by a monthly magazine and then publication of photo of an actress in sexual act by a weekly.
The first case ended after the publication apparently apologizing with the actor after long debate and in second case, the actress committed suicide.
This news case is different in at least one factor: first the media did not publish any photo that could be considered obscene –although there were photos from the videos. (But it’s publication of the news that such video existed was enough for thousands of people to search and download the video from internet).
We at our newsroom had a long discussion on was it ethical for media to publish such news. There were arguments for and against but the not a consensus. The nearest conclusion probably was that ‘it’s an issue, running it or not is a newsroom decision.’
For tabloids, such news is big; for broadsheet, almost nothing. (As in this case, no broadsheet has printed anything on it while many weekly broadsheets are not missing the follow-ups).
One thing for sure: the debate of ethics on publication of such news leads nowhere.
The video means the actress’ movie career is over; but more disastrous effect is the social embarrassment throughout her life. But can the media be held responsible for any effect on her life due to video?
No. Despite the fact that media should be socially responsible for the effect, it should not be held responsible.
The reason she suffered is not the media but the mistakes she committed: firstly, she had an illicit relations which our society does not perceive as moral behavior; and secondly, she let the act to be recorded.
Would the newspaper have published such story if at least one of the involved people was not a celebrity? No. Then why only chase celebrity? Because they are the one people follow. Was it right on their part to engage in such activities or record such activities despite knowing that they could be the ideals of many fans?
Being a celebrity also means some social responsibility.
Personally I think media in countries like Nepal should have refrained from publishing such materials primarily because it has a lifelong effect on those involved. Everyone commits mistake; the celebrities pay bigger price for it if they go public.
