Nepal Monitor: The National Online Journal

When Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” delivered his controversial speech on Tuesday, he made it sure to cajole media persons with these words: Patrakar mitraharu, satya tathya lekhna nadaraunu hos. Journalist friends, do not be afraid to write the truth. It was a meaningful offer, in light of continued attacks on journalists by Maoist cadres unhappy with media coverage of their agenda and of their issues.

And so the journalists listened to his fiery speech, in which he categorically said there was the need for dialogue to resolve the present deadlock in Nepal, but he would now only talk to the Indian “lords” in New Delhi to resolve the deadlock in the country. The local parties were only puppets in the hands of India. And so the journalists returned to their bases with the “big news” and reported his distrust with Nepal’s political leaders and highlighted his talking points throughout evening newscasts and in the morning banner headlines.

Dahal stated that he had actually begun the talks with India then and there from the podium. He even seemed to release the contents of his agenda, which the media faithfully highlighted: Abrogate the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty, resolve Susta, Kalapani and border disputes, demand a fair transit deal, seek a strategic tripartite alliance among Nepal, India and China for economic development, begin new relations with India based on comprehensive historical review, among others.

Soon commentators and talking heads hit hard on the Maoist contradiction. On the one hand the Maoists never tire boasting about their nationalistic credentials and decrying external interference in Nepal’s politics. On the other, they were willing and openly declaring their desire to invite Indian interference into Nepal’s internal affairs.

That was clearly the news peg for all journalists, mitraharu or not. So they let it roll around their news cycles, with many repeats on broadcast channels.

It is not clear what Dahal wanted from the “patrakar mitraharu” other than news reports on what he said. But the reports soon seemed unhelpful for the Maoist chairman. When political parties began to decry his call for external interference and public outcry seemed imminent, Dahal backtracked. He told local media that he was only joking! His proposal to talk with India was “a kind of political satire”. His VP Narayankaji Shrestha chipped in: His remark was only a sarcasm against the government.

Dahal told the BBC that the local media had distorted the theme of his speech for propaganda and it was nothing less than yellow journalism. All day on Wednesday, the media-savvy orator had become a commentator on his own speech.

The irony is that Maoist bhatri media or sister news outlets covered the speech the same way as did the mainstream outlets of most of the so-called patrakar mitraharu. The Maoist online newsportal, for example, emphasized thus: Now the talks will be held with the real Lord India: Prachanda (in Nepali language) Nowhere in the body the article mentions Maoist efforts or willingness for local dialogue. It also does not clarify: Our Chairman’s talk of talks was merely a satire or sarcasm!

The other Maoist news outlets are no different. [See this, also in Nepali, which refers, in passing, to the futility of national dialogue. The English-language portal did not report the story, no updates as of mid-day, December 24, 2009).

It is fair to say that mainstream media, apart from the contradiction in Maoist approach to India, did report on Maoist take on the national dialogue efforts and their indefinite call for strike until dialogue is possible. It is not surprising that Maoists, who have for long manipulated Nepal’s media to their cause, would blame the messengers for their own outspokenness and mindless verbose.

This is but the latest example of Prachanda’s long known penchant for media-bashing to hide his own faults. Like any other arrogant political leader who thrives on manipulating the media, he reaches out to international media (this time the BBC) to not only appear clean but also to belittle the local media.

Nepal’s journalists have also fallen prey to their own news routines and values. They depend heavily on speech reporting to fill their increasingly widening newshole. The overemphasis on political reporting based solely on staged events means that they are often manipulated by vested interests. The opposition parties or the government also seems to have no strategy to counter this source-driven journalism. They don’t organize any press meets to counter even such controversial comments. Even for such fast-developing stories, journalists have to scramble around leaders’ hideouts or homes to get a bite or a quote to embolden the “reaction” punches in their dispatches. That is not always possible under deadlines.

Regular fact-checking by media themselves is another way to hold political speakers accountable to their verbose. Did the media distort Prachanda’s speech? Does the evidence suggest so?

There are more serious issues at stake for everyone in Nepal. Rather, why should not we ask more often these questions and why should not we make them more prominent issues today in Nepal: How do our leaders approach issues of dialogue and issues of resolving the present deadlock? How have the media covered the dialogue efforts? Will the constitution be written on time? What can help in that process? How can patrakar mitrahu truly prove to be friends and not foes of the political parties as well as the general public?