A carbon-negative country and widely regarded as one of the most peaceful nations in South Asia, Bhutan is ranked 21st in the Global Peace Index by the Institute for Economics and Peace out of 163 countries. It also stands 18th out of 182 countries in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), and has been placed 4th globally in the Condé Nast Traveller Readers’ Choice Awards for Best Countries. Against these consistently strong international assessments, Bhutan’s position at 150th out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index presents a stark contrast.
For many media stakeholders in the country, similar mismatches have long raised questions. After years of growing unease, they have now responded in a more structured and evidence-based manner, arguing that the ranking does not accurately reflect the realities of journalism and media practice in Bhutan.
This position is not sentimental alone. It is grounded in a survey conducted by the Journalists Association of Bhutan (JAB), which brought together 49 respondents closely associated with the media sector, including journalists, editors, media professionals, and individuals familiar with the operational environment of Bhutanese journalism.
The findings reflect a long-standing concern: that international assessments of press freedom often fail to adequately account for Bhutan’s unique media ecosystem, governance structure, and socio-cultural context.
The survey and subsequent discussions is not a critique, but a structured attempt to clarify how Bhutan’s media environment is understood externally. When a country is assessed using indicators that do not fully capture its institutional realities, particularly its small media market, cultural norms, and governance model, the resulting ranking may not reflect ground conditions accurately.
A key argument emerging from the exercise is that global rankings risk losing credibility when methodologies do not sufficiently engage those directly working in the field, especially when experienced journalists and senior media practitioners in Bhutan are not consulted during the assessment process.
However, this was not an outright dismissal of RSF’s work in its entirety.
There is broad agreement on certain structural challenges within Bhutan’s media sector, particularly those relating to financial sustainability of private media houses and delays in access to information from public institutions. However, these challenges are fundamentally structural rather than political in nature.
Bhutan’s media environment is not characterised by systemic repression or deliberate suppression of journalism. Access to information challenges should not automatically be interpreted as intentional opacity. In Bhutan’s case, such delays are often linked to administrative processes and capacity constraints rather than a desire to restrict information flow. There is nothing to hide.
The overall sentiment expressed through the survey is that Bhutan’s ranking as 150th does not align with the lived experience of journalists operating within the country’s media landscape. We do not deserve to be in the 150th.
The call is for greater methodological transparency, more inclusive sampling processes, and stronger engagement with practicing journalists and editors who work directly in Bhutan’s newsrooms. Without this, global indices risk misinterpreting local realities.
It is important to note that the objective is not to deny challenges, but to ensure that assessments are context-sensitive, methodologically transparent, and grounded in lived experience.
The message being conveyed is straightforward: Bhutan’s press freedom situation must be understood within its own context, and rankings that do not reflect that context risk missing the reality on the ground.
The next step is not silence, but engagement, bringing these findings to international platforms, including RSF itself, to ensure that future assessments better reflect Bhutan’s media landscape as it actually exists, not as it is assumed to be.
