The growing practice of appointing media spokespersons across government agencies was expected to make communication more efficient and give journalists a clear point of contact. Instead, for many journalists in Bhutan, the system has added another layer between the press and the information it needs to inform the public.
Government agencies are increasingly designating spokespersons to handle media queries, issue official statements and communicate institutional positions. In principle, the arrangement should make government communication more coordinated and accessible. In practice, journalists often find themselves waiting for responses for hours, days or, in some cases, indefinitely.
“The idea of having a spokesperson is not the problem. The problem begins when the spokesperson becomes the only door through which journalists can access even basic information,” says a senior journalist.
The problem is particularly significant for journalists working on daily news, where information loses much of its value if it arrives after a decision has already been implemented or public attention has moved elsewhere.
For journalists, the issue is not the existence of spokespersons itself. A designated spokesperson can be useful when the person has the authority, knowledge and access necessary to provide timely and accurate information. The concern is whether the system is actually improving access to information or simply becoming another gatekeeping mechanism.
A journalist seeking clarification from a government agency is increasingly expected to send questions through the designated spokesperson. The spokesperson may then have to consult officials, seek approval or wait for information from another department before responding.
This process can be understandable when the issue is sensitive or technically complex. But when applied to routine factual queries, it can significantly slow down reporting.
“One of the biggest challenges is not getting a ‘no’ from an agency. It is getting no response at all,” says an editor from a print news organisation. “By the time we receive an answer, the story may no longer be relevant for the day’s news.”
Meanwhile, journalists continue to face deadlines. A reporter covering a government decision, economic development, public service or emerging issue may need to confirm basic information before publishing. When the official response does not arrive within the reporting window, the journalist is left with limited options: publish without the agency’s response, delay the story or report that the agency did not respond.
Publishing without an official response can expose the media to criticism for presenting incomplete information. Delaying the story can mean the public receives important information late. Reporting that the agency did not respond can also create tension between journalists and public institutions.
“The expectation is that journalists should verify everything before publishing, and rightly so. But verification becomes difficult when the relevant agency does not respond within a reasonable timeframe,” another reporter says.
The irony is that while journalists wait for official confirmation, the public often blames the media for being slow.
The central issue is therefore not simply the relationship between journalists and spokespersons. It is the public’s right to receive timely information about decisions and developments that affect their lives.
In a democracy, government communication and journalism serve different but complementary functions. Government agencies are responsible for providing public services, implementing policies and communicating official decisions. The media, meanwhile, has a responsibility to scrutinise those decisions, seek clarification and explain their implications to citizens.
When information becomes unnecessarily difficult to obtain, the public ultimately loses. “Government information is public information. Journalists are only the channel through which much of that information reaches citizens,” a chief reporter in one of the media houses says. “If that channel is constantly delayed, it is ultimately the public that pays the price.”
Bhutan’s media environment is relatively small, and journalists frequently cover multiple sectors at once. A reporter may have to seek information from ministries, regulatory agencies, local administrations and state-owned institutions on the same day.
If each institution requires journalists to pass questions through a spokesperson, the cumulative delay can be considerable.
There is a strong case for professionalizing government-media relations. Spokespersons can provide consistency, prevent contradictory statements and ensure that sensitive information is communicated responsibly.
Many journalists feel that a spokesperson’s role should be to facilitate access rather than restrict it, having direct access to decision-makers and technical officials and be empowered to provide factual information without unnecessary layers of clearance.
“If the spokesperson has to seek permission from several levels before answering a straightforward factual question, then the system defeats its own purpose,” a reporter said.
For routine queries, agencies could establish clear response timelines. Urgent questions involving breaking news should receive priority, while more complex requests could be acknowledged immediately with an indication of when a substantive response can be expected.
Government agencies could also publish frequently requested information, statistics, regulations, decisions and reports online. This would reduce the number of routine questions directed to spokespersons and allow journalists to spend more time on analysis and public-interest reporting.
The responsibility, however, does not rest entirely with government agencies. Journalists must also ask precise questions, provide adequate context and allow officials reasonable time to respond when a matter requires technical verification. Accuracy should not be sacrificed for speed.
“We understand that some questions cannot be answered immediately, particularly when they involve technical information or require consultation,” said an editor. “What journalists need is acknowledgement, transparency and a reasonable timeframe—not silence.”
But responsiveness is equally important. Government institutions cannot expect the media to provide accurate and timely information to citizens if journalists are routinely unable to obtain basic facts from official sources.
The growing number of spokespersons should therefore be accompanied by clear institutional standards for timeliness, accessibility and transparency.
A spokesperson system that makes communication more organised can strengthen public trust. A system that creates another barrier between journalists and officials can have the opposite effect.
The public increasingly expects information almost immediately, particularly in an era of social media and instant messaging. Rumours and speculation can spread rapidly when official information is unavailable.
This makes timely government communication more important, not less. “When official information is delayed, the information vacuum does not remain empty. Someone else will fill it,” a journalist said. “That makes timely responses even more important because it allows the media to verify information before rumours become accepted as facts.”
When agencies do not respond, information gaps are often filled by unofficial sources, social media posts or speculation. Journalists are then expected to verify those claims while simultaneously being criticized for not having the official answer.
The solution is not to weaken the role of spokespersons but to make the system work better. “Government agencies should recognize that timely access to information is not a favour extended to journalists. It is an essential part of public communication and democratic accountability,” another reporter noted. “Similarly, journalists must recognize that responsible reporting requires verification and fairness.”
For Bhutan, strengthening this relationship will require greater mutual understanding between government institutions and the media. Spokespersons can be an important bridge between the two—but only if that bridge remains open, responsive and accessible.
Otherwise, the growing system of media spokespersons risks becoming not a solution to Bhutan’s information-access problem, but another reason why journalists—and ultimately the public—are left waiting.
Tashi Namgyal, Thimphu
