The assessment on World Press Freedom Ranking by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) paints a rather bleak assessment of Bhutan’s media environment, placing the country at 152 out of 180 in its latest World Press Freedom Index—marking yet another decline in its global standing. While RSF has mentioned the reasons behind this fall, there are questions on sample size and key assessment indicators, which raises concerns about the robustness and consistency of RSF’s evaluative framework. The question if the assessment fully reflects the nuances of Bhutan’s media landscape also arises.
This concern is further compounded by the fact that the RSF report appear to overlook several key aspects of Bhutan’s media landscape—such as the state’s efforts to support media sustainability and the mechanisms established by relevant agencies to facilitate information access and flow to journalists. Instead, the report appears to rely heavily on historical narratives dating back to the 1990s—an approach that seems to understate the significant political and social transformations Bhutan has undergone in recent years.
One limitation in this year’s RSF assessment lies in its sampling methodology. While RSF has provided the basis on which respondents are selected, no representative from Bhutan’s private media sector appear to have been consulted. This raises important questions about the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the findings. Without input from key stakeholders who are directly engaged in the day-to-day realities of Bhutan’s media industry, particularly those operating in the private sector, questions arises if the report can be taken at its face value. For, it would be exceedingly difficult to capture an accurate and balanced picture of the country’s media environment, without consulting key stakeholders.
Another point of concern is RSF’s tendency to rely heavily on historical events and dated incidents to support its assessment. As previously noted, the report references developments from the 1980s and 1990s—periods that predate Bhutan’s transition to democracy. This raises questions about the continued relevance of such distant occurrences in evaluating the present-day media environment. Additionally, the report cites events from 2012 and 2016: one involving allegations against the then government for curtailing advertising to a particular newspaper, and another in which a journalist was reportedly accused of defamation, allegedly in response to the reporter’s investigative reporting on a businessman. While RSF may argue that these incidents offer some context, their isolated and dated nature calls into question the extent to which they accurately reflect the current state of press freedom in Bhutan.
Absent from the report is any reference to positive measures undertaken by the government to support the media sector—most significantly, the introduction of a printing subsidy for private media houses, which was initiated in 2018. This initiative was later restructured and expanded under the Media Enterprise Development Programme (MEDP), providing targeted support across three key dimensions: content development, digital transition, and audience outreach. The MEDP continues to contribute meaningfully to the sustainability of private media organizations in an evolving media landscape.
In a similar vein, and in recognition of the financial challenges faced by private media houses, relevant authorities have issued directives making it non-mandatory for newspapers to publish printed editions. The decision was made with flexibility in mind, allowing individual media outlets to determine what best suits their operational capacities. Likewise, private newspapers were given the discretion to either continue publishing a page in Dzongkha or to discontinue it, depending on their editorial and financial considerations.
To strengthen the flow of information between the government, the media, and the general public, the Department of Media, Creative Industry & Intellectual Property (DoMCIIP), under the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Employment (MoICE), continues to take the lead in a key initiative aimed at fostering greater transparency and communication. As part of this effort, the Department has been actively engaging with all government agencies to underscore the importance of timely and consistent information-sharing with the media. This initiative not only seeks to promote informed public discourse but also reinforces the role of the media as a bridge between state institutions and citizens, thereby enhancing trust, accountability, and democratic engagement.
The intention here is not to defend the government or to undermine the credibility of RSF. Rather, the aim is to draw attention to significant omissions in the assessment—omissions that pertain to essential elements of media freedom. These overlooked aspects, such as government initiatives to support the media and evolving policy measures, are fundamental to forming a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of the media landscape. Their absence from the report raises concerns about the completeness of the analysis and the extent to which it captures the current realities on the ground.
Another point within this years’ report concerns this statement from the report. “Privately owned publications survive in a difficult economic environment, with a relatively low readership and insufficient advertising, which, for the most part, comes from government agencies — they account for 80 per cent of newspapers’ advertising revenue, which is allocated based on the outlets’ proximity to those in power.” This conveys the message that the private media firms get 80% of the governments advertisements, which is not correct. Instead, a private paper gets about just 2 pages of advertisement from the government in a year.
When approached by a Bhutanese private media outlet regarding the matter, RSF explained that the issue stemmed from a translation error during the process of converting the original French text into English. They acknowledged the need for correction and indicated that while the revision would be made, it might take some time. RSF clarified that the reference to “80%” was intended to denote the entirety of the advertising market, and that the phrase “outlets close to power” was meant to refer specifically to state-owned media. They further emphasized that there was no intention to target or discredit private media organizations. However, RSF also noted that there were issues involving “quiproquo.” While RSF has made corrections upon information by Bhutanese media, for a report with global reach and influence—one that is regarded internationally as a credible benchmark for assessing media freedom—there should be no margin for error, ambiguity, or “quiproquo.” Considering the weight of its findings in shaping perceptions and policies, it is imperative that such a report maintains the highest standards of accuracy, clarity, and objectivity.
