NGAWANG JAMPHEL| Thimphu
Bhutan’s placement at 150th in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has ignited debate over the true state of press freedom in the country, with a new report arguing that Bhutan’s struggling media sector is being weakened more by economic hardship than by political repression.
A report released by the Journalists’ Association of Bhutan claims that international press freedom rankings may be failing to capture the realities of journalism in Bhutan, where media houses are battling financial instability, shrinking revenues, and the loss of experienced journalists.
The report, titled Comprehensive Report on Perceptions of RSF’s Press Freedom Ranking and Methodology in Bhutan, is based on a survey of 49 respondents, including journalists, editors, media professionals, government officials, and individuals familiar with Bhutan’s media landscape.
The findings suggest that while Bhutan’s media sector faces serious challenges, they are largely economic and institutional rather than politically repressive.
The report comes at a time when Bhutan’s private media industry is facing mounting uncertainty, with several media houses struggling to remain financially viable amid declining readership, rising operational costs, and limited advertising revenue.
According to the survey, 91.9 percent of respondents identified financial sustainability as the single biggest challenge confronting Bhutanese media today.
Respondents warned that many private media organizations are surviving under severe financial pressure, raising concerns over the long-term future of independent journalism in the country.
Participants pointed to Bhutan’s small market size, heavy dependence on government advertising, and changing audience behavior driven by social media and digital platforms as major factors weakening the industry.
The report also highlights growing concern over the increasing loss of experienced journalists from newsrooms.
According to respondents, low salaries and limited career growth are pushing many senior journalists toward better-paying jobs in international organizations, development agencies, and other sectors.
Participants said the departure of experienced reporters is weakening newsroom capacity and leaving younger journalists to manage increasing workloads with limited mentorship.
While the financial crisis dominates concerns within the media industry, access to information also emerged as a significant issue.
According to the findings, 81.7 percent of respondents agreed that delays in obtaining information from public institutions continue to affect journalism in Bhutan.
Respondents said bureaucratic procedures, slow responses from agencies, and difficulties in accessing timely official information often hinder effective reporting on issues of public interest.
However, participants largely described these challenges as institutional inefficiencies rather than deliberate attempts to suppress media freedom.
The report stresses that Bhutan’s media environment differs significantly from countries where journalists face violence, imprisonment, censorship, or direct political intimidation.
Instead, respondents described Bhutan as a relatively peaceful and safe environment for journalists.
According to the survey, 85.7 percent of respondents agreed that Bhutan remains safer for journalists compared to many countries ranked near the bottom of global press freedom indices.
Participants highlighted the absence of physical attacks against journalists and pointed to Bhutan’s democratic institutions, judiciary, and constitutional protections as important safeguards for freedom of expression.
Another issue identified in the report is self-censorship within the media industry.
About 71.4 percent of respondents agreed that self-censorship exists in Bhutanese journalism.
Participants said journalists may sometimes avoid reporting on sensitive subjects due to cultural sensitivities, professional pressures, institutional relationships, or financial dependence on government support and advertising.
Despite these concerns, respondents said public trust in mainstream media remains one of Bhutan’s strongest media assets.
Nearly 89.8 percent of respondents agreed that mainstream media in Bhutan is more trustworthy than information circulating on social media platforms.
Participants described Bhutanese journalism as generally factual, balanced, and less sensationalized compared to media environments in many other countries.
Several respondents said Bhutan’s media culture continues to promote fairness, social responsibility, and constructive public dialogue.
The report also highlighted the influence of Bhutan’s development philosophy of Gross National Happiness, or GNH, on the country’s media culture.
Respondents said the philosophy encourages ethical journalism, social harmony, responsible reporting, and cultural preservation.
Many participants argued that these unique characteristics are often overlooked in international assessments of press freedom.
A major focus of the report is criticism of the methodology used by Reporters Without Borders and similar organizations when assessing Bhutan’s media environment.
According to the survey, 69.4 percent of respondents believe the RSF World Press Freedom Index does not accurately reflect the realities of journalism in Bhutan.
Meanwhile, 77.5 percent expressed concern over the lack of transparency in the way respondents are selected and information is collected for the rankings.
Several senior journalists stated that despite decades of experience in the profession, they had never been consulted during the assessment process.
This has led to growing skepticism within Bhutan’s media fraternity about the credibility and representativeness of the rankings.
Respondents argued that Bhutan’s small media market, peaceful political environment, democratic system, and emphasis on social harmony require a more context-sensitive approach when evaluating press freedom.
The report calls on international organizations to adopt more transparent and inclusive methods, including broader consultations with practicing journalists, editors, academics, and media experts.
Participants also recommended larger sample sizes, clearer explanations of methodology, and stronger ground-level research when assessing Bhutan’s media environment.
Several respondents emphasized the need to distinguish between economic fragility and genuine political repression when measuring press freedom.
The report further notes that Bhutan’s media landscape is rapidly changing due to digital transformation and growing competition from social media platforms.
Respondents expressed concern over misinformation, declining audience attention toward traditional media, and the growing influence of online platforms.
Many participants stressed the need for stronger media literacy programs, professional journalism training, and greater investment in investigative reporting to strengthen the future of Bhutanese journalism.
The report also outlines recommendations for both media organizations and public institutions.
For media houses, respondents recommended diversifying revenue sources, strengthening collaboration among media organizations, investing in journalist training, and supporting investigative and public-interest journalism.
For government agencies, participants called for faster dissemination of information, improved transparency, reduced bureaucratic barriers, and stronger cooperation with journalists.
Respondents also emphasized the importance of protecting constitutional guarantees related to freedom of expression and media freedom.
Bhutan’s ranking in the RSF World Press Freedom Index has fluctuated significantly over the years.
The country achieved its highest ranking in 2022 at 33rd place out of 180 countries before falling sharply to 150th in the 2026 index.
