Know the plot: Kuensel’s critique of MEDB. In its March 29th issue and April 1st editorial, the
national daily leveled a series of inaccuracies and baseless criticisms at private newspapers,
specifically targeting the Media Enterprise Development Budget (MEDB).
The reality: Far from providing a fair and informed analysis, its portrayal of the MEDB program
was not only riddled with errors but also reflected a narrow, self-serving perspective that
undermines the very foundations of a pluralistic media landscape.
The most glaring fault in Kuensel’s editorial was its erroneous assertion that the MEDB is not
subject to audits. Contrary to this claim, the program undergoes rigorous financial auditing, with
oversight by the Royal Audit Authority (RAA), the Bhutan Media Foundation (BMF), and the
Department of Media, Creative Industry and Intellectual Property (DoMCIIP).
The RAA has never uncovered a single audit issue since the program’s inception in 2018.
Kuensel’s suggestion that the RAA should audit it again is not just unnecessary but
demonstrative of a failure to understand the established procedures.
Sadly, Kuensel wrongly conflates the MEDB with the government’s earlier content grants and
claims that the print media opposed radio stations being included in the program. Know this; the
MEDB was always intended for print media to help them meet the significant cost of printing,
not for radio or television. They, however, seems to have missed this distinction, blurring the
lines in a way that misleads its readers.
The editorial also questions the need for the MEDB subsidy, pointing out that some private
newspaper owners are “wealthy” and should reinvest in their businesses. Their approach here is
both simplistic and misleading.
It is critical to understand that private newspapers, despite having shareholders with significant
investments, have faced enormous challenges in financing operations, especially as advertising
revenues dwindled and the market became increasingly competitive. Most major shareholders
have sunk millions into their publications and taken on substantial loans to keep operations
afloat.
Kuensel’s failure to acknowledge this financial burden is not only irresponsible but dismissive of
the struggles faced by these independent media houses.
Worse, their stance fails to acknowledge its own receipt of substantial government support. With
its 51% government ownership and the government as its largest advertiser, the media house
benefits from direct state subsidies that far exceed anything received by private newspapers
under the MEDB.
The irony is palpabl—Kuensel is the largest beneficiary of government support, yet it seeks to
undermine a program that benefits private media. This selective outrage betrays an underlying
bias that favors its own position while attempting to destabilize its cousins.
To criticize the MEDB without first addressing the fundamental contradictions in its own
operations smacks of hypocrisy. The editorial also undermines any constructive policy dialogue
by failing to engage with proposed solutions that could lead to long-term sustainability for
private media.
The 2015 Private Newspapers Sustainability Report already identified the decline in advertising
revenues and proposed reforms like the establishment of an Advertising Placement Board to
ensure fair distribution of government ad spend between state and private media. Kuensel’s
unwillingness to embrace these reforms, while continuing to attack the MEDB, shows a
reluctance to work together for meaningful change.
Rather than perpetuate misleading narratives and sowing discord, the paper should be using its
platform to engage in meaningful dialogue with private media houses and the government.
The goal should be to build a more sustainable media environment for all players and not tear
down programs that have been essential in maintaining media diversity and plurality in Bhutan.
While the act and the intent to kill a mice with a sledgehammer is one; killing it without your
arms getting bruised is altogether another.
