Hello -
I am a regular listener of BBC Nepali service over the Internet. I have been listening to 2 radio-series "Tapai Ko Sansar" and "Nepal Sandrava" for sometime. I applaud the tough questions Mr. Mishra and Mr. Raut ask politicians of the mainstream parties. But their questions to government officials appear too obsequious. They show unnecessary deference to current ministers [is there a hidden agenda there?]. Mr. Mishra gave free pass to Tanka Dhakal and Nirjanjan Thapa. For instance, when Mr. Thapa said FMs should not be allowed to broadcast national news, I had 100s of follow-up questions I could have asked but Mr. Mishra just let it go. But when he interviewed Mr. Ram Chandra Poudel, he gave him a lot of heat for NOT participating in the local election.

It seems, or rather gives me an impression that BBC Nepali service is operating under the assumption that whatever the current regime in Nepal is doing is legal and constitutional. But we all know that it is not. Thus, the first question I would ask any government official is which section/sub-section/paragraph of the constitution are they working under? If their position/function is NOT legal/constitutional, whatever they do WON?T be either. Where does it say that the King can rule the country without a parliament and with no accountability whatsoever? Where does it say that council of ministers can have 2 vice-chairmen?

I have said in my earlier e-mail about Mr. Mishra's pro-monarchy bend. He wrote an article after Feb 1 event that things in Nepal have turned for the better ((http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4502455.stm). I told him, he was wrong [had no idea where he had gotten his information from] and the subsequent events have proven me right.

In the U.S. the Fox network, owned by the famed right-winger Robert Murdoch, calls its news program "Fair and Balanced". That is a first class misnomer because it is always propounding right-wing agenda. It seems to be that BBC Nepali service is broadcasting its pro-monarchy agenda instead of being truly fair and balanced [I would rather have the news announcers call King G, just "raja Gynendra" instead of "bada maha raja diraj" - that's so unnecessary]. Just to let you know, I am waiting for BBC Nepali service [Mr. Mishra and Mr. Raut in particular] to commit a faux pas and then I am going to start a letter writing campaign against them to straighten the matter.

Please understand that I am not affiliated with any political parties. I probably hate Girija, Deupa and Nepal as much as Gyanendra [much more the former two]. I was as disappointed as anyone with the multi-party experience in the past 15 years, but be as it may, the solution to Nepal's long-term economic problem is political stability and not intercine war [political and military] and democratic process it the best way to achieve it. Sure there are flaws especially regarding political and personal corruption, as businessmen like Kethan pointed out in a BBC interview, but there are remedies for them within the democratic system.

To say Nepalese are not ready for democracy is to insult the intellect of Nepali people. Now that's the question Mr. Mishra and Mr. Raut can ask government ministers, the next time they get a chance.

Cheers.

Its funny you mention this because I too sensed, once or twice, that Misra was harder on democrats and progressives than on conservatives but I didn't really think there was a pattern to it. I havent heard Raut so far. I am glad you are writing to the BBC to express your feelings about it.

It is obvious that BBC should be balanced, and as the largest and the most trusted media it has the responsibility to champion the democratic inspiration of the targeted audience. It sounds very odd when BBC nepali gives the impression that it is stricter against the democrats and soft to the monarchist. While the BBC world service exposes and highlights the undemocratic practices of China, North Korea, Zimbabwe etc etc, it is completely regretable to see one of it's division serving the purpose of undemocratic Government, knowingly or unknowingly.

I am no spokes person of Rabindra Mishra or Jitendra Raut, yet I felt need to answer to your genuine query.

I too listen to BBC regularly.

It is totally a subjective question and there are no lines drawn of degree of hardness or softness to the questions whether they are from the government and opposition. You DO NOT hear much grilling on the government side because they hardly speak. However, such comments like yours should be encouraged.

And, there are some important factual errors.

a) Interview with Tanka Dhakal was not done by Rabindra Mishra but by Suman Kharel. The interview is still on the website and can be listened to.

b) Rabindra Mishra did not let Niranjan Thapa off the hook when he said FM radios cannot broadcast news. Mishra immidiately interrupted and said, FMs can, in fact, broadcast news and also pointed out that the Communication Minister was also wrong when he said FMs can't broadcast news. Again, the interview is still on the website and can be checked for confirmation.

Like I said before, this is totally SUBJECTIVE in nature and obvioulsy you would like to hear more grilling when you are on the opposite side of the aisle. How much you would want to hear or enough is totally a personal preference.

And we have every right to refute or even stop listening if BBC does not fulfill your exectations and I also know, BBC can't make every body happy. :-(

Regarding, the article on KG, I did not find Rabindra Mishra biased or tilted towards him.

I follow BBC even though I live in the CNN and FOX nation. I personally feel that BBC has gone old. Its the same damn patern, same style since long time. For nepali BBC to be better it should bring new thoughts, and new way of presenting. Now days looks like kantipur have more audence than BBC.It is obvious that most of the nepali that work in BBC are monarcist so ofcourse they will be biased. Representing the most honest media our nepali BBC dais need to be more balanced. Comon people, you are there to represent the nation and provide with fair and balance news. They are the public servents so they better do their job right. If not, get retired and let the new generation come in the office...

Shrish, BBC can't make everyone happy but atleast they can try otherwise they can shut their service down. It will be nothing but the waste of money from the tax payers. BBC does need a lotta visitors and listen to be in the business so they better not start pissin people off.

And we have every right to refute or even stop listening if BBC does not fulfill your exectations and I also know, BBC can't make every body happy. :-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phewww, someone needs to do a media study. To be honest i never was a fan of BBC but the suggestion to switch off rather then complaning for correction sounds childish. Small professional mishapes by few people from small divisions, can cost the public faith and popularity of the whole BBC.

I too have felt that BBC nepali service at times tends to remain biased more towards monarchy. While more media and channels have emerged over the past few years now with better news presentation techniques and more neutral and relaiable stuffs, BBC nepai radio service somehow tends to have lost that edge that it used to have in the past over other media and channels in bringing new, challenging and reliable stuffs.

Change with regards to time is indeed necessary for all media to sustain and more importantly win the hearts of millions of quality audiences these days. Who would know this thing better than the prestigious news channel like BBC itself so I hope changes are inevitable sooner or later as far as nepali BBC is concerned. Lets hope for better if not the best.

If BBC Nepali service is to stop, King Gyanendra will be the happiest person in the world. However, that does not mean individuals working in BBC do not display monarchy friendly attitude and bias, at least occasionally.

Nevertheless, I feel BBC Nepali service has broadly assumed a distinct pro-democracy compose since 2/1 event.

The old generation of BBC Nepali service grew up revering Nepali monarch. The new generation is unsure about discontinuing the tradition.

Individual variability in professionalism, intellect and creativity is a normal thing in any organization. However, it appears little too much in case of BBC Nepali service. Or is it only my impression ?

A media person establishes his/her CREDIBILITY through CONSISTENCY in digging up and in presentation of the stories. Consistency appears to be something presenters working in BBC Nepali Service are yet to master.

Matrixrose

whether it sounds childish or not, I literally do not watch FOX. Simply I can't stand them.

I personally think, BBC is the platform for oppsition when they can't speak their minds through Nepalese media.

.

True but not true, BBC lets the opposition to be heard, but to what extend?

There are very few interviews with the people associated with government. Why? Because the people in the government do not want to talk to the media for the fear of grilling.

The air time for/of the people in oppsition is the most in BBC and the opposition is getting chance to put forward their cause. Does BBC has hidden agenda ?

If ,BBC is pro-king, why would they take interviews like that of Gagan Thapa to promote his agenda? Why would they interview Madhav Kumar Nepal and Girija Prasad Koirala to be heard ?

If BBC was pro-king why would they air news about the mass meetings against the king?

If BBC lobbys for pro-king then why would the leaders of opposition do consent to be interviewed by BBC?

If BBC is a pro-king agency why would the the government try to ban its transmission in Nepal ?

More questions to follow !

The audience has every right to complain on the output of the BBC whether they are monarchist or democrats even the monarchist have published propagandas against BBC Nepali. But the question here is not about labeling BBC Nepali as being biased towards certain group of people. When the audience complains, the institution, well researched and their friends have to contemplate seriously and review their programs to identify where the mistakes have been made. It is wise to take the audiences feedback in a positive note rather than defending and claiming that everything being done is perfect.

By the way, giving one and sundry examples is even more naive. The media is supposed to represent the perspective of the wider mass rather than few dozens of people in the Government. The media in question has given the impression that its targeted audience is council of ministers rather than the Nepalese public. People working there might not have particular political agenda but they are supposed to be responsible for their output if it is seen as biased by the wider audience. They have responsibility to give a reasonable answer to the dissatisfied group of audience. To suggest them to switch to other channel is utterly unprofessional and irresponsible.

matrixrose wrote
The media in question has given the impression that its targeted audience is council of ministers rather than the Nepalese public.

Well, I respect your knowledge of media (which I lack) but did not expect such comments from you. I believe the Nepali listeners tune to the frequencies of BBC to know what is the truth and the workers try their best to bring out the truth without being biased and grilling only one side of the aisle. The council of ministers have been very careful by being not involved with such dialogues, hence, given less chance to be grilled. When given chance like by Niranjan Thapa, BBC has taken advantage.

Matrixrose wrote
To suggest them to switch to other channel is utterly unprofessional and irresponsible.

I do admit it is unprofessional, childish and irresponsible.
Still, I would not switch to the channels that increases my diastolic and systolic bloodpressure and cut my life span short. I will still use this tactic and not watch channel 41 (Fox) in my area and reading Gorkhapatra or Rising Nepal, as long as I have other resources that probably gives me some endorphines, in this competetive world. Isn't it a human nature ?

Keep rolling

Remeber it was BBC that reported on Weapons of Mass Destruction(the Main Source).
Goes back to the age old saying DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ! (unless you see it for yourself)...he he

The major news organizations that dominate the global air whether it be from American towers or the British are the same.If we let our conscience controlled by the media,the problem lies on us not them.
None of the major news channel serves public with the facts of ground zero of world's affairs today.Do you think what fox expounds gets any where close to Al-jazeera?An independent viewer/listener draws his/her own conclusion after the news gets delivered.
Medias are biased to ceratin extent and that universal.If we want medias to play tunes that we like to hear,I think that lands us where we should question our own biasness?

I am not talking about our personal interest but about BBC which belongs as much to me as to you. Well as a listener I have every rights to critically analyze what they broadcast.

But good to see someone admitting his mistake I hope BBC will do the same. :)

izen that was not the purpose of this debate but you are right in that point.

Biasness is the virtue in this world But Morally a news media shouldn't be biased I think!!!...They effect lots of their listeners and listeners have each and every right to complain against them is they feel so...
Now MR U seem to have swallowed a book in Media study...I smell professionalism here..:D..

Biasness with no firm standing is more dangerous than biasness itself.Biasness has evolved into plain blindedness.The war that looked imminent two springs back smells like a dead rat for most of the medias with an exception of some right-wing propagandist ones starting with the fox(the fair and balanced).Yeah right!!!
I have not heard BBC Nepali after the present King of Nepal orchastrated the blood holi since 2001.So I donot know.
It wouldn't be surprise if BBC nepali or whichever media speaks whatever language serving certain political groups.If media isn't fair in a so called fair balanced society how would it be fair in serving the most unfair society like ours.My two cents on media experiences.

Bottom line on this issue is that you should read news(any news) at your own discretion. If you look at any news organiztion, they all tend to tilt somewhere. We are all humans, and we all make mistakes(fact of life). But if they are purposely favoring one or the other, its up to you to make that adjustment. I don't think people are that gullible to take everything at face value.

Shirish,

I think the people here are talking about unpremeditated rather than premeditated or, at least, what can be called a SUBTLE bias. The points you made earlier are, therefore, not quite corresponding to the allegations made.

As far as Rabindra Mishra's article cited by the original poster is concerned, the concluding line of the following statement made by Rabindra is not even a bias or bending. It's somebody's pure imagination.

Rabindra's concluding para:
>The king has been repeatedly emphasising that
>the people and the international community must
>choose either him or the rebels, whom he always
>refers to as criminals.

>And, it seems, many are ready to choose him -
>despite the conditions attached.

Many are ready to choose the King ????

No, I am not questioning Rabindra's speculation. I mean he is entitled to his speculations. What is disturbing here is an implied assumption that King's case (me or the Maoists) has been bought/validated by public.

I have never heard any report (by BBC correspondence or any media) in which even a single person, forget about the whole public, buying King's "either me or them" case.

So the assertion that "many are ready to choose the King" is not originating from an objective reality. And whether the assertion is right or wrong, I will leave this to the readers themselves.

Nepe