"What happened" vs. "Why this matters"

For one of the best commentators of Nepali politics, CK Lal's recent switch to become a media commentator, starting with a column on Lohani's death (if memory serves), could be a loss to his readers. However, there are many, many political prognosticators around and hardly any analysts dedicated to the task of watching the watchdog. Lal's astute observations and criticisms would surely benefit the Nepali media culture.

Development in the mass media sector is no doubt one of the brightest spots in Nepal since the restoration of Democracy in 1990. Going from complete government control and near-complete ownership of most print and all broadcast medium during the Panchayat rule, Nepal's media scene has exploded in the last 20 years. 

I still remember seeing the advertisement for "Kantipur Daily" near Sundhara as they were publishing their first issues. Then came the FM stations when everyone in the valley seemed to be walking around with a FM radio. The satellite TV stations from Hong Kong and then from India. Then came the private TV stations at home. And multiple dailies, numerous weeklies and monthly magazines.

No doubt that this flourishing of media has been a boon to Nepal. However, the media culture is still nascent. What the audience seem to want from the news sources is just basic information, which the reporters and editors are providing to some level. However, what the audience may not demand, or rather would not know to demand, and the journalists are not savvy or dedicated enough to provide is the quality of news that sustains a democratic culture. Nepali media does a good enough job of telling "what happened." They do a very poor job of explaining "why it matters." 

CK Lal's most recent "Fourth Estate" column goes to the heart of the matter. I agree with him that Nepali media operate as storytellers. However, I am not sure if I buy his rationale for the reasons why. Lal thinks the dearth of actual investigative journalism results from lack of resources, namely time and money. I rather think it is journalistic incompetence stemming from having scant role models of good journalism. And that goes back to the issue of the nascent culture of journalistic practices.

Of course, the way media has expanded in the last 20 years there is hope that sooner rather than later Nepali journalists evolve into deliberate practitioners of "why this story matters" journalism. And it is respected voices like Lal's that will guide the journalistic profession to that higher level. So his decision to focus on Nepali media scene is clearly a net gain for the readers.