The role of the media in Bhutan is under intense examination as stakeholders debate the fine line between informing the public and safeguarding the identities of individuals accused of crimes. The contentious practice of naming and shaming in news reporting took center stage at the annual Journalism Conference (AJC) held by the Journalists’ Association of Bhutan (JAB) in Paro yesterday.
Media outlets in Bhutan have increasingly been revealing the names of suspects before formal charges are filed, sparking concerns over the emergence of “media trials.” These trials subject individuals to public scrutiny and stigma based on allegations that may not have been substantiated legally.
At the conference, a majority of journalists voiced their apprehension, asserting that naming and shaming often violate journalistic ethics. However, a minority contended that in certain scenarios, such practices could serve the public interest by fostering transparency and accountability.
Chimi Dorji, Executive Producer of BBS Radio, emphasized the importance of differentiating between “naming” and “shaming.” “While it is essential for the media to inform the public by naming suspects or convicts, shaming them steps beyond ethical journalism,” Dorji explained. “Our responsibility is to present verified facts, not to pass personal judgments.”
Freelancer Wangchuk echoed this sentiment, highlighting the broader societal impacts of such media practices. “Naming and shaming can have devastating effects not just on the accused but also on their families and the community at large,” he remarked. “In my experience, these actions do little to promote positive change and instead erode communal bonds and harmony.”
Representing the Bhutan Information, Communication and Media Authority, an official stressed that the media should refrain from both naming and shaming suspects, advocating for leaving such determinations to the judicial system. “When the media engages in these practices, it subjects individuals to double jeopardy—punished legally and then publicly,” the official stated. “This not only affects the accused but also their loved ones.”
Sangay Rabten, a senior reporter with Business Bhutan, added that while reporting the details of a case is within the media’s purview, it should be conducted without resorting to naming or shaming. “Our duty is to inform, not to tarnish reputations unjustly. Responsible reporting ensures that we uphold both transparency and ethical standards,” Rabten noted.
The discussions at the AJC underscore a significant tension within Bhutanese media between the imperative to keep the public informed and the ethical obligation to protect individuals from unwarranted harm. While transparency can enhance accountability, the risk of damaging reputations and disrupting community harmony remains a pressing concern.
As Bhutan continues to develop its media landscape, finding the right balance between these competing priorities will be crucial. Ensuring that journalism serves the public interest without compromising ethical standards is a challenge that Bhutanese media professionals are actively striving to address.
