In an embarrassing twist, Kuensel was forced to publish two corrigenda in as many days – an uncommon move for Bhutanese media – correcting factual inaccuracies in the original article.
By Bijoy Patro
A quiet storm has been brewing in Bhutan’s otherwise tranquil media landscape. What began as a routine article in Kuensel, the country’s oldest and largest newspaper, has escalated into a full-blown journalistic war. On one side is Kuensel, the state-majority-owned paper that has long held institutional sway. On the other, The Bhutanese, a sharp, independent weekly known for its investigative edge and unflinching critiques.
The trigger? A Kuensel article published on March 29 titled “State of Private Newspapers: Cash Strapped, Dependent on Government Support” – an ostensibly analytical piece that questioned the sustainability of private newspapers and raised eyebrows about their dependence on a government-backed subsidy called the Media Enterprise Development Budget (MEDB).
For The Bhutanese, the article was more than just a poorly researched report – it was a direct hit. The newspaper responded not just with a fiery rebuttal, but with its facts, financial records, and a searing critique of Kuensel’s journalistic ethics. “When Coke writes something negative about Pepsi, the conflict of interest is clear,” The Bhutanese wrote in its own publication days later, “The same applies to competing newspapers. Credibility demands evidence, not insinuation.”
The Fault Lines of Media Funding
At the heart of the dispute lies the Media Enterprise Development Budget – a government-funded subsidy program aimed at supporting Bhutan’s fragile private media. Originally introduced as a printing subsidy in 2018-2019, it evolved into the MEDB from 2021 onwards. Unlike direct cash handouts, the funds are funnelled through the Department of Media, Creative Industry and Intellectual Property (DoMCIIP) to the Bhutan Media Foundation (BMF), which monitors and administers the programme.
In its March 29 article and a subsequent April 1 editorial, Kuensel portrayed the programme as opaque, unaudited, and vulnerable to misuse. But the allegations were quickly dismantled. The Bhutanese pointed out that not only is the MEDB regularly audited – including by external auditors appointed by the Royal Audit Authority (RAA – but that it has passed every financial scrutiny since its inception. Receipts, account statements, and implementation reviews are thoroughly vetted before a single ngultrum is disbursed.
In an embarrassing twist, Kuensel was forced to publish two corrigenda in as many days – an uncommon move for Bhutanese media – correcting factual inaccuracies in the original article. From misstating the shareholders of rival newspapers to wrongly accusing the private press of excluding radio stations from funding, the errors undercut the credibility of Kuensel’s claims.
Who’s Subsidising Whom?
The war of narratives also unmasked deeper contradictions within Kuensel’s own house. While the paper lambasted the MEDB as a lifeline for struggling private outlets, it failed to mention that Kuensel itself enjoys indirect government support in several forms: priority in government printing contracts, advertisement placement, and infrastructural assistance – much of it stemming from its 51 per cent government ownership.
As The Bhutanese pointed out, Kuensel’s private shareholders include some of Bhutan’s wealthiest and most influential individuals and families – from the Tashi Group’s Tobgyal and Wangchuk Dorji to prominent figures like Aum Phub Zam and Ashi Kesang Wangchuck. Yet, Kuensel has never rejected state-favoured printing jobs or advertising deals that have helped sustain its operations.
“Why should it be acceptable for Kuensel, with its affluent stakeholders, to benefit from State support,” asked The Bhutanese, “while criticising the MEDB that ensures media plurality?”
The Narrative of Meritocracy – or Red Tape?
One of Kuensel’s central arguments was that the MEDB lacked merit-based allocation. It claimed that the DoMCIIP had proposed a system of performance-based funding that was rejected by private outlets.
But according to multiple private editors, including from The Bhutanese, this version omits critical context. The proposed system, they argue, was bureaucratically overburdened, requiring manpower and regulatory compliance that even larger outfits like Kuensel and Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS) would struggle to meet. “We weren’t against merit-based funding,” said a senior editor. “We were against a flawed system that would collapse under its own paperwork.”
Ironically, when the printing subsidy programme first began, Kuensel itself received cheques from the BMF without protest. “If Kuensel had such serious concerns about the programme’s ethics or structure, they should have rejected the funds then,” The Bhutanese jabbed.
Double Standards in Media Discourse
Perhaps the most inflammatory part of Kuensel’s editorial was its swipe at the so-called “wealthy owners” of private newspapers, suggesting they should reinvest their own money rather than rely on state aid. This claim, too, was met with sharp rebuttal.
In fact, most private media owners have already invested heavily – some reportedly selling off prime property in Thimphu and Paro or taking on large loans to keep their operations afloat. The suggestion that they are profiting from government money not only ignores this reality, but also reveals a flawed understanding of corporate law. “The concept of limited liability seems to have escaped Kuensel’s editorial board,” quipped The Bhutanese.
Moreover, while Kuensel mentioned state support for Gyalchi Sharshog, it failed to mention that Kuensel Dzongkha also receives government subscriptions through the Department of Dzongkha and Culture.
The Bigger Picture: Media Survival
This clash has not only revealed tensions between media houses but also raised a fundamental question: what should be the future of Bhutanese journalism in an era of economic strain and digital transformation?
Kuensel’s article, while flawed in execution, did raise one valid point – the media industry is in crisis. But The Bhutanese and other private players argue that the solution lies not in cutting lifelines like the MEDB, but in systemic reforms – ones already envisioned in the 2015 Private Newspaper Sustainability Report, commissioned by the then Department of Information and Media.
That report proposed a Media Advertising Placement Board (APB) to ensure equitable distribution of government ads based on media reach, audience, and content quality. It acknowledged the state’s dominance as the largest advertiser and urged for a balanced ecosystem. Ironically, Kuensel has never endorsed this report – perhaps due to the uncomfortable truth that it stands to lose market share under a fairer model.
The Road Ahead
As the media world watches this drama unfold, there’s one message that emerges loud and clear: Bhutan’s media ecosystem is too small, too vital, and too fragile for such infighting. Constructive policy engagement, not self-serving rhetoric, is the need of the hour.
If Kuensel truly believes in media reform, it must first confront its own privileges. And if the government wants to ensure a thriving fourth estate, it must empower all outlets – state and private alike – with fairness and transparency.
Until then, the headlines will not only be about news—they’ll be about who gets to write it.
PS: Kunsel is the Bhutanese word for Clarity.
