Stop Vilifying Political Actors

The notion that language is only a means of communication is mistaken because language is not simply the servant of the human mind, but it is also a master that influences our thinking. Needless to reiterate the theory of linguistic determinism/linguistic relativity hypothesised by American anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, language has immense power to influence the way we think. Language influences us in various ways, ranging from the ordinary to the profound. While ordinary actions include rather rude commands, such as “close the door,” and polite requests, like “would you mind typing this letter for me?”, the profound things encompass concepts from philosophy, politics, religion, and a host of other fields. 

Language is used in many fields to communicate ideas and experiences, which in turn influence the way we think. Among others, one prominent field of language use is the media, which is the most potent means of communication and a vehicle for influence. We tend to follow the media message more than anything else in everyday life situations. We often take things for granted when we read the news, sometimes even fake, disseminated by agencies that intend to serve their own self-interests. In this respect, just as the media news travels with a genuine message, so also it travels faster with false reports of an event. 

Power of media

As has already been said, language has intrinsic power to influence the way we think. Furthermore, it gains more power when utilised by authorised agencies and institutions, such as the media, multinational corporations, and the ruling class. For this reason, the same statements carry different levels of power when used by different people. If something is said by a powerful group, it carries more weight than when it is shouted by powerless individuals. In this respect, when something is reported by government-supported media, it has a profound impact on the general public. 

Twentieth-century eminent thinker Noam Chomsky claims that mass media is a tool for manufacturing consent among the general public, ultimately serving the interests of political and economic elites, considering the media not a neutral source of information. He argues that the media's portrayal of corporate ownership, reliance on advertising revenue, and close ties to official sources creates a system that limits people’s perspectives, promotes specific ideologies, and effectively filters out dissenting views, making it a powerful instrument of propaganda for autocratic systems. 

Chomsky further argues that even in liberal democracies, the media appear independent, but its institutional structure inherently restricts the range of acceptable discourse, and that independent media and online platforms can serve as potential alternatives to construct ideologies in favour of the ruling class.  This is but natural.

There is no denying that Nepali media has played a significant role in shaping the political course, apart from its essential task of disseminating the news and information. It has created public opinion to end the autocratic system and establish a democratic and republican form of government. It has enabled people to know events happening around them immediately. It has made the news from around the world accessible to anybody living in any corner of the globe. In fact, any place has been at the centre only due to the media. 

Government-supported corporate media houses, such as Gorkhapatra Sansthan, Nepal Television, and RSS, operate in accordance with the state's rules and regulations. Essentially independent as they are, they disseminate the government's policies and decisions.

Many other private outlets are not government-funded, so they believe they are free to criticise government policies, decisions, and their implementations. In some ways, they are freely disseminating critical comments on the government's decisions and actions, which have subtly influenced the course of Nepali politics. The media that supports an authoritarian system may explicitly write in favour of the government. In democracies, the media implicitly disseminates their ideologies, which may not be detrimental to the people. So far, so good.

The language used in the media, especially in social media, has become increasingly harsh in recent years. Different social media platforms, such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok, are used to denigrate political actors through derogatory forms of language. Critics have every right to criticise the programmes, policies, decisions, and actions of government executives, but they should not vilify them with unfounded public libels. They should be aware that the accused cannot be held responsible as convicts until they are proven guilty by the concerned authorities, such as courts. When this continues to happen in the same way it is now, it certainly has a negative influence on Nepali politics. Not only is the community engaged in social media, but the whole nation seems to be negatively influenced by the unscrupulous dissemination of information today. 

A more concerning aspect of social media is the dissemination of information from limited perspectives. Before the recent youth uprising, social media was engaged in libeling the conventional politicians. Now some of them are turning to the incumbent Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet, mainly the Minister for Home Affairs. If every political actor is vilified in the way it is being done now, who else can be the superhuman absolutely free from weakness of some kind?

Fake news

An even more pressing risk associated with social media is the dissemination of fake news. The general public, without critical thinking, tends to believe in what social media says, which in turn shapes public opinion and influences the political course. Until the critical citizenry develops in our nation, equipped with an advanced civilization and culture of critical thinking, the general mass cannot be outright blamed for such misunderstandings. Who is to blame is the manufacturer of fake news who masquerades as a genuine disseminator of information.

It is thus essential to be responsible citizens and understand how some manufacturers of fake news operate. It is equally important to refrain from using derogatory terms in a pejorative sense to vilify genuine political actors. It is our responsibility to separate the wheat from the chaff, to distinguish between the truth and falsehood of the message conveyed so quickly through social media. 

(The author is the chairman of Molung Foundation. bhupadhamala@gmail.com)