15/05/2026
From partners to gatekeepers: Media and institutions seek to rebuild trust
Consultation urges renewed collaboration as journalists raise concerns over growing barriers to information access
Thimphu — More than a decade ago, when the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) began exposing high-profile corruption cases, the then ACC chairperson personally visited media houses in the capital.
The message was simple but significant.
Corruption could not be fought by institutions alone. The media, the chairperson said then, had a critical role in promoting transparency, accountability and public awareness. Journalists were seen as partners in national governance.
Today, many in the media say that relationship has changed.
Instead of collaboration, journalists increasingly encounter silence, delayed responses and bureaucratic barriers while seeking public information. Media professionals say institutions that once welcomed scrutiny now often perceive journalists as troublemakers rather than stakeholders serving the public interest.
It was against this backdrop that journalists, regulators and government representatives gathered in Thimphu on May 13 for a half-day consultation on Strengthening Media–Institution Partnerships organised by the Journalists’ Association of Bhutan (JAB) with support from Society Switzerland Bhutan (SSB).
The consultation brought together editors, senior journalists, media managers, government media focal persons and regulatory agencies to discuss what participants described as a widening disconnect between institutions and the media.
Chaired by the Director of Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority (BICMA), Jigme Choden, and moderated by the Executive Director of the Bhutan Centre for Media and Democracy (BCMD), Tandin Wangmo, the discussion focused on rebuilding trust and improving cooperation at a time when misinformation, social media and declining public trust are reshaping Bhutan’s information landscape.
Growing communication gap
Participants said the growing communication gap has created frustration on both sides.
While institutions fear misquoting, misreporting and misinterpretation, journalists argued that obtaining even basic public information often requires clearance through multiple bureaucratic levels. They said delays become unavoidable when department heads or senior officials are unavailable to approve information, rendering many stories stale by the time responses are received.
“There is a need to move away from a culture of silence and guarded communication toward frank and free dialogue,” one participant said. “Information is not meant for journalists, but for the public they serve.”
Access to information emerged as one of the central concerns during the consultation.
Although Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) require agencies to respond to information requests within three to five working days, journalists said responses often take weeks or even months, making timely reporting nearly impossible.
Participants pointed out that many agency media focal persons are junior officials without the authority to speak on institutional matters. Information requests frequently move through multiple layers of administrative clearance before approval.
Participants also discussed that some officials remain cautious when engaging with the media due to concerns about possible misinterpretation, professional repercussions, or being quoted inaccurately. Some noted that this caution may also stem from limited confidence in the experience and reporting skills of younger journalists, particularly in handling sensitive or technical issues.
Social media and misinformation
The discussion also highlighted how the rise of social media has complicated the media environment.
Journalists said mainstream media houses continue to follow editorial standards, fact-checking and verification processes, while anonymous social media pages and content creators often circulate unverified information without accountability.
Participants agreed that misinformation circulating online has contributed to mistrust not only between institutions and the media but also among the public.
At the same time, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are further changing how information is produced and consumed.
Officials from BICMA said Content Rules and Regulations are currently being drafted to address gaps related to anonymous social media users and digital content creators.
Concerns over press freedom
The consultation also revisited concerns surrounding Bhutan’s recent drop in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index.
Participants said the ranking should not be viewed defensively but as an opportunity to reflect on structural weaknesses within Bhutan’s media ecosystem.
Several speakers noted that Bhutan remains physically safe for journalists compared to many countries. However, issues such as limited access to information, financial struggles of media houses and growing perceptions of self-censorship continue to affect press freedom indicators.
There was broad agreement that strengthening media freedom would require more than legal protections alone.
Participants said institutional openness, professional confidence among journalists and sustainable media organisations would all be critical in rebuilding public trust.
Proposed reforms and the way forward
To improve coordination and streamline media access procedures, JAB submitted a proposal to the Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority to explore the introduction of a unified national accreditation card for journalists. The proposed accreditation system would be officially recognised by key institutions, including the National Assembly, the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), and the Election Commission of Bhutan (ECB).
The initiative aims to reduce administrative hurdles faced by journalists during official events, public functions, and election coverage by establishing a standardised and nationally recognised media accreditation mechanism. Such a system could improve institutional coordination, facilitate smoother access for media professionals, and strengthen the professional recognition of journalists.
Participants also called for practical reforms, including revisiting SOPs, empowering senior officials to communicate directly with the media and clearly classifying restricted and public information.
Capacity building for both journalists and public officials was also identified as essential to improving communication and reducing misunderstandings.
By the end of the consultation, participants agreed that rebuilding trust would require shared responsibility from both institutions and the media.
For many journalists attending the dialogue, however, the larger concern remains whether institutions are prepared to once again see the media not as adversaries, but as partners in strengthening transparency, accountability and democratic discourse.
