RSF corrects miswording in Bhutan report and explains the press ranking drop

RSF also shares tips on how Bhutan can get its press freedom rankings up

The 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) delivered a rude shock for the six private newspapers in Bhutan when its country report on Bhutan under the topic ‘Economic Context,’ said, “Privately owned publications survive in a difficult economic environment, with a relatively low readership and insufficient advertising, which, for the most part, comes from government agencies — they account for 80 percent of newspapers’ advertising revenue, which is allocated based on the outlets’ proximity to those in power. This can have direct consequences on editorial content: in 2012, the government was accused of reducing advertising spending for The Bhutanese, a weekly newspaper, in retaliation for an article listing cases of corruption. This served as a warning to all media outlets.”

The above paragraph had two pieces of information that were wrong. Firstly, it is not true that 80 percent of the advertisements of private outlets come from the government as in the nine ministries and the PMO.

Secondly, advertisements are not allocated based on the outlets’ ‘proximity to those in power’ as mentioned in the report.

Bhutan Times said the advertisement from the 9 ministries from January to December 2024 (excluding supplements) were less than two pages, Bhutan Today said 2 pages, Business Bhutan said 2 pages, Gyalchi Sarshog said around 1 page, The Journalist said half page and The Bhutanese had slightly more than 2 pages.

Private papers and their owners and Editors said the actual percentage of such advertisements are from 3% to around 7% and definitely well below 10% and nowhere near what the RSF report says at 80%.

The vast majority of private media advertisements come from corporations, autonomous bodies, financial institutions, private sector, international agencies and ordinary people.

With such minimal advertisement from the government ministries, there was no question of certain private media houses getting more due to ‘proximity to those in power.’

The private newspapers Editors and reporters also confirmed that none of them had been contacted by the RSF while compiling the 2025 RSF report for Bhutan.

The private newspapers emailed RSF to find out the basis of its assertions above.

RSF clarifies and corrects miswording

The RSF got back saying there is a ‘quiproquo’ (French word for misunderstanding or misinterpretation) with the paragraph as ‘things must have been lost in translation,’ while translating it from the French version which is clearer.

The RSF said, ‘advertising from government agencies account for 80 per cent of newspapers’ advertising revenue’ means that advertising revenue distributed by state bodies accounts for 80 percent of the total advertisement market and not that 80% of private newspapers advertisement comes from the government.

The RSF also clarified said that the phrase “which is allocated based on the outlets’ proximity to those in power” meant that media close to the power, which is state owned media, gets more advertisement.

It corrected the miswording in its Bhutan country report on Friday evening on its website.

The corrected version now reads as, “Privately owned publications survive in a difficult economic environment, with a relatively low readership and insufficient advertising. Advertising revenue distributed by public bodies is mostly allocated to public media.”

Why Bhutan’s ranking fell and how to improve it

The private newspapers had also sent questions seeking more clarity on the whole RSF 2025 report on Bhutan, and why it fell from a low of 147th in 2024 to a further low of 152nd in 2025.

Here, the RSF said, “The score is falling in Bhutan due to the problem of viability of independent media and an advertising model favoring public outlets, restrictive laws criminalizing criticism of the power, opaque and obstructed access to public information, absence of strong political measures to improve press freedom, among other issues.”

When asked about RSF’s recommendations to improve press freedom in Bhutan or Bhutan’s press freedom rankings, the RSF gave five recommendations.

The first is to, “Ensure equitable distribution of public advertising: Supporting both public and private media fairly, which is not the case at the moment, as public media are favored.”

Second was to, promote editorial independence, especially of state owned media outlets.

Third, was to review restrictive laws on criticism of the power.

Fourth, was to enhance transparency and access to public information and the fifth, was to strengthen media viability through diverse funding sources and supportive public policy.

The RSF said that in 2025 Bhutan’s score fell across four out of five indicators. In the Political context, it fell by 5.17 points, in the legal framework by 8.70 points, in the Economic context by 8.70 points, the Sociocultural context by 9.40 points, and Safety was the only area of improvement with a push of 8.60 points reflecting relative absence of physical threats. 

RSF data and methodology

RSF said its ranking is based exclusively on its own data. External sources may inform country context but have no weight in the final score. External indexes like Economist Intelligence Unit or Human Rights Watch is not used for the ranking.

It also said old cases do not influence current scores like The Bhutanese advertisement ban in 2012 or the Namgay Zam defamation case in 2016. Each year, the reports are updated based on new data and questionnaire input. The 2025 report reflects conditions as of January–December 2024.

The overall index is based on a weighted aggregation of Questionnaire responses (expert evaluations) and Monitoring data (attacks, laws, media control patterns).

Each of the five indicators receives a score between 0 and 100 from these sources. The questionnaire includes over 120 questions per country, covering autonomy, pluralism, transparency, censorship, safety, etc.

RSF said it World Press Freedom Index is based on a rigorous methodology combining quantitative and qualitative data. Each country is assessed across five indicators: Political context, Legal framework, Economic context, Sociocultural context, and Safety. 

For each, RSF uses a detailed questionnaire comprising about 125 questions answered by media professionals, researchers, academics, and human rights defenders.

Past rankings

The Bhutanese looked at Bhutan’s ranking in the past and the dramatic rises and drops.

If one looks at Bhutan’s media ranking historically, then the pre-democracy rankings were the worst at the 157th position in 2002, 2003 and 2004 with an even lower position of 161st in 2005.

The ranks improved dramatically in 2006 at 98th with preparation for the entry of the private media. It saw a high of 74th in 2008 and generally between the 80th to 90th positions till 2020 when the rankings started going up to the 67th rank, further jumping to the highest ever 33rd position in 2022. In fact, in 2022 many Bhutanese journalists were puzzled why the ranking was so high.

Bhutan fell from the all time high rank of 33rd in 2022 to 90th position in 2023, a drop of 57 places.

The RSF said quantitative scoring and expert evaluations in 2023 for Bhutan identified significant deterioration, particularly in financial viability and independence. The drop also reflects a recalibration of indicators following RSF’s 2022 methodology reform. 

In 2023 the economic indicator saw a drop of 32 positions to 66th. The political indicator saw a drop of 36 positions to 61st. The socio-cultural indicator saw a drop of 76 positions to 136th and the legislative indicator saw a drop of 67 positions to 134th.

The drop from 90th position in 2023 to 147th in 2024, another drop of 57 places was due to another fall in scores as Bhutan’s global score dropped from 59.25 in 2023 to 37.29 in 2024.

Here, the sharpest fall was in the economic indicator with a fall of 96 positions to 162nd. The political indicator fell by 93 positions to 154th. The legislative indicator fell by 31 positions to 165th. The sociocultural indicator fell by 33 positions to 169th and the safety indicator fell by 66 positions to 97th.

In 2025 the biggest drop in positions was the economic indicator by 8 places, political indicator by 7 places, social indicator by 5 places and only the security indicator improved by 14 places upwards.

Five indicators

RSF evaluates Bhutan’s press freedom on five indicators. The political context evaluates media autonomy, acceptance of a variety of journalistic approaches, and support for the media in their role of holding politicians and government to account in the public interest.

The legal framework looks at censorship or judicial sanctions, or excessive restrictions, the ability to access information without discrimination and presence or absence of impunity for those responsible for acts of violence against journalists.

Economic context looks at economic constraints linked to governmental policies; economic constraints linked to advertisers and media owners seeking to promote business interest.

Sociocultural context looks at attacks on the press based on such issues as gender, class, ethnicity and religion. Cultural constraints, is pressure on journalists to not question certain bastions of power or influence or not cover certain issues because it would run counter to the prevailing culture.