Aзи номхон далайн бvсийн орнуудын чуулганд тавьж буй бяцхан илтгэлийнхээ эхийг блогтоо оруулж байна. Зендее олон бусад санаа байгаа боловч егегдсен цагийн боломжинд тохируулан хэдхэн санааг голлон оруулсан болно. Ер нь цагийн боломж гарвал орхигдсон санаануудаа нэмээд энэ сэдвээ vргэлжлvvлж цааш нь бичье гэсэн бодолтой байна. Юу ч гэсэн юуны тухай ярьж байгаагаа та бvхэнтэй хуваалцъя гэж бодлоо. Алдаатай зvйлс байвал хэлтрvvлнэ гэж найдъя.


Here I would like to talk about three topics, which create conflict in the Mongolian media.

First, the legal situation and lack of transparency of ownership of private media put public and private media in a position of almost being enemies of each other. There is no way to talk about shared responsibility.

Second, the financial instability and small market size in Mongolia puts public and private media in somewhat of a dependent situation which we call “paid journalism”. There is not much opportunity to be a true journalist.

Third, many years of being legally vulnerable has put Mongolian journalists in a situation of being disinterested in developing their professionalism and ethical standards. There is no way for them to be proud of themselves, to be ethical or true to their profession.

Let me explain all of these one by one.

1. Why there is no way to talk about shared responsibility?

Media, especially the central, government controlled radio and television, used to be a very strong propaganda weapon for one particular party in Mongolia, and that was the MPRP - Mongolian Peoples Revolutionary Party, the former communist party. When the democratic revolution took place 20 years ago, the only thing the winning party, the MPRP, didn’t want to change was media ownership. Until 1996, when democrats first won an election, 6 years after the democratic revolution, there was not any private television or daily newspaper in the country. Three months after the MPRP lost its power in 1996, the first private television station, channel 25 television, began broadcasting. Also, the first private daily newspaper “Unoodor” or "Today" was born almost at the same time. Both had one ownership group and these were the most influential leaders in the MPRP.

So actually former communists were the first to create media pluralism in Mongolia, not because they realized media’s freedom, but because by law the winning democrats now started to control the state-owned central radio, television, and daily newspapers, and the MPRP needed their own weapon to hunt new democrats down.

From this beginning, private media in Mongolia had a very narrow purpose. Today the owners of all commercial television stations have strong ties to politicians. The mindset of politicians in Mongolia, who believe that the media is only a propaganda weapon, hasn’t changed at all during the last 20 years of transition.

The reason I’m saying this was that even though the democrats, whose slogan was to support press freedom, won in the 1996 parliamentary election, they still didn’t want the central radio, television, and daily newspapers to be independent. Whether Democrats or MPRP, they are politicians, and they want these propaganda tools.
Then in 2000, the Democrats lost the election and with that loss, they lost control of the central radio and television as well. From there, their fight against the status of the central radio and television network began, along with a desire to have their own media network.

That, I can say, was one of the main causes of the mushrooming number of private television stations.
A perfect example is that as the next parliamentary election nears in 2012, another two private television channels are about to open, and that will make 30 the total number of private television channels in Mongolia’s small sized market. Almost all of these private television channels have but one purpose and that is to serve their owner's political agendas.

Here I want to show part of the final report on last year’s presidential election monitoring; it is from one of the watchdog NGOs on media ethics, Globe International Mongolia:

Approaching the voting date of the Presidential Election in 2009, activity of the election campaigns had intensified. The Globe International NGO covered the last two weeks of media campaigning by the candidates via 5 TV channels (one public, four private) observing 1,324 hours’ coverage. The NGO summarized their conclusions on the monitoring as follows:

• The private TV channels did not provide an equal opportunity to the candidates

• The private TV channels presented one-sided, polarized and biased information on the candidates.

• News programs turned into election advertisements; and almost half of news coverage at private tv channels that we monitored presented paid-materials.

* During the private TV news programs, positive information about candidate for President, Enkhbayar was 83.1 percent and negative information on him was only 3.1 percent. Meanwhile, positive information about candidate Elbegdorj was 51.4 percent and negative information -33.1 percent. If comparing negative information about the two candidates, the difference is 10 times.

• Mongolian National Public Broadcasting Television performed its duty properly and ethically compared with other commercial TV channels.

In Mongolia some of the current general laws and regulations relating to media reporting during the election campaign apply equally to both public and private media: for example, provisions relating to "blackout" periods before the vote or the coverage of opinion polls. However, the air time limitation applies only to public media, not to private media. That’s why, during the election campaign, private TV channels can devote all of their air time for one particular candidate or party if they can, while MNB - the Public Broadcaster - only devotes 5-7% of its daily air time (during the last election, it was 7%).

Therefore, the effort of the one and only public TV station to be balanced is diluted by 20 something private TV stations’ unruly program policy, and in the final analysis, voters loose their right to have balanced reporting on the candidates and issues because of this conflicting situation.

The essence of a free media environment is that broadcasters and journalists are not told what they may, or may not, say or write. The essence of private broadcasting is being opportunistic and making money, especially during the election campaigns where lots of cash can be distributed in a short period of time. These two essences didn't find their balance in the media field of Mongolia, and unless a law on broadcasting is passed that can regulate this situation, nothing will ever change. We will see how this plays out in the 2012 election campaign.

2. Why does the financial instability or small market size puts public and private media in a much dependent situation?

As I stated above, private television channels’ purpose is not for the development of the television industry, or media pluralism, or making money on advertisements. According to the survey, the total advertising capacity in Mongolia is about 10 million dollars.
If one divides this number into 17 broadcast channels + 13 cable channels, the average monthly revenue is only $27700.
($10 000 000 : 12 months = $833 333.
$833 333 : 30 channels = $27 777)

If you compare this monthly income from advertisements with the total cost of employees’ salaries, (let’s say each station’s average number of employee is 50, and their monthly salary is $400, so the total fund is $20 000) the difference will be just $7 777.
So it is obvious that there is no way that this much revenue can make private television stations financially viable.

- So their content has to be converted into paid materials.

- Making original content gets expensive, so they prefer to fill their time with unlicensed movies, entertainment shows, and soap operas because they are free or cheap.

- Hiring professional experienced journalists who have skills and strong ethics is expensive, so they prefer young journalists, or students who can just covers press conferences, workshops etc. When they cover serious topics, they often make serious mistakes, and when hauled into court as a result, they often lose their case. Let me show a final report on defamation cases study by Globe International NGO with the support of the US Embassy in Mongolia.

In total, 39 civil defamation cases were heard by the Mongolian courts in 2008, and 21 were against media and journalists. In 71.4% of civil defamation cases, the media and journalists lost and only in 9.5%, did they win.

At MNB, the financial situation also puts us in a dependent situation. The budget is discussed in parliamentary session each year, so it requires lobbying members of parliament twice a year, and during the lobbying most members ask for favor which are mostly to be shown on public television’s prime time news or talk shows. We have 76 members in the parliament, and imagine how much time we are forced to devote to them. It is true that MNB serves politicians a lot, covers them wherever they go, whatever they do. So this financial instability in both public and private media gives us a SHARED SHAME, not a shared responsibility for public interest or media ethics.

3. Why journalists are not proud of themselves for being ethical or true to their profession

We have both criminal and civil defamation laws against journalists. We have laws on state secrets, and no one knows what is secret until you violate the law. The list of secrets is secret. Khafka!! . However, up to now the right to protect the source of information is not legalized in Mongolia. Every case of being in court on this matter puts journalists in jail or sees them heavily fined.

There is no relationship between gaining public trust and gaining market size. In other words, there is no cash award for being professional, nor is there a cash penalty for being unethical. For example, two newspapers cover the same story. One reveals corruption, being true and professional, the other publishes paid for material from the company or authority. The company or authority brings the other newspaper into court saying the newspaper revealed some state secret. That newspaper has a very good chance of being found guilty. The most unfortunate part is that this situation has no effect on sales because the subscription process is mostly automatic with agreements from big companies, government organizations and political parties. Here you can see which one is "awarded" and which one got "penalty".

This has been the situation for the last 20 years, and more and more journalists prefer to cover easy events such as press conferences and workshops and their backsides, instead of covering serious stories such as corruption.

Conclusion and recommendation

Public or private, the media is not a clothing or construction business. It has a strong influence on the public mind and it touches people’s daily lives. So we must have the same responsibilities. We have to share it equally. The problem is that the best intentions can't remedy this situation because we in Mongolian do not have a long tradition or much experience in democratic culture.

So last spring a group of people joined a committee that was organized by the president's office to work on creating a draft law on media and broadcasting and had several discussions on the topic. This draft, if passed into law, will provide a shared responsibility for media ethics, wide access to public documents, media self-regulation and hopefully, this changed legal situation will serve to encourage journalists to be professional, and skillful in investigative reporting.

Where the media is strong, there will be a less corrupted and healthier society. That is what we journalists, we Mongolians want, that is what shared responsibility is about. Keep your fingers crossed for us.

Thank you for your attention.


  1. Ta үнэхээр сайхан илтгэл тавьжээ. Энэ бүхэн манай хэвлэл мэдээллийн салбарынхны гол асуудал гэдэгтэй санал нэг байна. Арилжааны болон олон нийтийн гэж хуваагдаад, бие биендээ дайсагнасан байдлаар хандах нь ч утгагүй юм. Аль аль нь л төрийн, болоод эрхтэн дархтнуудын хашаанд уяатай байж, тэдний гараас хоол идэж байгаа бол тэдний төлөө *хуцахаас* биш яахав дээ. Гол нь тэр ноход УЯАТАЙ байгаа гэдгээ мэдэж байгаа бол, тэр уяагаа тасдаж одохыг хүсч байгаа бол л сайн байна.

    Хоёрт: Мэргэшсэн, туршлагатай сэтгүүлчдийнхээ цалинг дийлдэггүй болохоороо ямар ч туршлагагүй, *түүхий* залуусаар дэлгэцээ дүүргэдэг нь яриангүй хэл загатнуулаад байсан зүйлсийн нэг шүү. Тэд нь ядаж өдөр бүрийн эфирээр байж боломгүй ноцтой ноцтой алдаа гаргахыг нь яана. Эхэндээ цочирддог байсан бол сүүлдээ эвлэрдэг болоод, эцэстээ *хэвийн үзэгдэл* мэт хүлээж авдаг болж дээ.

  2. бас төрийн нууцад халдсан гэсэн нэрийдлээр сэтгүүлчдийг барьж хорих нь элбэг ч чухам тэр төрийн нууц гээчид нь юу юу багтдаг болох нь нууц байдаг нь үнэн гаж шүү... Энэ санаа үнэхээр чухал.

  3. Нэг үеээ бодоход монголын улс төрчид шүүмжлэлд нээлттэй ханддаг болсон нь сайшаалтай.

    Шүүмжлэлийг дайсан гэж үзэхээсээ илүү нөхөр гэж үзвэл зохино гэж экс ерөнхийлөгч Н. Энхбаяр хэлнэ гэж хэн санах билээ. Алдаа дутагдлыг бусдаас бус өөрөөсөө хайх хэрэгтэй гэж бас зөвлөсөн санагдана.

    Хэвлэл мэдээллийн салбарынхан ч бас өөрсдийгөө гэм зэмгүй энхийн цагаан тагтаа, улс төрчид л бүх гажуудалд буруутай гэж дүгнэх нь арай л өрөөсгөл санагдаад байна.

    Бизнэс ч тэр, улс төр ч тэр алим өөрөө унаад ирээсэй гэж хүлээж суугаагүй. Хэвлэл мэдээлэл ялгаа юу байна? Та нарын өмнөөс хэн нэгэн яагаад санаа тавьж гүйх ёстой гэж? Өөрсдөө л тэмцэж, зүтгэх ёстой биш үү?

    Ялаа, улс төрч хоёрыг сониноор алж болно гэсэн ёгт үг байдаг санагдлаа. Ийм хүчтэй зэвсэг гартаа атгачихаад гомдол мэдүүлээд байгаа нь сонин. Адилхан заль мэх хэрэглэх хэрэгтэй биш үү?

  4. Сонгуулиар яллаа л бол юу дуртайгаа хийж, ямар хууль баталсан ч дур гэдэг улс төрчдийн эх захгүй, замбараагүй явдал монгол оронд тогтоод удаж байна. Нэг унтаад босох хооронд л баяр, ёслол давхцуулаад ямар нэгэн хууль сэмхэн батлаад байна гээд боддоо. Жинхэнэ завхрал. Улс төрчид их хурал руу зүтгэх нь аргагүй шүү дээ. Ийм сайхан хулгай хийх боломж байхад.

    Мэдээж бусад оронд хуулийг ингэж батлахгүй. Хэвлэл мэдээллийн хэрэгслэл, онлайн хэлэлцүүлгээр заавал дамжиж шүүгдэнэ. Томоохон асуудлаар бүх нийтийн санал асуулга явуулна. Хэрвээ иймэрхүү зайлшгүй дамжлагыг алгасаад хууль батлагдлаа гэхэд шууд автоматаар цуцлагдана. Ерөөс олны хараа хяналтаас гадуур хууль батлагдах ямар ч боломж, орчин байхгүй.

    Гэтэл монголд улс төрийн гол хоёр хүчин хоорондоо үгсээд л хамтарсан шийдвэр гаргаж байна. Сонгуулиар ялах, шийдвэр гаргах хоёр хоорондоо ялгаатай тусдаа ойлголт.

    Ухаандаа та гэр орноо цэвэрлүүлэхээр үйлчлэгч авах зар тавиад өрсөлдүүллээ. Мэдээж үйлчлэгчид өөрсдийгөө хэнээс ч илүү, хорвоод хосгүй, мундаг авъяастай, гайхамшигтай үйлчлэгч гэж магтана. Ингээд хэн нэгэн этгээд сонгон шалгаруулалтанд ялалт байгуулан үйлчлэгч болно. Гэхдээ ингэж яллаа гэдэг нь таны толгой дээр гараад суух эрхтэй гэсэн үг биш шүү дээ. Шийдвэр гаргахдаа эзнээс заавал зөвшөөрөл авна.

    Өнөөдөр улс төрчид уул уурхай гэж их ярьж байна. Хэнээс ямар зөвшөөрөл авсан юм? Малчид үгээ барж байна. Олон зуун жил айх аюулгүй амар тайван явсан амьдрал нь хутганы ирэн дээр тулж ирээд байна. Бөөн эрсдэл. Ямар ч баталгаа байхүй. Монгол улс хэзээ ийм задгай байлаа?

    Энэ мэт үл бүтэх бусармаг үйлдлүүдийг шууд шүүмжлэх амаргүй байж болно. Тэгвэл алсуур сэмээрхэн шүүмжилж бас болно. Ухаандаа бусад оронд хууль хэрхэн батлагддаг тухай цуврал нэвтрүүлгүүд бэлдэх ч юмуу. Өнгөц харахад монголын тухай биш, гаднын орны тухай юм шиг сэтгэгдэл төрнө. Бяцхан шүдэнз зурж гэгээрүүлж буй хэрэг. Гялс хийн сүүмэлзээд өнгөрөх хэдий ч хүний сэтгэлд эргэлзээ, тээнэглэзлэл заавал үлдэнэ. Бид яагаад ийм байж болохгүй гэж гэсэн барьцах сэтгэл төрөх жишээтэй.

    Иймэрхүү маягаар ямар заль мэх хэрэглэн улс төрчдийн гарыг мухарлан хөлийг туших вэ гэдэг нь цэвэр сэтгүүлчдийн мэргэжлийн ур чадварын асуудал. Уул нь сэтгүүлчдийн арми улс төрчдийнхээс илүү л байлтай. Зөв зохион байгуулж чадвал асар их хүч. Цөмийн зэвсэг гэсэн үг. Өөрсдийгөө үнэлэх хэрэгтэй, бүү доошоо ор гэж л хэлмээр байна. Магадгүй сүүлчийн найдвар.

  5. Feodalism ruugaa ergeed unaj baigaa tomchuud n 2 dahi avgai avdag boltson Mongold setguul zui uurhaichinaas iluu hund hortoi hodolmoriin nohtsol baih l daa.

  6. "Public or private, the media is not a clothing or construction business. It has a strong influence on the public mind and it touches people’s daily lives. So we must have the same responsibilities. We have to share it equally."

    Like this conclusion, topic covers real urging matters in public broadcasting ... but remember journalist also need to have bounding ethics especially in this politically driven or owned journalism era in our country. If not, those journalist would be the punish-er for all apolitical ideas, free-minds, reform minded people ... I think

  7. Жор мэддэг ламаас зовлон үзсэн чавганц дээр гэдэг ёжтой үг бий. Эвгүй үг шүү. Хурц мэс л гэсэн үг.

    Хүний зовлон мэддэггүй, ойлгодоггүй, төсөөлдөггүй, үүл хөлөглөн диваажингийн орноор зугаалан сайхан сайхан үлгэр, зүүд мөрөөдөл ярьж суудаг, амалдаг, аягүй бол тэр үлгэртээ өөрсдөө хүртэл итгэчихсэн номлогч нар монголоор нэг цэцэглэжээ. Зүүд, нойрноосоо сэрэх тун дургүй. Арай дэндүү юм. Ар гэрийн ажил хэцүүдлээ.

    Энэ талаар экс ерөнхийлөгч Н. Энхбаяр дуу алдсан байхыг нягталбал их л зовж, шаналж, зүдэрч яваа янзтай. Бүр бясалгал хүртэл хийгээд зүүднээсээ сэрж буй бололтой. Ашгүй дээ. Ухаан орох найдвар байна.

    Випассана бясалгал буюу бодитойгоор харах эрдэм гэж өөрийгөө тун дажгүй илэрхийлжээ. Сэтгүүлчид ийм л байх хэрэгтэй. Дажгүй заль мэх гаргасан байна. Суралцах хэрэгтэй. Сэтгүүлчид хэдий болтол улс төрчдөд мэхлүүлж суухав.

    Хуучин бууны хугархай гэсэндээ экс маань шийр зааж байна шүү. Амжилт хүсье.


  8. First I am one of your kind supporters that wish you best success in your career. Second you hopefully know that all your mentioned irresponsible and/or criminal misconducts by Mongolian politicians and people within higher class are too familiar with your intended audience of asian journalists. Exactly same events happen throughout asia everyday. Even journalists from Japan or S.Korea can mention exactly same facts from their homeland that how corruptions and political or corporate business misconducts are causing serious social problems. Perhaps if possible it is better to mention your case in certain brief manner that any typical journalist audience would understand and try to raise more solution options and challenges would be more productive IMHO. One great fact journalism rights is that recently Iceland approved very crucial internet protection law that Wikileak authority is trying to get advantage of. Strength & Success!!!


    Дмитрий Медведев: "Демократии нет, если человек на личном уровне чувствует несвободу и несправедливость. Демократия начинается только в том случае, если гражданин скажет сам себе: я свободен!"


    DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Governments can indefinitely repeat to their citizens: "You are free." But democracy begins only when citizens say to themselves: "I am free".