How the press should work

TBS Illustration

In the early nineties when I was a rookie journalist at The Daily Star, two female colleagues of mine sought an interview with the then prime minister Khaleda Zia and leader of the opposition Sheikh Hasina. They were granted time despite none of these colleagues being political reporters or senior journalists.

Fast forward to 2023. At a press conference of the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina at the PMO, a senior journalist stood up in the crowd during a question and answer session. He asked the PM if she would allow Khaleda Zia to go abroad for medical treatment. 

You can argue that the free press does not ensure quality journalism. Of course. In a democracy, anyone can open a news platform. You can be right-leaning, you can be left-leaning or centrist. You are free to support the Awami League or BNP or Jamaat or Jatiyo Party, or the CPB. Or you can choose to be anti-establishment and always take a position against the sitting government. The rest is up to the readers to choose what media they like the most. This is how the media works

Hasina exploded with anger: why was the journalist so sympathetic to Khaleda, who had tried to kill her (a reference to the August 2004 grenade attack)? Hasina was so mad that she ended the press conference right there. Later that evening, the senior journalist lost his job (He got back his job many months later).

These two contrasting scenarios remind us how we once had a free press—where top leaders respected even the most junior journalists in the early nineties—to where a top leader became so high and mighty that if she is offended by a question, a journalist can lose his job.

Bangladesh enjoyed a free press like never before between the period of early 1990 to 2002. During this period, we wrote freely. If we made a mistake, we received rejoinders or phone calls from the aggrieved party. There was no attack on the media from the authorities and there was no attempt at intimidation by the government. There were some incidents—but those were not committed by the government.

The first serious attack on free press came from the BNP-Jamaat government, against Ekushey TV—Bangladesh's first private TV channel that revolutionised how news should be presented in broadcast media. The BNP-Jamaat government perceived Ekushey as a pro-AL media house and it shut down the channel in August 2002.

However, after this instance, the government was by and large allowing the other media houses to run their stories reasonably freely. But shutting down the Ekushey TV became an example for everyone to see what the government can do if it becomes too hostile to a certain house.

The free press became a controlled press under the military grip between 2007 and late 2008. It was the time when journalists were beaten, stories were withdrawn or commissioned by the military intelligence wing. It was the time when editors would get calls from the spy agency telling them what we should publish or what we should not.

In late 2008, the free press returned. After the AL assumed power, in 2010—it repeated what the BNP-Jamaat government did in 2002. The government arrested Amar Desh editor and shut the newspaper down in June for 10 days. While the newspaper was allowed to resume operation after that, it was shut down again in 2013. Other opposition media houses also came under attack one by one.

Today's youth may not understand what free press really means because they live in a world of social media, side by side with professional media houses. People can publish anything on social media without being held accountable. They can say things using fake identities; they can say things about Bangladesh from a different continent.

But that's different from the role of the press. The press is an organised platform that must obtain permission from the government to operate in order to publish news. It is bound by laws related to print and broadcast media; pay taxes, and it is run by professionals. They are physically present in society and unable to get away by saying just anything.

You can argue that the free press does not ensure quality journalism. Of course. In a democracy, anyone can open a news platform. You can be right-leaning, you can be left-leaning or centrist. You are free to support the Awami League or BNP, or Jamaat or Jatiyo Party, or the CPB. Or you can choose to be anti-establishment and always take a position against the sitting government. The rest is up to the readers to choose what media they like the most. This is how the media works.

This is why, no matter which party one votes in—readers do not prefer partisan newspapers. We have seen that over time, most partisan newspapers have an ornamental existence or at best, are subscribed by hardcore supporters only.

The most popular newspapers of the country are all just anti-establishment papers. They can have tilts towards right, or left or centre; but their principle is acting as a guard against the powerful ones. They operate on commercial principle—so that they can earn the salaries of the journalists and if possible, give dividends to the investors.

Our rebirth of democracy through the 1990's mass upheaval created a lot of hopes of a new Bangladesh. But the journey soon became thorny as the Awami League opted not to cooperate with the ruling BNP. Their quarrel made the overall socio-political environment of the country vicious.

And it took an extreme shape during the Hasina rule—especially after 2014. Not only were media houses shut down, but the popular ones lost advertisement revenues because the spy agencies forced all the large advertisers to stop giving them advertisements. There were intimidations on a regular basis through the spy agencies. And above all, a section of highly partisan journalists appeared to malign those who tried to run revealing stories.

To survive in this environment, the media houses resorted to self-censorship and strategies to keep their noses above the water. Readers were disappointed by the gradual mellow tone of the papers/media outlets. But these were the times when the administration, the police and even the judiciary became partisan. For instance, if we wrote anything about S Alam—there would be calls from the spy agency and the PMO to the editors or the investors. And then S Alam would go to court and get a verdict that would say the press could not write on him.

Today, we expect an end to this vicious environment. We expect the free press to return and diagnose the problems and focus on the prospects of this society, so that readers and decision-makers can take the right next step.

A free press would mean, like different types of political parties in a democracy, the presence of diverse voices. There will be partisan ones, there will be neutral ones, there will be commercials and there will be philosophical newspapers. If you do not like one newspaper or media house, don't buy their news. If someone is running wrong news—there are plenty of legal tools to right that wrong. You cannot have a free press by attacking a media house or demanding it be shut down. That kind of act is just the job of an autocrat.

Sharier Khan is the Executive Editor at The Business Standard.