Will political leadership have the courage to let journalists work without fear?

Over the past several decades, the trajectory of media freedom in Bangladesh has remained uneven and fragile, frequently contested by political and institutional pressures. These forces shape journalistic practice, encourage self-censorship, and test the shared responsibility of the state and the media in preserving democracy.

Even during what was ostensibly a transitional period under the interim government, a new pattern emerged—one that was paradoxical: full independence appeared to coexist with subtle constraints. On paper, freedom seemed to exist, but in practice, control was always present, invisible yet effective. The experience was suffused with fear: the fear of reprisal, the fear of political consequences, and the constant need to weigh every word before speaking or writing. 

Self-censorship became second nature. In such an environment, distinguishing right from wrong, what can or cannot be reported, is no longer a purely journalistic judgment—it becomes a survival strategy. Mob violence, political intimidation, and the looming threat of state action constrain the press to an almost unbearable degree.

Globally, this phenomenon is not unique to Bangladesh. UNESCO and Freedom House have reported that over the last decade, worldwide press freedom has declined by roughly ten percent—a clear and troubling trend. 

In the United States, once regarded as a bastion of press freedom, we now see unprecedented constraints and a troubling erosion of civil liberties. In India, media operates under pressures that are both visible and systemic; in the United Kingdom, journalists navigate an increasingly fraught environment. Even in Britain, once considered a safe haven for independent reporting, the media faces growing challenges. These global trends underscore a sobering truth: press freedom is fragile everywhere, and its protection requires vigilance, courage, and collective effort.

In Bangladesh, the history of press freedom has been turbulent. For more than fifteen years, we lived under regimes where speech was controlled. Writing freely was a perilous act, and journalists learned quickly that speaking the truth often carried severe consequences. Yet, every period of suppression was followed by moments of cautious optimism. During the transitional period under the interim government, for instance, we observed a complex reality: freedom existed, but it was never complete. 

My own experiences during this time reflect the paradox of being both free and constrained. I struggled constantly with self-censorship, weighing the potential consequences of every story, every report. The presence of social media and digital platforms has amplified this dilemma, as information spreads rapidly but cannot always be verified, and the threat of misinformation complicates the exercise of responsible journalism.

Looking back, I can trace the trajectory of press freedom in Bangladesh decade by decade. I began my career in the early 1970s, soon after the independence of Bangladesh, joining journalism at a time when freedom was aspirational but fragile. During the 1974 political crisis, I experienced firsthand the vulnerability of journalists. A report I wrote for Banglar Bani resulted in the surrounding of the Home Minister's residence, and I lost my position the following day. This pattern repeated under subsequent regimes. During President Ziaur Rahman's tenure, reports I filed were scrutinized; sources were questioned; editors were summoned; and, on occasion, my reporting led to the temporary suspension of newspapers.

Under Ershad's regime, the press operated under an almost zero-tolerance policy. Newsrooms faced repeated raids, and the threat of closure loomed constantly. Yet even in these circumstances, moments of judicial intervention, such as the rulings of Chief Justice Shahabuddin, ensured that the fundamental freedom of the press persisted. These interventions were rare, and the legal recourse that journalists relied upon often required years of persistence and personal risk.

Throughout this history, a recurring theme has been the duality of press freedom: legal guarantees exist, but practical enforcement is fragile. The constitution of Bangladesh guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Yet "freedom after speech"—the protection one receives after reporting—is almost entirely absent. No legal framework or political system fully guarantees that journalists will be shielded from the consequences of truth-telling. Survival and effectiveness thus depend on courage, solidarity, and strategic action within the profession itself.

Self-censorship has become a pervasive issue. It is not simply a matter of personal fear; it reflects broader structural pressures. Even editors must consider political implications before approving stories, weighing potential repercussions against the public interest. This is compounded by "mob culture," the threat of physical violence, and the realities of digital misinformation. Online journalism has both democratized information and amplified these challenges: news can be shared instantaneously, but the quality and credibility of reporting are often compromised, leading to dangerous competition among outlets.

At the same time, systemic reforms are urgently needed. Ministries tasked with oversight, such as the Ministry of Information, frequently fail to fulfill their constitutional mandate. Historically, these institutions have been used more as instruments of control than as protectors of press freedom. In many countries, information ministries no longer exist; their functions are better served through independent regulatory bodies, commissions, and professional oversight committees. Bangladesh could benefit from such structural reforms, particularly a revitalized Press Council with the authority to safeguard journalistic independence and enforce professional standards.

The future of press freedom in Bangladesh is contingent on multiple factors. Political change alone is insufficient; journalists must collectively assert their rights and demand systemic protections. The media must resist fragmentation, stand in solidarity, and recognize that freedom is never simply granted—it must be claimed and defended continuously. Our recent experiences have shown that even historic electoral moments, heralded as opportunities for democratic consolidation, cannot guarantee press freedom if systemic pressures and threats persist.

Looking forward, I am both cautious and realistic. The next government, regardless of party, will face the responsibility of ensuring that journalists can operate without fear, that information flows freely, and that the public is able to access accurate, independent reporting. Achieving this requires more than rhetoric; it demands institutional reform, the courage of political leadership, and the collective determination of the media community. Without these, the path ahead will remain fraught, and the promise of press freedom will remain unfulfilled.

In closing, I would stress that the struggle for freedom of the press is inseparable from the struggle for democracy itself. We cannot claim to live in a free society if journalists must live in fear of reprisal, self-censor their work, or operate under systemic constraints. The history of Bangladeshi journalism demonstrates both the resilience and vulnerability of our media. It is now the responsibility of all stakeholders—journalists, civil society, and political leaders—to ensure that press freedom is not only protected on paper but guaranteed in practice. The road ahead is challenging, but the stakes could not be higher: without a free and fearless press, the very foundation of our democracy is at risk.

Abridged from an interview on 'TBS Future' hosted by TBS Executive Editor Shakawat Liton.

Matiur Rahman Chowdhury is the  Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Manabzamin