Gathering clouds darken sky over media landscape

Two recent developments have triggered alarm over the future of press freedom in the country. One is a policy decision that is moving towards legislation, while the other is executive action against an individual journalist.

Such events and incidents suggest that, if the current course is not reversed, Bangladesh could be staring down an abyss that leads to a media landscape ruled by fear and intimidation.

The government is currently working on amending the Cyber Protection Act (CPA) which, if turned into legislation, would make it the most draconian law so far in terms of restrictions on speech and publications. Rights watchdogs have warned that the amended version could turn Bangladesh's cyberspace into an "environment of unchecked surveillance, impunity and repression".

However, it was the executive action that came to light first. A senior broadcast journalist at Channel One TV, who also happens to be the station's only reporter assigned to cover the Prime Minister's Office, had his accreditation card cancelled. No explanation was given and no alleged wrongdoing on the part of the journalist was mentioned.

In the absence of any explanation from the Prime Minister's Office or the Ministry of Information, the reporter and his channel bosses have come to the most obvious conclusion. The journalist and the station have been targeted for their work, to which some government officials have taken exception.

Freedom as a 'gift'

Clearly, neither the channel nor the journalist has broken any law or produced any malicious content. If they had, that would have been highlighted in the Press Information Department's letter informing them of the cancellation of Habibur Rahman's accreditation. The letter gave no reason or justification.

The danger here is all too visible. In this instance, one journalist at one TV channel may have been impacted. But the message that the action sends out to the rest of the media community is crystal clear: do not expose government wrongdoing, do not ask critical questions and do not raise topics that paint the government in a bad light.

It is almost like setting an example for others to observe and draw the necessary conclusions.

Shocking though it is, this sequence of events is rather familiar in Bangladesh.

In reality, media freedom is not the government's property to "gift" in the first place. Rather, the government can only take it away, by squeezing it, and chipping away at its foundation. That appears to be what has been set in motion. 

A party comes to power promising to respect freedom of the press. Its leaders assure the media that they would welcome criticism. Some may go overboard and claim the new government would "gift" freedom to the media.

In reality, media freedom is not the government's property to "gift" in the first place. Rather, the government can only take it away by squeezing it and chipping away at its foundation. That appears to be what has been set in motion.

Transparent violation

While the cancelled accreditation is of immediate concern for Habibur Rahman from Channel One, there is a much broader threat to press freedom gathering strength just over the horizon.

The proposed amendment to the Cyber Protection Act is more than just raising eyebrows, given its sheer range and breadth.

"The draft law defines a number of concepts, including 'rumour', 'misinformation', 'demeaning', 'defamatory' and 'insulting to the state', in ways that create scope for deliberate misinterpretation, targeted misuse and, in particular, the violation of freedom of speech and fundamental human rights," executive director of Transparency Bangladesh Dr Iftekharuzzaman said in a statement.

Such worries are not misplaced. The law makes the dissemination of "rumours and disinformation" in cyberspace a crime punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment.

These are sweeping and vague notions of "false news" which could put newsrooms as well as individual content creators in the danger zone. Reporting what they believe to be true could jeopardise their freedom and livelihood. The outcome could be fear and self-censorship.

For instance, the amendments define "disinformation" as "any false, distorted or misleading information that is intentionally created, published or disseminated for the purpose of misleading, deceiving or harming a person, the public, an institution or the State".

There are no caveats to provide safeguards for journalism conducted in good faith. Much is left to the interpretation of the authorities. This could become an enormous stick that could be wielded in any way the authorities deemed fit.

Blocking content with impunity

The proposed law is full of provisions that should worry even strong sympathisers of the current government. The proposals would enhance, rather than diminish, the powers of the authorities to block sites and content.

Under current rules, the government is obligated to inform the public of any blocking of content or a site. Agencies that carry out blocking, such as the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, are required under current law to seek permission from a tribunal within three days of blocking content and withdraw the block if permission is not granted. The proposed amendments remove both these requirements.

If such amendments are passed, the law would continue to give the government the power to decide what the public should be allowed to read. There is an element of impunity here too, as there is no provision to hold authorities accountable for their actions in the application of the law.

This is not to suggest that the internet should remain a "free medium" where any content should be accessible to all. There would always be some exceptions, given society's ethno-religious and cultural sensitivities.

Content that is generally accepted as harmful to society is often blocked without much public protest or expression of concern. This could include content that incites violence or hatred against vulnerable communities such as religious or ethnic minorities; content that degrades women and fuels male violence against them; or content that could cause psychological or sexual harm, especially to children.

Humiliation and ridicule

The actions against individual journalists and outlets, or the overarching law to control and restrict the media, do not come out of the blue. There is an underlying lack of respect for media freedom that appears to underpin all actions that work against protecting freedom of the press.

Even on a daily basis, journalists are often made to feel humiliated or threatened. Some ministers, during their interactions with the media, tend to respond to questions in ways that are dismissive, ridicule the question or make the journalist asking it feel inadequate. 

Scant respect is shown to journalists. Journalists have a right and responsibility to ask questions. The people they question should answer honestly, even if they think the questions are ridiculous.

In some cases, the haughty response may seem deliberately designed to intimidate and discourage them from asking critical or uncomfortable questions.

This is fundamentally an attitude problem.

As long as politicians see journalists as either adversaries or their collaborators, rather than as professionals doing their job, the tendency to expect slavish promotional coverage from one group and to treat the other with contempt and threats will continue.

Abuse of laws

The use and abuse of defamation cases against journalists has been one of the tools used to intimidate the media.

While it is true that, in the digital age, social media has made it far easier to defame, demean or humiliate people, a case can certainly be made for moving these offences to the civil part of the law.

This would prevent people from abusing the law to punish troublesome journalists by threatening arrest and jail through defamation complaints filed under the current Penal Code or the Cyber Protection Act.

The amendment to the Cyber Protection Act was another opportunity to move away from the British-era practice of making defamation a criminal offence. But the opportunity has, once again, been passed over. It appears governments are reluctant to voluntarily give up tools of control and intimidation.

In Bangladesh, governments using and abusing laws ostensibly designed to protect the rights of citizens to punish their political opponents is not uncommon. The abuse of the former Digital Security Act to punish and harass online journalists and activists by the former Awami League government is still fresh in people's minds.

Sabir Mustafa is a journalist and podcaster. He can be reached at sabir.mustafa@gmail.com. On X, he is @Sabir59.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.