The insurrection that toppled the autocratic regime of Sheikh Hasina has cost at least 800 deaths including 92 children. It has also taken the lives of five journalists, according to Voice of America. The extreme brutality employed by the security forces and the supporters of Awami League also maimed thousands of others, and again those injured include journalists, though their exact numbers are yet to be determined.
Though those victims belonging to the media were largely being targeted by police and AL activists, regrettably there were quite a few who were subjected to protesters’ backlash. Several TV channels and newspaper offices have been attacked, disrupting their broadcasts and publications. In Khulna, the press club was set on fire. In Chittagong and several other places, there have been attempts to attack and set fire to press clubs.
It is, therefore, crucial to introspect why democracy-supporting protesters attacked one of the most important institutions of democracy: the media. There is indeed a risk in professional and objective journalism, but that risk comes from the attempt to hold the powerful accountable. However, objective and honest journalism should never be a cause of public outrage.
There is no debate that due to the ousted government's repression and intimidation, revealing the truth had become increasingly difficult. The fear was so pervasive that editors openly admitted a few years ago that they couldn't write what they wanted to. But, unfortunately, this is not the full picture.
A significant part of the media became accomplices to the autocracy, encouraging the suppression of dissent, spreading falsehoods and defamation against political opponents to incite harassment. In some cases, the partisan behavior dipped to such a low that later revelation showed two journalists in Narayanganj using illegal arms on protesters while accompanying local AL activists.
Conversely, they either ignored or failed to adequately report on serious incidents of political repression, human rights violations, corruption among the ruling clique, and illegal steps to consolidate power. The stories of torture in Aynaghar of those who were victims of enforced disappearances, or the massive corruption cases that are now making headlines, were not covered by most of the media.
The reasons for this are quite complex. It include factors like the arbitrary granting of TV, radio, and newspaper licenses to party supporters, the use of media by existing owners for their business interests or to gain advantages, political ambitions of owners and some journalists, compromises made for financial and material benefits, and political loyalty.
The AL government had adopted a strategy of issuing licenses without considering financial capacity, professional skill, or capability. The fallen regime’s aim was presenting the abundance of media as evidence of media freedom in the country. This has created a chaotic situation in the media landscape.
There is no hope of escaping this situation as long as the current model of media ownership and management continues. Even if some temporary changes are brought about by some self-initiated enthusiasm, it will not last, and things will return to the way they were. Therefore, a fundamental change in the character of the media is necessary, and urgent reform measures need to be taken to achieve this.
What should be the goals of reform?
The media must first and foremost be a mass media, meaning its primary objective should be public interest. No media should operate for personal, corporate, business, group, or political interests. Even state-run media should be governed by public interest, not the interests of the government (the ruling party or an authoritative individual).
Plurality in the media must be ensured so that all opinions and diverse thoughts are reflected.
Monopolistic practices must be eliminated. The control of multiple media outlets (newspaper, television, and radio) by the same individual or organisation, as well as multiple institutions within the same medium (multiple channels), hinders free competition. This obstacle must be removed to create a competitive environment in the media landscape. Competition enriches democracy, while monopolistic centralisation creates adverse conditions for democratic debate and environment.
State-run institutions—Bangladesh Television, Bangladesh Betar, and Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha—must be kept free from government control or influence, and similarly, corporate or privately-owned TV, radio, and newspapers must be kept free from the influence of owners' personal and business interests. One major obstacle in this regard is the active participation of owners in the management of these institutions. By giving professional journalists editorial control and professional executives the responsibility of business management, unethical interference and influence from owners can be stopped. Owners must maintain an "arms-length distance" from the operation of media institutions.
Objectivity and truthfulness must be at the core of editorial policy.
In TV, radio, or newspapers owned by individuals, political activities or the promotion of associated business products and services must ensure transparency and balance. Unilateral promotion should not be allowed, and there should be a transparency declaration regarding ownership. In the past few elections, we have seen that due to ownership, an institution has turned into a blatant propaganda tool or exclusive promoter of a candidate, effectively becoming a political leaflet. Again, media owned by bitumen or cement manufacturers don’t disclose their interests when reporting or giving opinions related to their industry, misleading readers who perceive their statements as independent and neutral. Just as it is unimaginable that the Washington Post owned by Jeff Bezos would publish reports defending Amazon's interests without disclosing them, similar measures are needed in our country. Such disclosure of interests is also practiced in India, but so far ignored in Bangladesh.
There needs to be a fundamental change in the oversight of TV, radio, and newspapers. The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC), the regulatory body that has been turned into a government postal service in issuing radio and TV licenses, must be reformed. It needs a complete overhaul, and the opinions of independent and experienced professionals should be the main basis for granting licenses. If the license conditions are violated, they should have full independence to investigate and resolve the issue or impose penalties.
In the case of newspapers, the self-regulation mechanism of this industry needs to be restructured following the example of other developed democratic countries. The current Bangladesh Press Council, due to government funding, has become a subservient institution of the government. This needs to be changed, and editorial institutions of the newspaper industry need to be completely freed from government influence in their oversight. Editorial institutions also need to develop and align the code of conduct for media professionals with the evolving challenges in the industry.
The mushroom growth witnessed in the media industry during the last 15 years meant severe skill shortages resulting in a significant degradation of quality and standard of journalism and other contents. It is, therefore, crucial to strengthen capacity building programmes in cooperation with universities and other training institutes.
Possible obstacles to the reform and how to overcome them
Amendments to the existing laws will be required, particularly in the management laws of state institutions and the licensing policies and regulations of private TV and radio.
Owners with multiple media outlets should be encouraged to reorganise their businesses. The government will not shut down any media. But alternatives must be sought to end the concentration of multiple TV channels or multiple media outlets under one business group. It is particularly problematic as none of these owners have kept their business limited only within the media, but have media outlets as subsidiaries of their other interests. The control of multiple TV channels or dual media like TV channels and newspapers under the same media company disrupts the balance in the media market, undermining competition. In some cases, these institutions don’t make a profit but operate with subsidies from other businesses of the owners, leading to unethical business practices. Those institutions that are not profitable should be given the opportunity to merge or be sold to other interested parties to make them profitable and sustainable.
Institutions that fail to meet the national media policy should be given a set time frame to achieve compliance, and creative solutions can be found by providing that opportunity. No media license renewal should be done solely for personal or corporate interests. All existing institutions should be required to commit to and demonstrate adherence to these policies, with provisions to phase out unprofessional institutions.
The need for the media will not diminish anytime soon, as it is an essential prerequisite for democracy. In a number of matured democracies, calls for treating media as a public good like education or health service, are being made as debates on providing public funds to save smaller newspapers kicks in. Those who want to consider social media as a substitute for news media have seen and are seeing its failure to curb rumours, fake news, or misinformation. The attempts to incite communal tension have certainly not gone unnoticed by anyone.
Chief Advisor Dr. Muhammad Yunus mentioned media as one of the areas for reform before the elections. Now, we await practical steps. The media will have to embark on a long struggle to regain the trust of the people, who have shown disappointment and anger towards the country's media.
(Published in the Daily Star on the 9th September 2024.)
মন্তব্যসমূহ
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন