In the post August 2024 Bangladesh, reforms have taken centre stage with the media also coming under the spotlight.
One of the main reasons why media reforms is being treated as a crucial necessity is because of its wanton politicization during the last regime.
So much was this impact that a large section of the media had become acquiescent and those which carried on with objective journalism often faced the wrath of a system which had, over a period of 15 years, become intolerant of dissent and criticism.
There was a media reform commission, recommendations were made and, recently, a roundtable was also held where the slow pace of implementation of the reforms was discussed.
Several observations were made, all of which do have relevance, but often, many of the discussions about media side-line the core issues/concerns of journalists.
The owning companies politicize the media
One observation during the talks was that media houses will only become hubs of independent journalism when they are free of political influence.
Well, the truth remains, if a media house is swayed by any political ideology then it stems from the business conglomerate which owns it.
During the last regime, media houses covertly and overtly took up the task of promoting the narratives of the party in power because the media house-owning company hankered for special commerce and business-related privileges from the government.
In this “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” approach, journalists became the pawns. To keep their jobs, they simply had to cater to the desires of the owner, usually a business conglomerate.
It’s absurd to say, journalists will not be motivated by political ideals because this profession is all about reporting and analyzing political policies which impact the lives of millions.
In reporting any event, the journalist has to be objective while in penning an Op-Ed piece, his/her political ideals may play an influencing role.
But, everything said and done, in the end, the journalist is serving the people and, therefore, recording the people’s voices is the main task, even if that public opinion goes against the journalist’s own political conviction.
Until mid 2024, there was a tendency among many media houses to appease or, to put it bluntly, butter up the power in place. A grovelling act which was done with the nod of the owners.
Those who did not capitulate and carried on doing objective journalism, often using ingenious methods, received mass approval in the days after the July-August revolution.
When people talk about politicizing a media house, they conveniently avoid saying that if the media entity owning company is determined to remain neutral and allow the media house under its ownership to operate freely, journalism will be fairly independent.
Naturally, no media house is required to condemn its owning company, at least that culture has not developed in Bangladesh.
An example is the BBC which always reports incidents of sexual misconduct within its offices and all other allegations regarding workplace discrimination or prejudice.
The point is, journalists can only work freely when the parent company ceases to use a media house to advance its commercial interests.
That a business conglomerate owning a paper or a TV channel will get some intangible benefits is a given, but what is needed is a safe line beyond which there cannot be unnecessary interference.
Journalists are humans
In a majority of media-related discussions, the matter of pay and other issues like facilities and privileges are often not given due importance.
Meanwhile, that remains the most crucial issue for most journalists.
A journalist is not a fact reporting machine, s/he is a human who needs to survive with dignity.
That means, like all others, they have families, children to send to school or college, sons and daughters to marry off, and the right to enjoy the basic pleasures of life.
For all this, regular payment is essential.
There is a wage board but the latest one is fully implemented only by media houses owned by the government.
During the last regime, government-owned news agencies got the latest wage board plus all facilities.
Unsurprisingly, they never criticized the government and while the July-August movement was raging, the government channel was brazenly reporting on the bumper production of seasonal vegetables.
There is scepticism as to whether any privately owned media house implements the last wage-board to the full.
What is done is a cunning mixture of wage board salaries for a handful of seniors with contract-based salaries for all the others.
Those who are under contract are often deprived of other facilities, with their jobs hardly having any security.
The saddest part of any discussion related to media reform is that this matter is being debated more than two decades after the media in Bangladesh underwent a revolution aimed at transforming what many back then termed an obsolete apparatus.
In the early to the mid 90s, a slow moving outdated media underwent a reawakening with new papers emerging with computer graphics, supplementary magazines, colour photography, and innovative design.
This rejuvenation was financed by big corporate houses, offering competitive corporate salaries, a comfortable working environment, and transportation.
For those who entered the media profession in the last 10 to 15 years, it may sound like a dream but in the late 90s, leading Bangla and English papers provided motorcycles to all reporters and cars to senior reporters, with editorial-level people getting better grade vehicles and fuel cost.
Naturally, with an injection of massive funds, the media industry diversified with TV channels opening one after the other.
Journalists had social dignity, financial stability, layered with a digital era glitz which inspired young foreign-educated people to enter the profession.
Obviously, when there are perks and good pay, people will come and choose to make journalism a lifelong profession.
Regrettably, wage board payment, along with other perks, are hardly given the needed space in media reform related discussions.
Mamoon, a mid-senior level journalist observes: “Apologies if I offend anyone, but many of those who take part in these talks are often complicit in perpetuating a culture which eventually prevents a media professional from leading a proper life with the essential creature comforts.”
Senior journalist Syed Mehdi says: “In the 90s, we could boast about comfortable work conditions with the added advantage of flexible timing. Now I get the feeling that media owners want to keep employees in perennial financial difficulty.”
The word “adventure” which we used to define profession in media is now replaced with the word angst.
The counter argument by the management of media industries usually is the falling of revenue due to decline in advertisement.
This is a valid point although in the current age, no media house can just survive by operating in one single sphere. A newspaper needs to have a digital section and active social media pages and You Tube, needing to become engaged in digital campaigns.
With traditional adverts falling, all media houses will feel the pinch but that brings us to another ignored question -- the objective of launching a media organization, a paper, channel, or an online agency.
Is making profit the key objective here or serving the cause of free, neutral, and reliable journalism?
Naturally, any business house funding a media body would need to be convinced that against the amount invested, there will be a substantial return.
Sometimes, this return comes both in monetary profit and social prestige and, at other times, it’s the social fame that becomes the prominent gain.
Whatever the return, a business conglomerate ventures into media as an added involvement in addition to its several other enterprises.
Therefore, assessing the gains and loss from a media entity should not always be in terms of money.
As it is, every business house financing a media outlet enjoys the intangible facilities of owning a newspaper or a channel.
In the socially acceptable form, they include inclusion at all government events, wide market recognition, acknowledgement as a social reformer while at the not-so-savoury side, we see media houses being exploited to mudsling/discredit rival corporate houses.
Late veteran journalist Zakaria Siraji once said: “Media will thrive when there’s accountability in the payment system, less interference from the owning company with the realization by the parent company that profits from investment in media should not always be expected in monetary form.”
In all media reform related discussions, journalists from all levels, junior to senior, must be included and not just a group of editors and owners.
What is needed is a live debate about media reforms where journalists are asked to speak and outline the issues that get lost in palavers. The youth voices in the media need to be heard.
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
Towheed Feroze is a former journalist.