Journalism as we knew it once, in this country, has been in progressive retreat. That old sense of purpose is not there. The fact that it is a mission in defense of popular rights, a vehicle upholding the voices of citizens aggrieved on a multitude of issues, appears not to be the objective of journalism any more. And, yes, there are the causes, some of them, which have made journalists careful or squeamish about what they write or how they think. There have been the draconian laws, all directed at journalists who might step out of line and so commit transgressions that will have the state breathing down their necks.
When the state informs us that the Digital Security Act will be replaced by a new law, the Cyber Security Act, one needs to know what qualitative changes, if any, will accrue from the changeover. Fine that journalists, under the new law, cannot be jailed for defamation. But there is that other worry, which is that where they are considered guilty of defaming an individual, they will be slapped with fines which may be a hefty amount.
It is here that some questions, some essential questions, arise. What exactly is the definition of “defamation”? If a journalist reports on the corruption resorted to by an individual or an institution, will he run the danger of seeing the law penalise him through compelling him to cough up a fine because that individual or that institution has felt defamed by his report?
The fundamental purpose of journalism is to raise questions and have those questions asked of everyone who matters, be he high or low within the structure of the state. Investigative reports on corruption, on abuse or misuse of power, are issues which call for responses.
If journalists focus on corruption, it is only proper, ethically and socially, that their reports be presented, day after day and week after week, before readers in order for them to arrive at the truth of all the malfeasance swirling around in society. If those mentioned in the reports feel aggrieved, they ought to desist from going after the journalists through weaponizing the defamation element.
The purpose journalism holds is to let the public in on every aspect of the corruption which eats away at the vitals of society. And the law ought to be one of preventing individuals and institutions from interfering in the work of the journalist. Indeed, it ought to be the responsibility of the state, once such investigative reports or comments begin to appear, to go for full scale inquiries into the persons cited in the reports in the larger national interest. The media must not be impeded in their work of ferreting out the truth from the detritus of corruption.
It is these principles we need to uphold, at the levels of both the state and society, in Bangladesh today if the national goal is a promotion of democracy in the country. Journalists should be able, without any prohibitive law hanging over them, to inquire into all the charges of financial corruption, charges that are traditionally papered over and so letting those accused of such unlawful dealings, go free.
They should be able, again without any impediments coming their way, to ask the Anti-Corruption Commission about the follow-up to its summoning of men and women suspected to be corrupt to its offices, of why a veil of silence has been thrown across such investigations.
Journalism must have a purpose. True journalism is what the brave practitioners of the profession engage in. In a week which has just been recalling the intrepidity with which Santosh Gupta practised journalism, the old lesson of the media being an instrument for the dissemination of truth is revived once more.
In his times, Gupta did not permit the truth to be trifled with. His columns and his reports remain testimony to what meaningful journalism is, or was in Bangladesh in better times. His passing nineteen years ago was effectively the closing of a vital window to journalistic integrity.
Gupta shared a world peopled by the likes of Zahur Hossain Chowdhury and Waheedul Haque, media people who were unafraid to call a spade for what it was, a spade. Chowdhury called forth the courage in the early 1960s to question, vigorously, Field Marshal Ayub Khan on the latter’s political programme.
He stood his ground even as some in his profession stayed quiet. Waheedul Haque remained steadfast, till his dying day, to the principles which underpinned the Bangladesh state all through its strenuous struggle for liberty in 1971. Tofazzal Hossain Manik Miah went to prison, but held his head high.
In times closer to the present, Jahangir Hossain is remembered for the "audacity" with which he questioned General Hussein Muhammad Ershad, in the dictator’s days in power, on why the latter’s poetry needed to be on the front pages of newspapers. Hossain did not flinch when firing his questions away; and the military ruler certainly got a needed taste of the courage which yet, in the 1980s, marked Bangladesh’s journalism.
That courage is sadly not there today, which is when one recalls the moral and professional scruples which the late SM Ali armed himself with through the years -- and that was till the end -- in which journalism was the sharp weapon he carried with him at all the newspapers he worked for.
The high purpose of journalism, to resort to the old cliché, is to speak truth to power. When journalists ask tame questions of the powerful and the influential, they demean themselves. It becomes the grave responsibility of journalists not merely to ask questions but to come forth with follow-up questions.
It ought to be the professional duty of journalists to resist being intimidated, to have those they question squirm in their efforts to come up with answers. Journalists do not genuflect, for their purpose is to present the truth as it is and thereby enlighten society through their dedication to the cause of speaking for those whose voices do not reach the powerful.
In our times, much of the world we grew up in, the world where ambitions came on the wings of integrity, has receded into the past. And yet there are principles, at the core of our beings, we cannot afford to let go of despite all the rough weather we may run into.
It is not and should not be the job of the mighty to draw the parameters beyond which we cannot go. It is rather for us, in journalism and indeed in every area where the public interest matters, to inform the powerful that we keep watch on their performance, on the manner of the services they proffer citizens, and so remind them of the parameters they ought not to step out of or away from.
Let the draft of the Cyber Security Act 2023 be studied by legal experts, journalists, civil society, rights organisations and citizens across the country. Let public opinion be solicited on it and the recommendations suggested be worked on. Decisions arbitrarily imposed do not help the growth or deepening of liberal democracy.
Syed Badrul Ahsan is Consultant Editor, Dhaka Tribune.
