We protested more than once when foreigners asked if Bangladesh was one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists. They referred to the unfortunate deaths of a number of correspondents at the hands of bandits in frontier areas.
To be fair, those killings involved issues of personalised local interests. For professionalism per se, journalists earlier were not under constant threats despite occasional harassment.
We can no longer say that. I joined a rally in Manila in 2010 to protest the massacre of 32 reporters (58 people were killed altogether) in Maguindanao the year before. My Filipino friends are still showing brave hearts while pursuing journalism in conflict-prone zones like Mindanao that sometimes make global headlines.
The killing of journalist couple Sagar and Runi in 2012 came as a shockwave to all those who want to express their opinions – be it at home, school, or the office – without facing a witch-hunt. It was seen as an attempt to silence the voice of individual journalists after the unseen hands of killers and conspirators had proven to be stronger than the social conscience that demands justice.
I don’t think working journalists deserve to be in newspapers headlines, since they are mostly there for the wrong reasons. Sagar-Runi becoming household names after their murder was in no way expected by us.
Our colleagues captured media attention in recent times, again not for the right reasons. Attacks, intimidation, litigation, and assault have compelled media professionals to express their own grievances. This focus on self-defence undermines the community’s capacity to uphold the ethos and altruism of the profession.
Bangladesh’s journalists didn’t need to talk about themselves because of the massive social support behind them for vibrant media. They were often treated by politicians as friends and comrades during historic movements, including pro-democracy demonstrations.
A minister of the Ershad regime said a high official had asked him if universities that were the sources of anti-martial law campaigns could be replaced by technical institutions. “It was a hypothetical statement but it bore a certain mindset,” that minister, who deserted Ershad many years ago, told me last year.
When the personal aide of a minister, during upazila elections in Comilla on March 15, publicly said nothing would happen if a journalist were shot dead, we have reason to be worried. The reported threat or abuse towards the on-duty reporters suggests that political musclemen, inspired by the culture of impunity, do challenge freedom of the press and also of expression in general.
Journalists are nice people to the opposition political parties the moment they face repression from the establishment. Different groups, including professionals, and even those who oppose freedom of the press, go to journalists whenever they are in trouble and desperately need media intervention.
Freedom of the press actually belongs to all people – not merely to any government, party, or media house. That freedom is not a gift from the regime but a natural right of every citizen. The incumbents try to make this right, enshrined in the constitution, “subject to reasonable restrictions” with the ulterior motive of censoring the press.
Our bipartisan (and especially criminalised) politics has polluted the media alarmingly. Some of us believe they could save and promote their masters by reporting, writing, and broadcasting selected footage. They further fail to understand that the people have to spend money and time to read the newspaper or watch television.
These poor fellows who pretend or really consider themselves to be powerful journalists are not journalists by the standard definition. Parasites cannot assert independence.
How are declarations and licences issued to a section of people who have no credentials but avowed ill-intensions to run newspapers and television channels? Who does provide accreditation cards to party cadres and blackmailers, or allot plots to self-proclaimed journalists? From where does the recommendation for filling in the top positions of some newspapers or television stations come?
I see no room in journalism for half-educated, dishonest people. Journalists have to live under the surveillance of the readers and viewers every day. A true journalist needs to maintain a high level of integrity, austerity, and dignity alongside lifelong dedication to the profession.
Any deviation from truth and the betrayal of public interests is punished through a fall in newspaper circulation or number of viewers. The loss of credibility is the biggest loss for a media outlet. We have witnessed the deflation of the “newspaper bubble” as well as the biasness of “embedded” journalism by BBC and CNN during the 2003 Iraq War.
In Bangladesh, journalism has now been threatened from both within and outside. If the media loses its social backing, it means we have somehow failed to serve the society. When political mercenaries are seen attacking the media, journalists are believed to be weak and vulnerable to many things.
One of the major casualties of the recent political bickering is the loss of strength of the media, being suppressed, intimidated, manipulated, or kept in the grip of powerful quarters. A section of seniors, too, have left us in a lurch by endeavouring to impress their mentors and aligning themselves with groups outside of journalism.
In the 1990s, the decade of our renewed journey toward democracy, we embraced journalism as a profession, defying the reservations of relatives and ignoring offers for relatively better-paying jobs. I stayed in journalism to serve the people. Also as an incentive, I find this profession a platform for an artistic and intellectual pursuit. Should I still pity myself for being unsuitable for most professions other than journalism?
No. The spirit of a serious journalist can never be defeated by forces that are subservient only to the evils.
