Today, the media in Bangladesh, and in the US, have at least one thing in common: the wrath of the administration. The difference is also o...
Today, the media in Bangladesh, and in the US, have at least one thing in common: the wrath of the administration. The difference is also obvious: One faces criticism for being critical while the other cannot evade this despite being humble, or even subservient.
The ‘journalists’ who do not see corruption and misrule are glad that the American media, too, have failed to read the people’s mind, the silent giant that was ready to defy the majority in deciding presidential election results.
What our folks could not appreciate is the moral position taken by the major portion of the US media on Donald Trump’s reckless campaign policies.
Is the certain media still relevant when it largely ignores the issues of public interest, be it of utility services, justice delivery or voting rights?
And more surprising is why an already tamed media should be subject to attack. The police assault on two newsmen at Dhaka’s Shahbagh during the hartal on 26 January otherwise represents the overall state of governance broadly missing in the media reporting.
Err... our friends may fumble and argue we cannot properly report due to pressure.... True, but the state of reporting facts does not reflect the distress out of such pressure.
The media outlets that are under pressure are in such a situation because of their professional pursuits, not anything personal.
Others then seize the opportunity and try to lecture on ‘alternative’ approach to critical journalism, to impress ‘others’ other than their readers and viewers. They still lose their utility as professionals even to the masters they serve.
Some of our colleagues join a kind of campaign when they find themselves at the receiving end of actions. On the social media sites, criticism is aimed more at the police than at actions, however.
This may be because many of us did not question how just and lawful is the killing in ‘crossfire’ and ‘gunfights’. Witch-hunting of critics offers reprieve to culprits and prolongs the culture of impunity.
It is rhetorical statements, events and scheduled programmes, and incidents that dominate the coverage of the bigger number in the print and television media. We hardly come across reports giving answers to WHY, applicable to issues such as share market and rent-seeking.
In the case of police attack, we could have asked some pertinent questions. Why had the police personnel gone so berserk? Were they not properly recruited, adequately trained and professionally motivated? Is it an inherent culture? Did they receive any directive from the above to quell any protests? What is the reason of police atrocities these days?
Attacking the police on the Facebook is not the job of a media professional. Also, piecemeal solution to problems with the state institutions is not possible.
Journalists can blame all other social actors for failure to uphold democratic spirit. But that does not in any way prove we did a good job. For the sake of reporting facts, let us start by saying that we have not played our due role. Now we cannot defend when journalism has come under attack.
The police assault on newsmen is a minor incident compared to the murder of Sagor-Runi couple in 2012 and Bangladesh's journalist community stopped demanding justice. You did not listen to your conscience, leaders!
For an honest journalist, earning a good living is not very easy. It comes through hard labour, attaining wisdom, social service and integrity that constantly brave intimidation by the state parties. Of course, the powerful people love to see public relations (PR) to which journalism often loses if it betrays the masses.
If you are happy with a repressive state, why do you privately complain about it? You have your language – text and images – to reflect on the situation, if you really want to report.
Rest assured, all journalists will not be attacked in a single day. The media can still raise questions about democratic legitimacy by reporting on the regime’s actions vis-a-vis pledges, claims vis-a-vis records, praxis vis-a-vis laws, rhetoric vis-a-vis people's quotes, euphemism vis-a-vis ground reality, and certain amount of mastery over the subject.
After Trump’s executive order of Muslim ban, The New York Times editorial board wrote: “Republicans in Congress who remain quiet or tacitly supportive of the ban should recognize that history will remember them as cowards.”
If we remove three words – “Republicans in Congress” – from the sentence and replace them by any political or professional group in Bangladesh, to question their failure to question the actions of the establishment, would it be unfair? The New York Times did it journalistically, we did not.
