Do we need media freedom?

Bangladesh is assaulted by huge historical events more regularly than many other societies. Not only born out of a devastating war, the post war trauma was no less profound. The state institutions which act as balancing instruments and provide calm and security also didn't grow as expected. The result was a sense of continuous trauma as most of the aspirations were not realised. Other factors have intensified the trauma. One is the lack of accountability in any sector – political, economic or social – resulting in the decline of the rule of law. Another is the rise of unaccountable wealth, hence power, and the growing gap between the rich and the poor with perceived state assistance. Third, the general culture of impunity whether it applies to war criminals or loan criminals or extrajudicial killings. Four, the lack of political culture including nonexistent parliamentary rule, elections that don't lead to measurable improvements, no tolerance for dissidence or another's opinion and the decline of the fair media space. There are other issues but the above are the major ones.

*****

Media is certainly not outside such a frame. But media is also multi-layered. We have the owners, the editors, the union leaders, the working journalists, the Op-Ed contributors and finally the advertisers and they all play a role in constructing media. Together they create a product which the audience consumes. In doing so, does media freedom play a role? Is it necessary to be free and unbiased to be in media here ? What should guide their actions?

*****

Media's role should be clear to all. That role is about providing information by reporting the most significant news of the day. There can be no bias in doing this as the product quality will be affected. Bias violates the first principle of media's functioning. Media's primary duty is to report and no more and when they do this confidence is built in its role and media becomes a part of a healthy governance system. However, because our governance itself is weak and ineffective, media contributes to extra governance matters. In a weak state media decides what the priority is because the state can offer no direction or route and the public is used to expecting whatever is given to them whether it's the government or media. A weak state means the chasm between the state and its people are reflected through the state of media.

****

In a situation where politics and governance is mixed and no line can be drawn between the two, there are no criteria to say what is reporting and what is politics. Lack of ethical politics reduces media freedom too since the party and the ideal become one and the journalist is part of a political not a media mission. As a result, journalists focus more on the cause rather than facts and in this way they actually become an extension of one political position or another. They, in a certain sense, are no longer dominantly media people, they are auxiliary political people. The concern is, most are happy with the arrangement.

*****

The direct influence of politics in media exists at two levels. One, through the owners. Two, through the journalist unions. The owners are the hyper rich of Bangladesh who have reached a point where they can afford to indulge in premium luxuries like owning a media outlet. Almost none of them are politically committed since being so is bad for their bottom lines.

They need to keep all the sides happy. However, for the sake of branding and appealing to a target audience they will also play the partisan card. So certain media outlets will have partisan images. When they are very close to the government party, they also gain benefits through advertisements and various financial and news scoop breaks.

****

The other group is the trade union which are in every outlet. They of course are totally political and they have been so since 1972. A journalist active in the trade unions is more concerned about his union activities than journalism and while some do both, most are not well known as journalists but are identified as union activists.

Since they are active through elections and most are past activists of one party or the other they fit such roles easily and for them being media politicians rather than media practitioners is a bigger priority. The trade unions of course are dedicated to politics and not media work so there is no questioning about what they do. It makes media a political space.

******

In this space ordinary normal media workers where the environment is understood as serving patriotism and not objectivity. Although media ceases to exist as a function when they take sides, it's taking sides that is most encouraged. It means people feel that they should take sides because it's a matter of "national interest". National interest has always been used to influence media and in Pakistani days, Islam was the catch word and in the interest of Islam which was considered synonymous with Pakistan. The result was that a tradition of free media never developed and even till the last day, Pakistani media went on serving the national interest forgetting that the same could only be served by telling the truth, media's only task.

***

A journalist had said when asked why she was distorting news and inserting quotes and opinions in a report, she defended her reporting by saying, "it's my holy duty, it's like a war. I don't have to be objective. My bias is my patriotism." This very well meaning young person has never been told that patriotism doesn't mean dropping objectivity and picking up bias, it means more of it. Sadly, our media doesn't care because for a variety of reasons it fulfills many desires including the opportunity to play a role in history. What is forgotten is that, that role belongs to the activist and the journalist's role is to report on it only.

Every country pays a price when media falls. Pakistan paid it and even the US paid it when during the Iraq war media decided to be patriotic and felt defeating Saddam Hussain was more important than media integrity. The result of that perception is well known.

One hopes, we don't have to pay such high prices.