Kamal Ahmed, who headed the media reform commission, says that journalists could now criticise the government and powerful politicians more openly, but organised mob violence, financial vulnerability and bureaucratic resistance to reforms continue to undermine press freedom in an interview with Sadiqur Rahman of New Age
New Age: You were writing columns and commentaries on Bangladesh politics long before the 2024 July uprising. Have you seen any changes in the news media landscape before and after the uprising?
Kamal Ahmed: We are passing through an interim phase of transformation after the July uprising. I supported the student movement and remained as active as possible in it through my writing.
After the movement, the interim government requested me to assist with media reforms. I accepted the request and a commission was formed. On behalf of that commission, we conducted several surveys to see if the media were people-friendly, if they were truly public-oriented, if they were able to function as genuine mass media, and if not, why.
We were given about three months. In that period, the reform commission sought opinions from media professionals, owners, editors, journalists and non-journalist staff and, most important, readers, viewers and listeners. Based on their views, assessments, demands and expectations, we submitted our recommendations to the interim government.
Now you are telling me that those who used to dominate television screens and newspaper front pages before the uprising still do the same. So, where is the change? From my viewpoint, there are certainly changes. An important change is that journalists can now openly criticise the government and politicians without obstructions. You can speak to any newsroom or recall your own institutional experience.
However, risks and dangers facing the media have not disappeared. The source of danger is now mobs, especially mob violence that is organised intimidation, organised attacks and organised terror. Previously, threats to news media came from a single, but extremely powerful centre that tried to control newsrooms through fear and pressure. That kind of thing no longer happens from that source.
Now threats come from unpredictable sources. Suddenly, groups of angry people gather, sometimes for political motives, sometimes with business motives, sometimes in group interests and sometimes for personal gains. They invoke patriotism, religion, anti-India sentiment and various other issues. We have already witnessed what such combinations can lead to. Mobs were active before as well, mainly in the form of social media trolls that issued threats online. There were also attacks by the ruling party’s student and youth wings who harassed individuals, targeted journalists and even burnt newspapers.
But never before have we seen attacks of such gravity. Setting fire to newspaper offices, preventing firefighters from entering, trapping staff inside and even attempting to kill them by letting them burn. Brutality of this scale has never occurred before. There were attacks in the past. For example, the editor of Dainik Sangram was beaten inside his office and handed over to police by activists of the Chhatra League. There were protests, limited though, from the newspaper industry and the public. But at that time, the state-sponsored terror created an atmosphere of panic. Vehicles in front of newspaper offices were burnt. But the arson attacks on two newspaper offices, Prothom Alo and the Daily Star, with such severity have never been seen before.
New Age: The media reform commission submitted a list of immediately implementable recommendations to the chief adviser Muhammad Yunus. Could you elaborate on the list and why were those recommendations not implemented?
Kamal Ahmed: One of the most important recommendations was to enact a Journalists’ Protection Act. That has not been done. We proposed a permanent and independent ‘Bangladesh media commission’ to serve as an oversight and arbitration authority so that victims of false reporting, propaganda or disinformation could seek redress.
There has been the Press Council since 1974, but it has become ineffective. The council does not cover online or television media. A unified authority is, therefore, needed to bring online and television outlets also under accountability. We, thus, proposed the Bangladesh media commission for the purpose. There has been no progress in this, too.
We also identified the biggest problem in the news media industry. This industry is financially unsustainable. Its business model forces outlets to depend on either government, corporate groups, advertisers, political parties or individuals. And, those who depend on such sources inevitably receive priority, which undermines independent, public-interest journalism.
We recommended urgent steps to build a sustainable business model. One major issue in this regard is fraudulent circulation figures of newspapers. Hundreds of non-professional and so-called newspapers exist mainly to obtain government advertisements. They benefit from inflated circulation claims while serious newspapers suffer financially. We proposed a verification mechanism, involving journalists, owners, workers, advertisers, advertising agents, civil society and related non-governmental organisations. They could investigate newspaper income tax certificates to validate circulation claims and not accept merely claims of the circulation of 40,000 or 500,000 copies. A similar manipulation exists in television advertising and television rating points. We proposed a stakeholder-based verification system for television channels. That, too, was not implemented.
We also recommended reducing corporate tax rates for media houses. Our investigation has shown that there are more than 12 news media outlets that earn reasonably well but are not sustainable because of high corporate taxes. While export-oriented garment industries pay less than a 10 per cent corporate tax, why should a public-interest industry pay more? We proposed abolishing advance income tax for columnists, freelancers and talk-show participants, many of whom do not earn a taxable annual income. These were all immediately implementable measures, but none of the steps was taken up. I don’t expect them to be implemented before the next elections.
New Age: Instead of the Press Council and the proposed broadcast commission, the reform commission suggested establishing a Bangladesh media commission. Does this require a political consensus? If so, why was it not discussed by the national consensus commission?
Kamal Ahmed: Except for the six reform commissions initially formed, the national consensus commission did not include the recommendations of any of the five reform commissions, formed in the second phase, in its agenda. We raised the issue, but they focused primarily on political arrangements. But, is there any political opposition to our media reform proposals? From political parties, civil society or the industry? None.
Even the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s 31-point reform agenda explicitly mentions establishing a media commission to protect press freedom. One information adviser promised that the Journalists’ Protection Act would be passed in two months. We even drafted the law, prepared by a former judge, and had that vetted by a barrister and a legal firm so that the interim government could not show any excuse for the non-implementation of the legislation. Yet, there was no discussion or progress. In my observation, the main obstacle is the bureaucracy. Bureaucrats do not want laws or institutions like an independent media commission that would reduce their control.
New Age: Journalists should know the best how urgent a protection law is. Have you heard strong demands from them? And why did the reform commission discourage the recognition of multiple journalist organisations apart from unions?
Kamal Ahmed: We haven’t seen enough interest from journalists in the protection law and the media commission. Political divisions among them are a major reason. That’s why there is no broad unity among the journalists. Many journalist leaders focus on pleasing political parties for personal benefits rather than demanding reforms. As for other organisations, many beat-based groups award prizes funded by the very institutions that the journalists are supposed to investigate. This is regrettable.
We found district towns with up to five press clubs. Government-allocated buildings as press clubs are used for rental business. Press club members often engage in disputes over the rent or income and accountability. To our observation, such press clubs are recreational clubs, not unions. Why should the government recognise them? Yet, some advisers attend events by such groups and facilitate media coverage in their favour. An opportunity for reform existed after the July uprising. However, it was missed. Now the old system is becoming permanent.
New Age: The commission made important recommendations regarding state-owned Bangladesh Television, Bangladesh Betar and the Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha. Autonomy was promised for these organisations even after the anti-autocracy uprising in 1990. Why has it not been implemented in three decades or in the tenure of the present interim government?
Kamal Ahmed: Again, the bureaucracy blocked it. The information ministry was never a priority to the interim government. The ministry leadership changed three times in 18 months. Those who were appointed the adviser lacked experience in running a ministry. They failed to implement their decisions. We recommended merging Bangladesh Television, Bangladesh Betar and the Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha into one autonomous entity. The interim government initially formed a sub-committee, led by the present education adviser, to facilitate the immediately implementable recommendations. I presume that the sub-committee never met. Then another sub-committee was formed, led by the present planning adviser. Nothing has happened yet.
Former information adviser Mahfuz Alam tried to initiate autonomy for Bangladesh Television, but the government staff in the organisation protested at and resisted the move, with the government making a retreat. It’s now clear that bureaucrats don’t want to lose privileges. If the government wanted, it could execute the reforms. It was possible. See how the National Board of Revenue was split into two entities. Bangladesh Television, Bangladesh Betar, and the Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha could have also been merged. Whether the government was sincere about the proposed reforms remains questionable.
New Age: After August 5, 2024, several journalists were imprisoned in murder cases. The government said that cases without merit would be withdrawn, but the journalists remain in jail. What should have been done?
Kamal Ahmed: Bail is a fundamental right. A denial violates that right. Detaining people on false charges is also an injustice. According to the media reform commission’s report, if there is evidence of a specific crime, journalists should be tried for that crime only. There should not be fabricated charges to corner them. Murder cases against innocent journalists are unacceptable. At the most, there may be charges of incitement, which are bailable offences. They should not have remained in prison for so long. The law adviser said that cases against journalists would be reviewed while a committee was formed for that purpose, which submitted its findings to the home affairs ministry. The interim government can only say why no effective action has followed yet.
