& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Telling journalists what to do ... or not do

Syed Badrui. Ahsan
Media people, these politicians have been saying for ages, should practise objective journalism. Now, you either have journalism or you don't. There is nothing objective or subjective about it.
PEOPLE whose job it is to gather news and disseminate it to the country will surety be piqued, if not outraged, by what the mayor of Chittagong had to say about them a few days ago. A.B.M. Mohiuddin Chowdhury's opinion is that journalists often become extortionists and that happens when they arc in the mood to do themselves a good turn through means that are not always above board. Well, you agree with the mayor some; and you disagree some.
Let us not pretend that everything about journalism is good and healthy, that all journalists are men and women who strenuously uphold morality and decency as they strive to do their job. There are, we will agree, quite a few black sheep among so many white ones. But for the mayor to suggest that every journalist is a black sheep is plain wrong and he knows it is wrong. The difficulty, though, is that when anger gets the better of a person, it is objectivity that takes a beating. In his anger. Chowdhury went forth to tar all journalists with the same brush. That was wrong. And a waste of a brush.
And then the mayor committed another wrong. He informed the country that only ten percent of the people of Bangladesh read newspapers. The rest are illiterate, meaning they cannot read. Meaning again, if you can stretch the term, that it will be quite a charming thing having as many people as possible languishing in illiteracy because that way our politicians will know they are safe from the
intellectual onslaught of an entire nation. That Is a poor way of doing politics.
1 lave you ever tried to count on your fingers (you will likely run out of fingers to count on) the innumerable times when politicians have proffered unwarranted advice to journalists? Media people, these politicians have been saying for ages, should practise objective journalism. Now, you either have journalism or you don' L There is nothing objective or subjective about it. So when you spot the powerful (and they are almost always in the ruling political circles at any given point in national history) exhorting the journalist in you to be objective, you smell something wrong. Those men and women in transient authority really would like you to be sympathetic to them, and if possible support them in their practice of policies. Don't fall into that trap.
As a conscientious and conscionable journalist, you cannot oblige the powerful on the objectivity issue. It would be blasphemy for you if you thought a minister or a mayor or a lawmaker possessed the natural right to talk down to you. And no one will be condescend -ing to you, no individual in political authority will dream of applying intimidatory tactics on you if you are armed with the knowledge and the scholarship your profession demands of you.
Dwell, if you will, on the abrasive manner in which Commerce Minister Faruk Khan tried dressing down journalists last week over the issue of the army report on the BDR mutiny. He was upset that the media were running about all over the place with their speculative comments on the findings of the military inquiry. Shouldn't he have known that it is the basic job of a journalist to plumb the depths of mystery and re-emerge with nuggets of truth? And was it his job to reprimand photojoumalists over their “slownessin operating their cameras? Assuming, though, that these journalists have been speculative over the army probe, why did the minister forget that for days on end he himself went on feeding the nation with his own speculations on the background to the Pilkhana tragedy?
Strange occurrences have always been there to surprise us, sometimes to lay us low. In an era where a change in political culture has been promised, not much of change appears to be happening where attitudes are concerned. Not many years ago, the editor of a reputed newspaper met the son of then prime minister Khaleda Zia to discuss with the young man the problems he was up against at his newspaper.
Only the other day, the young son of Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina found the opportunity of handing out a piece of advice to a group of senior journalists known for their political affiliation with the Awami League. Political affiliations arc fine. We all have them, in some way or the other. The problem here, though, is different. It is this: in what capacity did the prime ministerial son speak to these journalists? And then comes this other question: did these journalists, all of whom have established their niche in the profession through years of hard work, know of the nature of the occasion and of the individual they were about to meet? It is, of course, a most auspicious thing for media people to meet young men and women ready to give out their thoughts on politics and society. But those young men and women must first have established a toehold for themselves. Where was the toehold here?
Ah, all our questions! Whenever do we get answers to them?
Syed Badrui Ahsan is Editor. Current Affairs, The Daiy Star E-mail bahsantareqgyahoo co uk