& 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

COMMENTARY

Protector turning the predator?

Mahfuz Anam
What was set up to protect the press
and its freedom appears to be poised to destroy both. Recent newspaper reports have alerted us about certain changes that the Press Council is proposing to bring in its own law that we consider to be dangerously anti-free press and fundamentally contradictory to the very purpose for which the Council was setup.
Article 39 of our Constitution guarantees freedom of the press with reasonable restrictions. Basing on that the Press Council Act was promulgated in 1974. It's very first "objective" says, "The Council shall preserve the freedom of the press and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in Bangladesh." Objective 2(a) says, "Help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their freedom", objective 2(e) says, "To keep under review any development likely to restrict the supply and dissemination of information of public interest and importance".
As to its powers, it was given the right to "warn, admonish and censure. ”
Under the above Act, the Press Council was set up in 1979 with the same objectives of promoting press freedom and enhancing quality of the press.
Following the formation of the Council, a 22-item "Code of Conduct" for journalists was adopted in 1993, again highlighting the centrality of freedom in the operation of the press. This "code" goes into details of what should be printed and what should be avoided and the steps necessary to ensure authentication of reports.
Though there are some serious problem areas of this "code" yet we, in the independent media, have voluntarily agreed to abide by it.
The question is what has the Council done to "enforce" this code? The Council will say it has no power. We say, has the Council ever used whatever power it has? Has it ever "warned, admonished and censured" any newspaper for not abiding by this "code"? How many attempts, if ever, the Council made to raise awareness among the journalists as to the existence and usefulness of the "code"? I have the honour of being editor of this paper for the last twenty one years and I can recall no single instance when the Council invited the editors seeking support for the dissemination and enforcement of the "code" and for ways to enhance the quality of journalism. The Council has seldom, if ever, held a seminar or meeting to “counter yellow journalism" in Bangladesh.
It may be of interest to our readers and our Press Council that the Indian Press Council, which was first constituted in July 1966 has exactly the same powers to" warn, admonish or censure" newspapers and has never been known to demand additional power to close down newspapers and to issue intending journalists licences to allow them to enter the profession.
Having done practically nothing to implement its own "mandate" the Council suddenly wants power to cancel a newspaper's "declaration", to cancel tax facilities, impose fines and license journalists.
What makes the whole process ominous is that we know nothing of what triggered it, what were the compelling circumstances that necessitated it, who did the Council talk to, what was the nature of those discussions, and what transparent process was followed. The whole thing occurred behind the scenes-(may be with a select number of people, whose selection process we know nothing about)- and only came to light because of investigative reporting by a few newspapers. Is that how Press Council should work? Even after publication of these reports the Council is yet to come out in public as to what and why they are doi ng what they are.
The chairman is reported to have had several meetings with the information minister. We have no issue with that. But the Council's primary constituency is the press with whose members and leaders he has had no discussions yet. The Chairman has said that he will soon meet with the Council members, whose members are yet to be selected, and discuss these proposals with them. Why should any self-respecting senior media person or representative go for a discussion when all the proposals have been prepared. The "die is cast" and we will only be called to "endorse it”.
The Press Council says that whatever it has done so far was on its own. However, we see a far bigger and sinister picture.
As the saying goes "actions speak louder than words”, so judging by actions of the government as compared to its word we are forced to conclude that the government is on a deliberate collision course with the free and independent media, the latter having brought justifiable accolade for our image-challenged country. Like Sri Lanka we are slowly but surely being turned from a freedom nurturing to a freedom suppressing country. At least Sri Lanka has 28 years of a brutal war to 'justify' its aberration with. What is our justification? That our media has grown too independent for the comfort of a government bent on self-indulgence and perpetuation?
We repeat the question we had asked before. What has the media done to necessitate such draconian measures? How extensive is the prevalence of so-called "yellow
journalism" which is being used to justify these restrictive measures? Or is the ruse for actions already decided upon?
Just as the 16th Amendment to the Constitution empowering the parliament to impeach judges is supposed to increase the independence of the judges -only that the judges don't know it - so also all the restrictive provisions being incorporated in the new Press Council Act are also supposed to enhance the freedom and dignity of journalists- only that we the journalists don't know it. The spin, dear readers, is Orwellian and we must marvel at the devious cleverness of the instigators of this move.
As we feared, so it has happened or is about to. One after another restrictive laws are being proposed to throttle the freedom of Bangladesh's thriving media industry-TV channels, online media, social media, films and now the print.
After getting the communist-model broadcast policy we fearfully predicted that the next assault would be on the print media, and, and like a nightmare it appears to be coming upon us. The most insidious of all the plans are the ones permitting 'cancellation of declaration' and to license journalists.
Under no circumstances can the closure of a media outlet be permitted.
As for licensing journalists it is a communist era proposal which is resurfacing in Bangladesh. In the late seventies the Soviet block countries made such a move within Unesco, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, that also looked at global media issues. This highly discredited move was thrown into the dustbin of history as it deserved to be. How come, after about 40 years, we see it suddenly becoming a part of the Press Council's law in Bangladesh?
Why are we adopting something that has been discarded the world over? On a practical note, does the Council have the infrastructure to issue certificates to journalists from every nook and corner of the country? Will it be able to verify submission of false certificates? Will it be able to withstand pressure from the government- being government nominees themselves-to dish out certificates to people known to support one particular party and withhold them when the opposite case occurs. If the Council has powers to issue certificates, it will automatically have powers to "withdraw" it. How will it resist pressure to "withdraw" a certificate from a journalist whose critical voice the government wants silenced?
We conclude with some suggestions on how to move forward in implementing the original mandate of the Press Council and protect freedom of press and improve quality of our newspapers and prevent "yellow journalism", assuming that the Press Council is genuinely interested in it.
1. The Press Council should abandon all proposals that are contradictory to its own mandate of promoting press freedom and enhancing quality of newspapers and news agencies.
2. The Council should undertake urgent discussions on ways to implement the "code of conduct" for journalists that has been already adopted.
3. To implement that "code" the Council should immediately call a meeting of all stake holders. We the editors will be only too happy to assist the Council in this endeavour.
We repeat that no new law is needed, and urge the Press Council to focus on its own mandate and not do anything that may portray it as an "enemy of free press" and destroy what has been one of the biggest gains of our independence- namely a free and independent media.
The writer is Editor and Publisher, The Daily Star.