High cost of journalism

Journalism is always challenging, and journalists are subject to various forms of intimidation due to their role in maintaining professionalism.  Governments are generally not comfortable with the works of journalists, although, in democratic states, they are obliged to provide adequate room for journalism to function. The media is also obligated to play a responsible role in this connection. In this process, an environment of mutual cooperation develops for people's greater interests. Responsible media helps maintain the checks and balances of the government and the establishment. There is, however, no ideal democratic country in the world where journalists enjoy complete independence in their works and freedom of speech is fully ensured. Nevertheless, almost all functional democracies provide the required environment for newspapers and media with some limitations.

Like autocratic and authoritarian countries, non-functional democracies impose various media restrictions, making it difficult to work independently and professionally.  Thus, journalism becomes distorted and suppressed in these countries. The autocratic regimes also adopt different techniques to make the media dysfunctional, biased and embedded.  Undue monitoring, surveillance and financial tightening forced media outlets to compromise their stance. Supporting the pro-establishment media is another tool for holding back the professional works of journalism. Bangladesh is a good example of this. 

During the autocratic regime of Sheikh Hasina, the tool was applied skillfully only to extract pressure on the media and distort the market. The net result is a sharp division among the journalists in the name of party-based so-called ideology. One group blindly extended their support to the Hasina regime on the plea that the regime was the only force that upheld the spirit of the liberation war. They argued that the misdeeds and wrongdoings of the regime should be ignored and not be reported in the media. This section of journalists was awarded for their loyalist role, making it more difficult for others to work professionally. Besides state agencies, the Hasina-loyal media also took a position against those who were critical of the regime, setting a bad example with a long-term negative effect.

During the mass uprising in July-August last year, the media in Bangladesh came under fire for not playing the appropriate role and the professionalism of journalists was questioned seriously. Except for a few media outlets and some journalists, most followed a cautious approach to the plea to avoid backlash from the ousted Hasina government and her political party. The pro-regime journalists also played a role in suppressing the news of killing and intimidating the government to suppress the student-led movement. So, after the fall of Hasina, who fled to India for shelter on August 5, journalists across the country faced intense criticism for obvious reasons. Their trustworthiness also came under question.

The problem is, however, not limited to Bangladesh. Media in India, the largest democracy in the world, has also been facing growing challenges due to the works of pro-government journalists and Modi loyalists. The term' godi media' has been popularised since 2014, indicating a large number of Indian media's non-professional and biased attitude. Instead of informing people properly, the 'godi media' is busy with cooking and fabricating stories where truth is mixed with fiction. The coverage of different things inside and outside India thus often becomes distorted and false. The proliferation of 'godi media' has put reputed newspapers like The Hindu under significant stress.

Again, think about Haaretz, the oldest daily in Israel, which has Hebrew and English versions. After the Hamas assault on October 7, Israel started a full-scale invasion of Gaza, causing the death of 50,000 Palestinians and the destruction of most of the physical infrastructures in the strip. The 15 months of war halted as two sides agreed on a fragile cease-fire deal with effect from January 20. During these months, Haaretz took a strong stance to cover the war in a balanced and unbiased manner that was completely absent in most Israeli and Western media. Israeli government continuously put pressure on the oldest daily and its journalists for its professional stance. The newspaper, however, sustained at a greater cost, setting an example of journalistic ethics and the establishment's unwillingness to accept the truth.

[email protected]