With the many laws that already exist to regulate – or better yet, repress – the media, and the diligence with which new ones are being prepared, one would think that of all the areas that need fixing, our government expects journalists to they are “fixed” first. But why? Why is independent media never accepted as the cornerstone of democracy, good governance, rule of law and accountability? Why is there no recognition that countries that rise to the rank of “developing country” do so not only with higher GDP, but also with higher levels of human rights and all kinds of freedoms? Development cannot only be in the economy, it must also be in society. It must be holistic to be meaningful.

Last Saturday, in a belated observance of World Press Freedom Day, all the apex bodies of journalists, as well as those representing owners and publishers, jointly expressed their concerns about the state of the press. free in Bangladesh and the challenges facing the industry as a whole.

Working journalists have pointed to the problem of surveillance, which has reached dangerous levels with the acquisition of the latest listening and tracking devices by state agencies. Some of our district correspondents experience a higher degree of scrutiny than those in the cities – more direct and rude. They are sometimes told outright not to see certain people and are called within minutes of meeting an opposition politician who wants to know what happened. Sometimes sources are called and warned against meeting certain journalists who are not in the officials’ good books.

The occasional leak into the public domain of personal telephone conversations of people whom the authorities want to embarrass, or whose reputation they want to harm, proves the wide network of telephone tapping that continues. When Prothom Alo journalist Rozina Islam was arrested by the police, a telephone conversation between one of her colleagues and her father became public. It was meant to show Rozina in a bad light, proving Rozina and her colleague’s phones were tapped. The question is, how many journalists’ phones are monitored? We assume that many publishers’ phones are also monitored. Is this operation authorized by anyone? If so, then by whom? Under what law? According to what criteria are the persons supervised chosen? Or is it left to the whims of the officers involved? What about confidentiality? What about the misuse of this practice? Is there any liability? The people in power are taking advantage of it now. When things turn around, they become its worst victims.

The following is a brief list of laws which directly or indirectly affect journalism: i) The Penal Code 1960 (Section 499—Defamation); (ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (sections 99, 108, 144); (iii) The Official Secrets Act 1923; (iv) the Contempt of Court Act 2013; (v) the Printing and Publishing (Reporting and Registration) Act 1973; (vi) The Press Council Act 1974; (vii) the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1974; (viii) Information and Communication Technology Act 2006; (ix) The Digital Security Act 2018; (x) Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (BTRC) (Draft) Regulations for Digital, Social Media and OTT Platforms, 2021; xi) The (Draft) Policy for the Provision and Operation of Content Based Services Over The Top (OTT), 2021 (by the ICT Division); and xii) The Mass Media Employees (Terms of Service) Bill 2022.

Libel law is not only one of the most frequently used, but also the most abused. The law clearly states that only the defamed person can file a complaint and that there can only be one complaint. In practice, literally anyone can bring such a claim by claiming “I was defamed because my boss was defamed”, or other similar means. The tragedy is that the lower courts accept it, and also in more than one case. Thus, journalists and/or editors attend court hearings in all regions of the country and ask for bail. Fortunately, defamation cases have decreased. However, only the day before yesterday, the editor and publisher of Bhorer Kagoj was the subject of a dubious defamation case.

Much has been written about the Digital Security Act and its devastating impact on free media. Its misdeeds become clearer every day, forcing our journalists and editors to practice self-censorship in order to survive. After incessant complaints and numerous international media reports, our foreign minister admitted that “some excesses” could have occurred. Specifically, our Justice Minister said that no journalists will be directly arrested under the DSA and will be summoned first. We welcomed the proposal, initially, and expected it to be followed by a directive from the Home Secretary to each police station to that effect. To our knowledge, no action has been taken.

Currently, three bills are in the works: one deals with data protection, the second with OTT platforms and the third with the terms of service of media employees.

The data protection bill has many positive aspects, but the most dangerous is that law enforcement has been exempted, allowing them to use personal data as they see fit, in defiance of all privacy rights.

The bill for OTT platforms is designed to impose serious restrictions on artistic creativity and the freedoms of thought and expression.

The bill to improve conditions of service for media workers ends up doing the exact opposite. As for the terms of service, it basically repeats what already exists, such as the salary board, etc. However, much to our concern, it introduces hitherto non-existent media courts to be set up in every district. They will be supplemented by media appeal courts at higher levels. The function and purpose of these courts remain completely unclear. We in the media believe – and here the editors, owners and working journalists’ unions are all in unison – that this law is a “medicine more harmful than the disease” and will drag the media into complex and complex legal battles. There are many provisions aimed at increasing bureaucratic interference in the operation of the media through mandatory reporting, which is completely contrary to the operation of private sector industries.

The time has come for a complete change of mindset: instead of always seeing the media as the “enemy” that must be controlled, or at least monitored, we must see them as an “ally” in democracy. and development. journey in which Bangladesh is well engaged.

I would like to conclude by quoting veteran journalist and labor leader Manzurul Ahsan Bulbul who recently said, “Doing journalism in Bangladesh today is like swimming in a pond full of crocodiles”. We may be able to swim around them for a while, but when one of them will devour us, we don’t know.

Mahfouz Anam is the editor and publisher of the Daily Star.