Why I do not agree with the Editors Council

I disagree with the Editors Council – the small group of chief executives and editors of Bangladesh’s few print newspapers based mostly in Dhaka. Its latest statement, signed by its general secretary, is another blatant example of hypocrisy, double standards, and personal agenda-driven exercise. I’ll explain why, and also why we in the media must strive to stop such exercises.

Frankly speaking, I have no respect for some of these editors – some of whom have never been professional journalists in the real sense of the term. I have worked with some of them and known a majority of them personally for quite some time now. Many are also members of the Newspaper Owners Association of Bangladesh(NOAB), an entity that carved itself out of the Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad (Bangladesh newspapers council, BSP). Several of them are leaders or office-bearers of both. I am not sure if I should discuss conflict of interest here; I do not want to digress much.

The latest statement, signed by general secretary and The Daily Star owner-editor Mahfuz Anam, has instantly been “disowned” by the Council’s president Golam Sarwar, the non-owner editor of the daily Samokal who has had decades of experience as a professional journalist. The president, who had left the country just two days earlier, has gone on record saying he had no knowledge of the statement or the procedure which led to the decision of drafting and then releasing of the same. Several other editors of the 24-man Council have come out publicly saying they did not attend the meeting. So how many of them were actually present?

The statement doesn’t even say where it took place. But we now know that a meeting did indeed take place and that the venue of the all-important meeting of the Council was the newly-built offices of the 30,000-circulation The Daily Star, held while the president was away. In case anyone is thinking there is a typo, there are as many as four zeroes here.

Now, one must note the timing of the meeting and the statement; I’ll deal with the content later.

The meeting was chaired and hosted by the owner-editor of The Daily Star in his own office, where he allegedly drafted the statement himself and then signed and released it to the media, just a few days after the paper was sued by a lawyer for publishing a photo of a poster with ‘provocative’ content. I personally think the case has no merit because a picture published on the Page 3 of a non-vernacular newspaper that sells roughly 30,000 copies (the figure disputed by some ad agencies who claim the number to be lower) is unlikely to have any impact on those members of the public who matter in this particular case. The lawyer alleges in his petition that the otherwise non-descript poster of a banned Islamist outfit would have gone unnoticed by people in Bangladesh had The Daily Star not published it. I disagree with the lawyer for obvious reasons.

I also disagree with the prime minister on the issue. Her statement that The Daily Star would be punished for publishing the photo of the poster is NOT acceptable. The Star caption above the photo clearly disapproves of the message in the poster – “Fanatics raise their ugly heads again.” The word “ugly” says it all – the intention wasn’t bad.

Then again, this is my personal opinion. The petition was still being heard by the court and no one in a very powerful position of the state should have spoken out at that stage. Yet she decided to use her parliamentary privilege, albeit in response to a question posed by a member of parliament.

It is up to the 24 members of the Editors Council how they would deal with their internal squabbling and with the freedom of expression exercised by their general secretary relating to an issue he himself is directly party to. But for us, the rest of the media, the content of his statement is a matter of concern because there may be a perception among our readers, listeners, and viewers that the situation has suddenly deteriorated to such an extent that it warranted such a statement by the “editors".

It has been very bad for many many years in Bangladesh, where our correspondents in districts – although there are complaints of media people taking advantage of their professional privileges too – receive threats on a daily basis. Life is indeed very difficult for those trying to gather news in remote hilly regions in the south-east. Families of several regional journalists await justice years after their assassination.

But the language and the content of the Council statement, already strongly disputed by several editors, was lacking in professional touch. The Star episode aside, the statement refers to a New Age incident where a police officer allegedly turned up without a search warrant to look for alleged “militants” having a meeting inside the newspaper offices. Reports have it the officer never entered the office. The statement cited these two incidents and sought to portray a scenario that couldn’t be any worse. Not a very realistic and honest proposition.

We, more often than not in Bangladesh, love to play it up.

Our very own example of two of my young colleagues being brutally stabbed by local thugs on May 28, 2012 in front of the offices was reported by a section of the local and international media as an attack on our newsmen and newsroom. The two, who along with others retreated upstairs into the newsroom, successfully fought a month-long battle in the hospital. But nothing justified the union statements as well as the ones from the likes of Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF). It was plainly a criminal incident that had nothing to do with our journalism. My colleagues do get beaten up, often very seriously, while on duty or get sued on false charges while investigating corruption. This is how our beloved profession treats us unfortunately, in Bangladesh and in many other developing countries and of course beyond. We have continued the fight, haven’t we?

The Feb 24 statement is too gross in its accusations and, I would like to believe, was not drafted by a professional. Talk about phone calls? If I try to log or present my readers with a list, it might be the thickest book in this year’s Book Fair. Everyone is entitled to their public relations exercise; we do not necessarily have to give in. Ministers did make an effort to tell us how to go about doing our journalism in the wake of the violence-marred blockade and unheeded-to hartal calls. Did anyone listen? Did everyone respond to their invite?

We must admit we do make mistakes and make ourselves open to scrutiny. There is no bar in any statute book that a newspaper office cannot be searched for suspects. I condemn and protest the way Inquilab newsman was taken away from his newsroom by police. Have we condemned the unethical work done in the name of journalism by Inquilab in this case? Or Amar Desh in so many others?

This is worse than Rupert Murdoch, his The Sun or Fox News et cetera. This is much worse than what his now-dead News of the World did prior to its ignominious demise. This is worse than the media-politics nexus that has so often come under heavy fire even in the western world.

It’s good that a faction of the “editors” representing Bangladesh’s shrinking print industry is concerned about the fate of the country’s 25-odd television channels which allegedly face restrictions.

The victims cited by some of the editors here are Abdus Salam of ETV and Mosaddek Ali Falu of NTV. Mahmudur Rahman, the acting “editor” of Amar Desh, is now a major concern for the Council of Editors.

If my sources were right, Mr. Mahfuz Anam in one of the meetings of NOAB, in not too distant past, had screamed at proponents of Amar Desh membership of the small organisation. I can well imagine why he objected and visualise the way he argued. Nayeemul Islam Khan, when he was running then-large-circulation vernacular Amader Shomoy, wanted to be a member of NOAB. He was rejected twice, he alleged on a TV show in presence of Mr. Anam, a former president of the newspaper owners group that bargains with the government for various favours such as low import duty on newsprint.

“Why do you raise this on a TV show my brother?” Mr. Anam responded to Mr. Khan. Mahfuz Anam is the founding president of NOAB, created in 2006 when some of the owners decided to break away from the BSP dominated by a former owner of Ittefaq, Mainul Hosein, and his cohorts. NOAB is now led by Prothom Alo editor Motiur Rahman, who also sits on the executive committee of Editors Council.

If Mr. Mahmudur Rahman applied for membership of Editors Council, if I were there being part of it, I would definitely support Mr. Anam for various reasons. I didn’t consider him as an editor of any description and probably never will.

The reasons which I highlighted, along with three senior editors (Abed Khan, Reazuddin Ahmed, and Amanullah Kabir – all of whom are well into their fifth decade in journalism) on a TV show in the wake of Mr. Mahmudur Rahman’s arrest, were plain and simple. I have nothing personal against Mr. Rahman, a corporate-executive-turned-businessman who, one of his former employers once told me, rose through the ranks because he delivered results and “maybe in the process became a bit arrogant.”

Mr. Rahman later became head of the government’s agency responsible for attracting foreign capital, and then for a while an adviser to prime minister Khaleda Zia with rank of a junior minister. The ‘arrogant’ man, while acting as BOI chief, famously sued several members of the civil society including Rehman Sobhan of CPD and had warrants of arrest issued against the economist and businessman Syed Manzur Elahi among others, and often appeared on ‘talk’ shows to defend government policies, and could be seen shutting up fellow participants in not so polite manner.

Mahmudur Rahman was probably at his arrogant best as soon as he installed himself as acting editor of Amar Desh, having just secured the management control of the paper from its owner Mosaddek Ali Falu, the owner of NTV and an adviser to the BNP chairperson. His front-page commentary was nowhere near what we have learnt to call journalism. The vituperative fulminations of an angry man had the label attached to it – montobbo protibedon, or ‘comment report’ in literal translation. But more atrocious were his Page One reports and the headlines – all perfect examples of incitement of religious fanaticism and communal hatred, among other things, through newspaper reports.

All four of us on the TV show agreed on that day as we conducted a scrutiny of Amar Desh headlines that his work was way beyond the permissible limits of journalism. I do not know of any statement coming out of these editors condemning such specimen of journalism. “Only once,” a colleague corrects me, “when one of the Feb 24 statement sponsors came under his attack.”

I must register another very important point. Not many media outlets even gave much coverage to the way – unacceptable in my view – the Amar Desh acting ‘editor’ was arrested. bdnews24.com almost live-blogged the story as it unfolded, much to the displeasure of the powers that be. We received congratulatory phone calls from the supporters of Amar Desh. Those who did not attach much importance to the arrest-drama coverage included some of the ones who backed the latest Council statement.

Shall I discuss Abdus Salam? I better not. I had the privilege of knowing him and his way of doing (and seeing) things personally, when I was asked to run the then-closed TV channel while he was in the process of acquiring the single largest majority stake in the company. (He did manage to get there, at least by certain accounting methods.) He was fighting an unusual battle with the likes of Tarique Rahman and his best friend Giasuddin Al Mamun and seeking (and getting) support of Sheikh Hasina, then the oppressed opposition leader. That was mid-2005.

As we tried to re-launch Bangladesh’s first private TV station shut down by the 2001-6 BNP government, I barely survived a few weeks at ETV despite being wooed into the job from London where I was employed by one of the major media outlets in the world. (I am thankful though, because that intoxicating bait of a challenge did finally get me to packing my bags and catching a plane for Dhaka.) The charges brought against him are known and need not be repeated here.

It is always tempting to talk about Mosaddek Ali Falu. As private secretary to prime minister Khaleda Zia (1991-96), and then political secretary to prime minister Khaleda Zia (2001-06), then as MP from Dhaka’s Tejgaon, he was seen as one of the most powerful men during the 10 years of BNP rule. His win and the manner in which he secured it in the by-election to the seat, vacated by Abdul Mannan of Bikalpadhara, was a major media interest at the time.

Now the question is why was the NTV chairman/owner arrested? Was it because of what he was broadcasting on his television channel?

Has anyone said that NTV has changed its course in his absence? Or ETV during Mr. Salam’s detention? By the way, have any of you watched some of those crime shows? Then you would probably know why I was asking this. I have seen some on YouTube.

Many of these “editors” conveniently change their hats to publicly lobby as owners. During the annual pre-budget consultations, the finance minister allocates one session with a group of editors. The ones belonging to NOAB would find newsprint import duty more important than national economic issues that the finance minister would expect to discuss.

When one has to lobby as businessman, one loses their edge as editor, a position that gives almost blanket immunity in Bangladesh unless one is a thuggish land-grabber of extreme sorts, who has installed themselves as editor-publisher of a newspaper that doesn’t sell a copy in the stands.

Even if an editor gets mugged during an evening walk, our community will come out all guns blazing to brand it as an attack on free press. As members of NOAB, these are the same people who often fight tooth and nail to deny journalists a reasonable pay structure.

I don’t see any problem with journalists or employees owning a stake in the company they work for, but conflict of interest is another issue since we are the ones who complain of ministers, MPs, or parliamentary committee chiefs having an interest in businesses they regulate or monitor as public servants. Immunity from conflict of interest or being held accountable for any other unlawful activity cannot be a prerogative of these superhumans known as editors.

For instance, I do not find an issue with Sajeeb Wazed Joy seeking to bracket Mr. Anam and Dr. Kamal Hossain with Mahmudur Rahman Manna for their alleged role; I disagree with the prime minister’s son though when he demands Mr. Anam’s detention without presenting any clear evidence in the latest case. Then who knows, he may have more information at his disposal than we ordinary mortals do. After all, we had had no idea what Mr. Manna was up to.

In 2007-8, some of these editors supported the military takeover in no uncertain terms. At least two of them – members of both NOAB and Council of Editors – were known to have facilitated the military rule under the garb of emergency. Both were seen publicly bragging about their achievement.

On one occasion in early 2007, one of these editors tried to shut up the emergency government adviser in charge of information ministry in a meeting attended by dozens of editors and senior media executives. “This is our government and we brought about the change…” the owner-editor was widely quoted by those that attended the meeting.

These editors– I am not naming them since it is almost common knowledge – had no problems with all the restrictions the two-year emergency government slapped on the media and many fundamental rights. They created some of the worst examples in our media history, publishing stories based on unnamed sources that defamed important individuals unfairly. They supported the purging of politicians and businessmen. Many of them, I agree, were corrupt in public perception as well as in reality, but due process was the casualty that the media was supposed to try to protect and promote.

Is anyone interested in the links of those stories which are no longer there? For the first time in many years, I am supporting hard copies. I have quite a few of those.

Politicking is not the media’s business – a vice that has been the root of all evil in Bangladesh’s media world. There are reasons for one to be suspicious of at least some of these editors, and not just for their 1/11 role. The self-assigned torch-bearers of the philosophy of having non-elected “civil society” members as the managers of the state are ubiquitous. They are everywhere, out to defame the nation’s political establishment at any cost. The Feb 24 statement has that tone and tenor.

[The writer is the Editor-in-Chief of bdnews24.com]