Home
+
Published : 29 Jun 2025, 02:09 AM
At a routine security checkpoint in Hatirjheel, law-enforcing officers were stopping and questioning drivers and inspecting vehicles as part of their nightly patrols. That’s when two young women pulled up on a motorcycle, both without helmets.
Officers flagged them down to process the traffic violation, but what happened next sparked a wave of public outrage -- not over the police action, but over what some journalists at the scene did next.
Instead of simply documenting the police work, several reporters turned their cameras directly on the two women.
Despite the women’s repeated, desperate pleas -- hands clasped in pleading, faces visibly distressed -- the cameras stayed fixed on them, capturing every moment of their discomfort.
Footage later revealed that neither woman had a driving licence. As one tried to shield her face and step away, cameras pursued her, weaving past police officers to keep her in the frame.
The resulting videos, complete with sensational headlines, spread rapidly across social media and news platforms. But as they went viral, so did the backlash.
Viewers condemned the journalists for what many called “moral policing” — exploiting two young women for clicks and engagement, rather than serving the public interest.
The women, reduced to viral spectacles for nothing more than not wearing helmets, became a stark reminder of how thin the line can be between journalism and public shaming.
The incident raised an urgent question: Should the media record and broadcast footage of citizens being questioned over minor infractions, especially when those involved explicitly ask not to be filmed?
This is not an isolated problem.
Across Dhaka, videos from nightly police checkpoints regularly show personal vehicle searches, with cameras lingering on private belongings, even broadcasting intimate conversations with officers, often without consent.
Such footage risks exposing individuals’ personal information, sparking deeper concerns about privacy and ethics.
The Jun 13 incident in Hatirjheel serves as a case in point. In the video, one of the women can be heard repeatedly telling the reporters: “I didn’t swear, brother. I just said we’ll get in trouble at home if this video goes out. That’s all.
“You keep focusing the camera on us… we’re women. Our families will be furious.”
Supreme Court lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua said the issue deserves legal scrutiny, especially when filmed subjects are publicly humiliated for minor violations.
“If someone’s not wearing a helmet, it’s a traffic offence. There’s a provision for punishment under traffic law,” he said.
“But if their dignity is harmed in the process, they become victims.”
According to Barua, those who publish such footage could be legally challenged by the individuals involved, especially when the content results in reputational damage.
The resulting backlash has come from within the media industry itself as well.
“It’s troubling to see journalists veering into this kind of behaviour,” said Professor Mofizur Rhaman of Dhaka University’s Department of Mass Communication and Journalism.
“This is not journalism, it’s intrusion. A journalist is not a law enforcer. They have a role, they have professional boundaries. But what we are seeing is a violation of both ethics and professionalism.”
“This kind of negative practice tarnishes the credibility of responsible journalism. Ultimately, it disgraces the entire profession.”
HOW MEDIA REACH CHECKPOINTS
Journalists currently exchange professional updates through internal groups on social media platforms.
Information about upcoming checkpoints often circulates in these groups, sometimes through official invitations from law-enforcing agencies.
In most cases, however, the invites are informal and sent by individual officers leading the checkpoint operations.
These officers typically reach out directly to selected journalists to ensure media coverage.
On Jun 12, a message sent to media workers -- including a phone number of an army officer -- read: “The army will carry out a special checkpoint search tonight at 11:30pm outside the temple opposite BTV, near the entry point to Hatirjheel from Rampura Bridge.”
In another message sent by an on-duty officer from a different location, it read: “A joint checkpoint will be set up tonight at 0001hrs in front of the Primary Education Office, Mirpur 1, by Mirpur Army Camp and Mirpur Model Police Station.
“Your presence for media coverage is strongly encouraged.”
Such messages then spread widely across journalist groups, drawing not only reporters from mainstream outlets but also digital media and YouTubers.
Many arrive with boom mics and mobile phones, filming the full length of the operations for their platforms. Some even live-stream the events.
While the army has not issued an official comment to bdnews24.com, a officer, speaking on condition of anonymity said: “At times we invite coverage to raise public awareness.
But how journalists present that coverage -- surely they have their own guidelines. If they ignore those, what can we really do?”
When asked whether law-enforcing agencies can avoid responsibility in cases where harassment occurs in front of them, the officer said: “We always conduct our operations within legal boundaries. During checkpoint duties or other drives, we are focused on our tasks.
“It’s not up to us to decide how much coverage a journalist provides.”
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
In its 2019 ruling granting conditional bail to Ayesha Siddika Minni -- accused in the Rifat Sharif murder case -- the High Court strongly criticised the practice of presenting arrestees before the media during ongoing investigations.
The court observed that law-enforcing agencies such as the police and the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) often conduct press briefings and display detainees without any legal framework, prompting serious concerns about due process.
“Many police officials are seen making overly enthusiastic statements about ongoing investigations,” it said.
The court emphasised that no suspect should be declared guilty unless their offence is proven through evidence and trial.
It reminded that earlier, in a 2012 ruling, the High Court had issued specific directives prohibiting the public presentation of detainees or suspects before the media.
In that ruling, the court also issued a rule asking why law-enforcing agencies should not be instructed to remain within the boundaries of their legal duties.
Given such directives against the public display of arrestees, the recent media coverage of roadside searches for traffic violations and random checks raises questions about justification.
Prof Mofizur said, “If someone is legally found guilty, punishment is justified. But harassing someone through media exposure like this is unethical.”
VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY, LAW
Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to the privacy of their home and personal communication, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of state security, public order, morality, or health.
Moreover, Section 499 of the Penal Code defines defamation as any spoken, written, or visual representation intended to harm someone’s reputation.
If proven, such acts can attract legal penalties.
Section 505 of the Penal Code further prohibits any statement or publication likely to cause public alarm, confusion, or hostility.
Anyone broadcasting or spreading such content, intentionally or recklessly, may be held criminally liable.
MOUNTING CRITICISM
The recent surge in so-called “checkpoint journalism” -- where individuals stopped at traffic check-posts are filmed or photographed by media -- has sparked criticism from within the journalist community itself.
Rafsan Jani, crime reporter for the national daily Kalbela, wrote on Facebook: “We’ve been riding a wave of ‘checkpoint journalism’ for days now -- where does it end?”
Speaking to bdnews24.com, he explained that this kind of reporting focuses more on creating “sensation” than genuine “awareness”.
He asserted that while legal actions should be taken against violators, publicly shaming individuals through media amounts to a form of “media trial”, which is neither ethical nor acceptable.
“Journalists must act ethically, and law-enforcing agencies must also protect an individual’s privacy and dignity when media are present during searches,” Rafsan said.
LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES FAILED TO ACT?
Lawyer Barua says law-enforcing agencies had a duty to intervene and prevent harassment at the checkpoints.
Commenting on the incident involving the two young women at Hatirjheel, he said: “Their protection was a two-fold duty -- both the journalist’s and that of the law-enforcers.
“That night, police or other personnel present could have acted to prevent any harassment.”
“The offence of not wearing helmets could have been addressed with fines or penalties, and the women safely removed -- that was the officers’ responsibility. Their failure in that duty is evident.”
Barua also questioned the presence of journalists. “Everyone wants to be a hero in the media. Has media trial really stopped? Not quite.
“Some of what we see in the news is still enough to create panic.”
Assistant Inspector General of Police Headquarters Enamul Haque Sagar told bdnews24.com, “It’s worth asking why this is happening. If someone’s privacy is exposed publicly, that’s not right.
“We don’t support any violation of privacy. This should not happen, and we’ll make sure it doesn’t repeat.”
[Writing in English by Syed Mahmud Onindo and Sheikh Fariha Bristy]
