What was it that Prothom Alo did?
Over the last few days social media has been flooded with persons implying that Prothom Alo had tried to 'destablise the country' by using a photocard quoting an online report where a day labourer had said "we need independence to avail fish, meat and rice" (adequate meals, in other words). They claimed that the dignity of the country had been tarnished by that one photocard. I have a few simple questions to the persons who are so agitated over the matter.
Many of them contend that Prothom Alo intentionally used that photocard to destabilise the country. Could any one of them kindly explain to me how that news could render the country unstable?
Prothom Alo has removed that photocard from social media because they felt there was scope for confusion. The online report from which the photocard was made, had quoted a couple of persons. But in the card, the picture was of a young boy and the quote was of a day labourer. Just to ensure there was no scope of misunderstanding, they removed the card shortly after posting it. I feel they did this out of a sense of journalistic responsibility. They even followed the norms and mentioned the correction in the online report.
If you look at that original report in Prothom Alo online and the news amended by removing the photo, it will be seen that not a single word had been changed other than the heading. I see no alterations have been made in the quotations of the child Sabuj and the day labourer Zakir Hossain. Had Zakir Hossain's words been deleted or attributed to Sabuj, then the credibility of the report could have been questioned. Since there are no doubts concerning the statement of day labourer Zakir Hossain, this report in no way can be termed as motivated.
Why do these seven-year-old kids have to sell flowers? Do the country's child labour laws uphold that? Is the state providing these children with their basic needs?
If there is any room for argument, it can only be over the picture used in the photocard on Facebook. Our newspapers quite regularly use such cover photographs. There are hundreds of examples. The quote of the day labourer was given, accompanied by the picture of the child. That should have been caught by the media's gatekeeping. That is why they made the corrigendum, ensuring the rules of journalism. If it was a newspaper in print, there would have been no scope for immediate correction. But online portals have emerged with the follow-up protocol. As for the rules concerning using a child's photograph, Prothom Alo maintained all the norms. There is no scope for objection there.
Now we can come to the issue of monetary payment to the child in the picture. It is being said that the newsman had paid the child ten taka to take his photograph. I have no idea if that is true. But many feel this is unethical in journalistic professional terms. When you speak to a child who helps his parents with money by selling flowers, you have wasted some of his time when you take his picture. If the newsman pays him 10 taka in humanitarian consideration that he could have sold flowers in that window of time, it seems quite sanctimonious to condemn that and cry foul. You will find information regarding such assistance in academic textbooks on strategies of source development in journalism.
In many countries around the world, when you interview someone, you pay the person a certain remuneration. In a country where there are media reports of billions of taka being looted from the banks, it is hardly fitting to display the holier-than-thou attitude over paying a kid 10 taka.
Look at the matter closely, then ask yourself the question, why do these seven-year-old kids have to sell flowers? Do the country's child labour laws uphold that? Is the state providing these children with their basic needs? Can we just close our eyes to these children's sufferings? Can the state shrug off its responsibility?
The basic premise of the news media is to reveal the discrepancies in society and state, to take initiative to identify and expose the wrong doers so that those running the state can remedy the malaise. The news media's work in no way is to carry out official publicity tasks. It is the work of the media to act as the mouthpiece of those who cannot speak out. It is on this ideology that media has flourished all over the world.
Ten years of my 16 years in journalism were spent with a top online news portal of the country. From that experience at least I can say that there is a big difference between print newspaper and online news portals. Online, one has to provide the reader with news as speedily and accurately as possible. If you look at the online news reports, you will note that these are, in most instances, updated, headlines can change and there is also scope to add to the news content, and this is done by the news media. A few months ago, even BBC had used an MP's name with a wrong photograph, also they attributed a wrong name to a famous singer. The news portal made corrections and apologised. If there is a mistake, the media corrects it and informs the readers, thus maintaining transparency.
It is the function of the media to go to all depths to gather news. It is certainly one of the main principles of journalism to side with the victims. So it is only expected that the perpetrators are aggrieved. If anyone decides they want to be aggrieved, they can be aggrieved with any newspaper in the country, not just Prothom Alo. After all, every day our media comes up with dozens of distressing news reports. There is corruption taking place here, robbery there, property being grabbed here, killing there. If anyone is aggrieved by these reports and simply resorts to the Digital Security Act (DSA), then there could be hundreds of cases every day.
But can the voice of the media be silenced by such reports? Maybe. In the past many journalists have been victims of the DSA. The standard of our media began to fall because of this law. Sycophantic journalism became a major tool. While some try to be courageous, the news media has taken a step back in fear of the DSA. If the media is afraid to speak the truth, that ultimately is harmful to the state. By picking up journalists in this manner, instilling fear in them, punishing them, it is actually weakening the backbone of the state. At the same time, the media too must avoid taking advantage of the freedom of expression simply to belittle the state.
We must keep in mind that the media is not the opponent of the state. Also, the media is not above the law. We must not imagine ourselves to be opponents and do harm to ourselves. We want the government to immediately abolish the Digital Security Act. The case against the editor of Prothom Alo and all cases against other journalists must be immediately withdrawn. Let all threats be removed from above the media. We hope that all come forward to build up a Bangladesh rich in the spirit of the liberation war.
*Dr Nadim Mahmud is a researcher at California University and can be contacted at [email protected].
* This column appeared in the print an online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir