Wall art says ‘This revolution doesn’t belong to anyone’s father either.’ The photo was taken on January 1 in Dhanmondi. | Shahidul Alam/Drik

THERE is a good side to the story. After a politically influential group ‘visits’ a TV station asking the top brass to ‘take appropriate action’ against journalists whose reporting they dislike, the matter is now being debated. There is no DGFI [Directorate General of Forces Intelligence] involved. No guns are on display. No false cases have been filed. No one was killed or even disappeared. As far as we know, no shares have been transferred. The ones targeted have even had the temerity to protest. The politically powerful group in question is having to defend itself. So why all this fuss?

When prominent and influential student leader Hasnat Abdullah and his cohorts enter the office of Mr Hasan, chairman of City Group, and instruct him to take ‘appropriate action.’  The chairman knows it’s an offer he can’t refuse. But versions differ. Hassan has not responded to my attempts to speak to him, but BBC quotes him as stating that a group of students led by Hasnat submitted a list of 10 employees of Somoy TV and pressurised him to sack them. Hasnat denies having handed over any such list.

What is known is that Hasnat was unhappy about the reporting by the channel. ‘Somoy Television was spreading propaganda, twisting my comments, and accommodating the views of a fallen political party,’ Hasnat told AFP. Hasnat and a group of 15 to 20 students, on December 17, 2024, visited the office of the City Group, the holding company of Somoy TV, to express their dissatisfaction. Exactly how that dissatisfaction was expressed is where disagreements lie.

Prior to August 5, 2024, a case like this would simply not have registered. This is a very different script to what we are used to. Mob rule has existed in the past. Media freedom has always been under threat. Political interference has been the norm. So why am I so concerned? Particularly since the person accused of interference had later justified his actions by protesting against the ill treatment I had received in the hands of the TV station. I’m talking about someone who is meant to be on ‘our side’.

Call me ungrateful, but I don’t really like the idea of the attack on me being used to justify the attack on a TV station. True Somoy TV was vile. It was the most blatantly toady, creepy, grovelly doormat we’ve ever had. It had truly transformed itself into the primary propaganda machinery of the autocratic regime. While it might not have used gunfire, surely it had indirectly contributed to the killing and injuring of many. It was yellow journalism at its worst. But the problem is that yellow journalism is not a criminal offence. However much I dislike what it did, however much I regret that our media has stooped so low, I can do no more than point out the calibre of its journalism, hoping the public will be discerning enough to go to better sources for its news.

Yes, I was in the streets with the brave students and other heroic protesters when Sheikh Hasina’s murderous forces were killing people in the streets. Yes, I was amongst those who paid a price for speaking out against government brutality and corruption. Yes, I’m proud of this revolution and rejoice in the fact that we’ve finally rid ourselves of this tyrant. But when student coordinator Hasnat Abdullah takes it upon himself to ‘instruct’ the chairman of the channel that they take “appropriate” action, I wonder what alternatives the chairman had. I don’t think love letters were what Hasnat had in mind. That Hasnat later mentions Somoy TV’s treatment of me, David Bergman, Lisa Gazi and Qadaruddin Shishir as a means to justify his outlandish behaviour, is a poor attempt to cover up for what hopefully even he realises was action which was completely unacceptable.

There are other concerns. Mainstream media remaining quiet on the subject reminds us that media freedom is not what it is touted to be. Media has hardly excelled when it comes to journalistic courage. Yes, there were fears during the previous regime. Did that require them to be quite so pusillanimous? And now that she has gone, are they still afraid of the ghosts? How can they possibly defend their silence? Will they continue to be lambs to a new set of wolves, or are they themselves complicit? And the government? Can a complaint as serious as this, simply be brushed off by saying it was an ‘internal matter’ of the TV channel? That they are powerless to take action unless the TV management lodges a complaint. Does the direct intimidation by a political group they are closely associated with, not require them to intervene? What message does their silence convey?

Hasnat did immediately get back to me after I contacted him and spoke at length. I sent him some follow up questions: 1) When you said they should take ‘appropriate action’ what had you expected them to do? 2) Were you happy with the outcome? 3) You say Mr Hasan was very kind when you spoke, do you think the journalists can do the sort of reporting they do, without the approval of the top management? 4) Do you think the way you approached it was the right way to do things? Is this how you think the country should be run? Hasnat was travelling but he responded right away. ‘As soon as I get back, I’ll answer your questions.’ Nothing has come through since. I sent a reminder, still no response. Meanwhile, according to Jago TV reports, Hasnat appears to have changed his story. The ‘kind’ Mr Hasan now seems to be a bad guy out to defame him. ‘It’s a setup,’ he insists, ‘and I made the mistake of falling into the trap.’

Hasan never got back to me either. Not to my original message. Not to the follow up. Shafiqul Alam, the former head of bureau of AFP is an old friend. I admired him for being one of the few senior journalists who still turned up during moments of conflict. He wrote from the ground, rather than reporting from the desk. When the previous regime had turned off the Internet to hide their killing spree, it was Shafiq, who took great personal risk to ensure the rest of us had a lifeline to the rest of the world. Now that he is the press secretary to the chief adviser of the interim government of Bangladesh, he has a different role. I had hoped he would stay true to his journalistic roots. In private conversation, he has always encouraged me to continue to be critical and to point out their follies. His evasive answer and his failure to respond to multiple queries, suggests the rules of engagement have changed. Suggesting that the government has no role in dealing with a powerful group which appears to have been intimidating a media house is a clear cop out. Things look different from the other side of the fence.

Unless the interim government quickly mends its ways, this fence too may soon again be brought down.

First published in The New Age on 2nd January 2025 https://www.newagebd.net/post/opinion/254286/a-new-set-of-wolves