Economist shock
Inam Ahmed
The shock was big as it came from no other media outlet than The Economist, the magazine that proudly calls itself "newspaper". It is undoubtedly the most admired piece of journalism around the globe today. Its research capability amazingly rich. Any other newspaper in the world pales beside The Economist. It has strong values and it is strongly judgmental on issues.
People may not always agree with the views of the newspaper, but they deem it as an essential read.
So when this newspaper of such standards writes an article on Bangladesh-India relations titled "Embraceable You" and puts in its second sentence, "Ever since 2008, when the Awami League, helped by bags of Indian cash and advice, triumphed in general elections in Bangladesh, relations with India have blossomed", that sends a big punch to us. We feverishly search for the basis of that startlingly bombshell comment, and find no other supporting evidence.
Then the article proceeds to say how Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina "reciprocated" Sonia Gandhi's "heaps of praise" with a "golden gong" for Indira Gandhi. The article went on rambling about "corruption flourishes at levels astonishing even by South Asian standards" in Bangladesh right now, and so on.
We are then thoroughly disappointed. A newspaper that had been waging a tirade in the past few weeks against the irresponsible journalism by its British peers, calling them everything from fox to other things, and highlighting the need for ethics in journalism, suddenly is found shunned of all its own advocated virtues. The Economist's own pronounced policy is to blend 40 percent news with 60 percent views. The views must be derived from news. In this case, we find no news or information to back the sweeping comments.
That the Awami League got back to power with Indian "bagful of money and advice" can at best be the words at the gossip rooms. And have we not heard it many a time as easy-going convenient remarks in parties around Dhaka. But that The Economist picked it up as a serious matter to be ensconced in its pages is surprising. Journalism, after all, is not reporting rumours and words glibly let out of mouths.
It has also cast considerable doubts about the possible misuse of transit facility to India. The basis of its doubt is the much hyped, age-old, a certain school of thought theory that India would use the corridor to ship arms to its Seven-sisters to quell insurgency, although it has been clearly put down in every possible document that the transit will be used for civilian purposes only. And it is no big deal to check any misuse.
The newspaper has repeatedly talked about what the "military types" think about security breach because of transit. It is the same Economist that has been tireless in preaching global integration, connectivity and the like. And while talking of all the "might happen" possibilities, it sounded quite condescending and almost sniggering at everything that has been happening.
In journalism, as we learned from the west, objectivity, fairness and accuracy are of utmost importance. These issues in journalism have been settled many years ago. We do not write anything that may slur anyone, unless we have proper evidence, and then also that person or organisation has to be given the right to defence. Journalists who work with objectivity and ethics gain readers' confidence and earn credibility. "Media ethics must emerge from those who write and edit the news, from the publishers and station owners, and from the workers who sell the advertising and subscriptions to sustain the business. Developing ethical standards is a personal exercise in part and a collective one too" (International Centre for Journalists).
The Society of Professional Journalists, a US forum, in its Preamble to its Code of Ethics says:
"Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
Since the credibility of the press is linked to its commitment to truth, to the pursuit of accuracy, fairness and objectivity, we feel that The Economist has failed in its article.
Unfortunately, such practice of unauthenticated, indicative, unsupported journalism is widespread in Bangladesh also. A section of the newspapers are pushing their own agenda, and publishing unsubstantiated reports. The recent example is the attempt to implicate an editor in the August 21 grenade blast by a couple of newspapers. The newspapers then lost cases in the press council, and had to apologise.
The government, the foreign ministry in this case, has rightly come up with a strong rejoinder of the Economist report in which it has said the article writer's wordings and analogies lacked decency and professional ethics. It has found the article as a smear campaign. We support this view. But at the same time may we remind the government that it should also refrain from any smear campaign like the one done against an unnamed editor by the defence adviser to the prime minister. Or say, like the one against founder of Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus.
We think in this age of internet and information revolution, the practice of unsubstantiated campaign should stop, and The Economist knows it better than many of us.
Economist shock
I'm not blaming india for anything, but the little annoying critters are all over the BD forum supporting AL transit policies and whatnot.
