Bangladesh press chose obedience over its constitutional duty

Bangladesh’s major television networks and newspapers failed their audiences when they refused to report meaningfully on Sheikh Hasina’s Aug. 5 speech in New Delhi.

This was not a minor editorial oversight. It was a broad, collective abandonment of journalism’s most basic responsibility: giving the public enough verified information to reach its own conclusions.

Deshweek reviewed 1,167 videos published by major television networks, including NTV News, Jamuna TV, NEWS24, Somoy TV, Ekattor TV, Channel S, Channel 24, Independent Television, BanglaVision News, Bangladesh Pratidin, Mohona TV and Daily Bonik Barta. Some ignored Hasina’s speech. Others reported government anger, political attacks, India’s alleged role or demands that the address not be broadcast.

None provided viewers with a meaningful account of what she actually said.

The failure extended to the country’s newspapers. The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, Bangladesh Pratidin, The Financial Express and Daily Sun published reports concerning the planned appearance, diplomatic reactions or government criticism. Searches found no articles detailing Hasina’s remarks.

Bangladesh’s press reported everything surrounding the speech except the speech itself.

That is not responsible journalism. Reporting that the government is angry about a speech while withholding the substance of that speech turns the press into a distributor of official outrage. It allows those in power to tell the public how to react while denying citizens the information necessary to decide whether that reaction is justified.

The Tarique Rahman government had warned that media outlets carrying Hasina’s speeches could face action for violating a court order. Information and broadcasting adviser Zahed Ur Rahman said the government was responsible for enforcing the court’s decisions.

That warning helps explain the fear that appears to have gripped the media industry. It does not excuse what followed.

Bangladesh’s Constitution, not the political convenience of the government of the day, is the country’s supreme legal authority. Article 39 guarantees freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press. Restrictions must be reasonable, imposed by law and connected to limited constitutional grounds such as state security, public order, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense. Article 26 further provides that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of that inconsistency.

A sweeping prohibition that prevents the press from reporting the substance of a major political speech cannot be reconciled with those guarantees merely because the government invokes a court order. Courts and governments are also bound by the Constitution. An order does not become constitutional simply because an official threatens to enforce it.

The press should have placed its constitutional duty above the Rahman government’s demand for silence.

That did not require newspapers or broadcasters to support Hasina, accept her claims or present her address without scrutiny. Journalism is not endorsement. The outlets could have summarized the speech, verified factual assertions, identified false or disputed claims, sought government responses and provided historical and political context.

They could have told audiences precisely what Hasina said and then subjected every significant claim to rigorous examination.

Instead, they withheld the evidence and broadcast the prosecution.

The networks and newspapers could also have challenged the restriction publicly and legally. Editors could have issued a joint statement. Media organizations could have sought constitutional review. Outlets could have explained to audiences exactly what information the government was preventing them from publishing. At minimum, they could have recorded their objection rather than quietly converting official censorship into editorial policy.

They did none of those things in any meaningful, collective way.

Fear of consequences may be understandable. Journalism in a hostile political environment can carry serious professional, financial and personal risks. But press freedom matters most when exercising it is difficult. A press that reports freely only when the government approves is not free.

The scale of the failure makes it worse. This was not one cautious editor or one newsroom making a questionable judgment. A large section of Bangladesh’s television and newspaper industry reached essentially the same result: the public would hear that Hasina spoke, learn that the government was angry and remain largely uninformed about what she said.

Such uniform silence creates the appearance of obedience, whether produced by direct instructions, fear, self-censorship or institutional cowardice.

It also creates a dangerous precedent. Once a government can prevent the media from reporting one political opponent’s words, future governments can use the same method against other opposition leaders, activists, journalists, academics or citizens. Every outlet that complies makes the next act of censorship easier.

Hasina’s identity, record and political standing do not diminish the principle involved. Constitutional freedoms are not reserved for popular speakers or approved opinions. The public’s right to know cannot depend on whether editors, officials or judges sympathize with the person speaking.

Bangladeshis had a right to hear what Hasina said. They also had a right to see those statements examined, challenged and placed in context by their own national media.

Instead, many had to seek details from international outlets or unregulated online sources. Bangladesh’s established press surrendered its most important advantage: the ability to provide verified, independent and locally informed reporting.

The Rahman government bears responsibility for issuing and enforcing a censorship demand that was incompatible with the Constitution’s protection of speech and press freedom. But the media cannot place all blame on the government.

Bangladesh’s newspapers and television networks made a choice. Faced with a conflict between political authority and their constitutional responsibility, they chose obedience.

They did not protect their readers and viewers from misinformation. They protected the government from scrutiny.

They did not merely fail to cover a speech. They failed the public, weakened press freedom and helped establish the principle that those in power may decide which political words Bangladeshis are permitted to hear.