Multiple layers of censorship: perception of media workers

A study was conducted in 2022 on media censorship as perceived by the people working in the media. It was basically based on their work experience and how they would grade the strength and weakness of the censors that operate both officially and unofficially. . It is generally held that the government is the prime censor and it works through a variety of means including the now infamous ICT/ Digital Security Act.
However, media workers had their own perceptions which were possible because censorship was a lived experience. This study was not completed due to various issues but is expected to be completed this year. Parts of the study were published in the Bangla version of a business daily last year.
THE HIERARCHY OF CENSORSHIP: Of the 50 journalists surveyed, every one said that the media worker deals with several censors that begin within the media construct and go outside into the official legal space. Thus there is internal and external censorship.
Internal censorship and supervision are slightly different according to them. Supervision is professional while censorship is arbitrary. According to several, the Section in charge is the supervisor but the News Editor or concerned editor is the censor. "They can decide to hold any story and not be accountable to anyone including the writer. In most cases no explanation is given as to why a story is killed or held back."
THE DECISIONS MAKERS: The News editors and senior journalists interviewed said that the Editor was the main censor as he is the one who decides what can be said and how as a matter of policy. He is responsible for what is going to be published so his job description is that of the censor in many ways.
The three Editors and over a dozen senior journalists who have experience as editors as well said that they are not free either as they are staff members and can be hired and fired as well. In other words it's the owner who has the final says and the Owner is the prime censor of the organization.
THE OWNERS: The owners were reluctant to respond to any written questions but agreed to discuss the topic. This included several owners or part owners of TV stations and online outfits. According to them, their investment is a social service and instead of spending their profit in pleasure seeking, they are spending it after the production of quality media.
They said that most owners are businessmen and their connection with the Government is inevitable. They have to depend on the Government for many reasons including adverts and their hands are often tied. They are also vulnerable to government pressures and while journalists were free to write what they wanted, they were not free and could get into trouble for reports and comments. Several cases were cited where owners were punished and penalized by the authorities for publishing certain news items. Most owners suffered economic punishment, so the gains made by having a media outlet in control also made sure that it didn't cause them financial loss as well.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: When discussing with the reporters and writers from within the media, it's obvious that the owners and Editors don't want to suffer for what is done by others which they termed as irresponsible reporting/writing.
On the other hand, these people felt that the top level didn't want to take any risks or expose the wrongs that were rampant. When told that their paper had made many reports that would be considered so, the response was that they needed to do more. When pressed for what they meant by that, most said that journalism meant "doing work ' for the people.
However, at this point many become a bit vague and appear to be not sure what they mean by professional work and activism. This line is a bit fudged just as many media workers found the issue of limits and boundaries uncertain.
CENSOR IS NOT JUST THE DSA: Discussion points to the increasing pressure of social media level freedom particularly by political activists who broadcast from outside and their obvious limitation as they are within the purview of the laws including the DSA. And DSA appears to be a catch all phrase though not many seem to know much about its actual structure. The DSA is vague which actually helps its objective.
The most interesting aspect was one journalist's description of media freedom where he described the consuming public as a "censor" because due to many social constraints he can't say what he really wants to.
So a preliminary summary would be that there are several levels of censorship that begins with the Government represented by the DSA to denial of economic privileges. Next comes the Owner followed by the Editor and Section editors.
However, their functions vary based on where the media person is located. The idea of the Government as the only censor is therefore limited and it's a more complex issue as the initial findings show.
afsan.c@gmail.com