Witnessing these events firsthand as a journalist has been surreal and profoundly unsettling.
In late July, the entire country was stunned, shell-shocked and in complete disbelief at the unprecedented loss of hundreds of lives. What began as a seemingly minor protest over a specific injustice quickly erupted into a firestorm of rebellion. The then autocratic government responded with violent force, killing innocent people, including children, students and bystanders. Children were shot dead when sitting on father's lap or attempting to close a window. Young students died protesting, commuters were killed on their way to work and journalists lost their lives in the line of duty.
Protest movements are not new in Bangladesh, but the nation has never before witnessed such a deplorable and bloody response, not even under military rule. The reckless firing of live ammunition, the point-blank shooting of protesters--such a scale of brutality is unprecedented in the country's history. As has been seen time and again across the globe, this heavy-handed approach of the government only intensified public anger and unrest.
It is the professional responsibility of media outlets to keep a vigilant eye on the actions of any ruling government, expose and analyse anti-people policies and sharpen civic awareness of the people. Such journalism naturally reinforces democratic accountability and empowers opposition forces to challenge autocratic regimes. But, during the 15-year-long rule of Awami League, a section of media houses either willingly abandoned or were compelled to forsake this responsibility. Not only did they whitewash the government's failures, but they also ran smear campaigns against opposition voices and critical journalists. News of anti-people actions was routinely suppressed, while the government's so-called achievements were amplified through relentless propaganda. In return for these disservices, some media owners and journalists received unethical privileges and perks.
It was, therefore, no surprise that during the crucial three-week period from mid-July to the first week of August, these media outlets revealed its true colours. Beneficiaries of the League's patronage shed all pretenses of neutrality and began branding pro-democracy youths as "thugs," echoing government rhetoric.
Interestingly, many field-level journalists at these outlets sent accurate and objective reports to their headquarters. Yet, from the air-conditioned offices, their office bosses, either loyal to the government or acting under pressure from the owners, blocked their publication or broadcast. As a result, these innocent field reporters were ridiculed as 'government stooges' by protesters. Obviously, the decision to vilify the protesters did not come from the reporters themselves, but from the management of these outlets who dictated the editorial stance.
Moreover, during the tumultuous days of the uprising, it was a true low point for journalism to witness some editors and senior journalists attending a meeting with Sheikh Hasina, offering their unconditional support to the government rather than demanding accountability for the violent suppression of protesters. It showed how effectively Hasina's carrot-and-stick policy had transformed part of the press into willing collaborators. The betrayal of journalistic principles by this section of Hasina-loyalist journalists caused lasting damage to the credibility of the media industry.
Throughout her 15-year rule, Sheikh Hasina frequently made lofty claims about safeguarding the free flow of information, freedom of speech, and press freedom. In reality, however, operating an impartial news outlet was as daunting as one can imagine. Like many autocrats, Hasina could only tolerate what she called "constructive criticism," a euphemism for sycophantic praise. Genuine criticism, on the other hand, was met with harassment, abuse, arrest, and even enforced disappearance. Even district-level journalists faced physical attacks, office vandalism, and imprisonment for uncovering corruption involving political leaders or government officials. Several newspapers and TV channels were forcibly shut down simply for being critical of the government.
Then there were draconian laws such as the Digital Security Act (DSA), which were routinely used to harass and imprison journalists. According to the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS), between 2018 and 2023, as many as 7,000 cases were filed under the DSA, including against 255 journalists for their reporting. Of those, 155 were charged under Section 25, which covers the "publishing or sending of offensive, false, or fear-inducing data-information", which carried a three-year prison sentence. Another 154 journalists faced up to five years in jail under provisions for "publishing, broadcasting, and disseminating defamatory information."
Compounding these restrictions were explicit directives prohibiting any criticism of a "friendly country" for fear that it might strain Bangladesh's diplomatic relations. Government operatives routinely called editors who tested these boundaries, dictating what could or could not be published. In this climate of repression, self-censorship became norm as media outlets strived to stay afloat, while journalists were concerned about protecting both their livelihoods and safety. Many reporters fled the country fearing retaliation for their work. Those operating from abroad through foreign outlets or diaspora-based platforms like Netra News, gained limited freedom to publish investigations and critical commentary, provided their websites were not blocked in Bangladesh.
When a majority of the local media outlets were silent by fear or complicit by choice, social media had emerged as the primary source of real-time information, prompting the government to impose an internet shutdown for days. As the internet was blocked, with curfew imposed, there was complete media blackout for days. During this critical period, appalled by the growing human toll and emboldened by defiant protesters, several mainstream print-media outlets, along with a few TV channels, began reporting the unvarnished realities on the ground--an act that, in itself, dealt a heavy blow to the government's narrative.
Journalists working in these outlets, braving government censorship, curfew, movement restrictions and security risks from the law enforcers' shoot-on-sight policy, brought forward the stories of grief, outrage and heartbreak from the families of those who fell victim to the brutal crackdown on protesters. In this way, just as the movement gave the media the courage to break out of its shell, the extraordinary reporting by these outlets helped sustain the momentum of the uprising, which culminated into the overthrow of Hasina's tyrannical regime on August 05, 2025.
Eventually, the fall of the Hasina regime ushered in a renewed sense of freedom among journalists. However, a new challenge has emerged in the form of rumour-driven, fear-mongering social-media commentators. Their flood of content filled with truths, half-truths and outright falsehoods has already led the nation into much confusion and distrust. So, even in this age of social-media dominance, the role of an independent press remains more vital than ever.
But, some of the underlying issues that have long vitiated the country's media landscape continue to persist. The draconian laws used to suppress press freedom have not been repealed yet. Vested groups that weaponized journalism continue to operate, though under new covers, but with the same objective. A government-formed Media Reform Commission has already submitted its report, outlining a series of measures, including amending the Cyber Security Act, limiting individual companies to ownership of a single media outlet, and establishing a regulatory body to uphold ethical standards in journalism. However, it is uncertain when or whether these critical reforms will be implemented, if at all.
Ultimately, the most critical safeguard of press freedom is journalistic independence itself. The right to freedom of expression and democracy almost have symbiotic relationship. To strengthen democracy is, in essence, a task for the free press. This is where the interests of all independent news outlets converge. Every newspaper has its own editorial policy, its own commercial interests but there is a common stake in maintaining an enabling atmosphere in which the cause of democracy and freedom can be pursued undeterred. And this task can only be fulfilled with greater unity and commitment among media outlets dedicated to the cause of objective journalism.
aktuhin.fexpress@gmail.com