The Ministry of Information has issued a gazette notification on the newly formulated National Broadcast Policy, 2014. It was approved earlier by the Cabinet on August 04.
It has been explained that this Policy will be aimed at restricting the airing of programmes that satirise national ideals and objectives, deliberately aim to undermine people and institutions, try to create disunity and affect the solidarity of Bangladesh as an independent State. It has also been observed by the relevant authorities that the Policy will try to ensure that there is not only no broadcasting of programmes that might unleash the spirit of separatism and unrest within the country but also that might create hatred among people belonging to different castes or faiths.
There are references that will ensure the barring of airing any programmes that might demean the armed forces or law-enforcement agencies. Information that may compromise state security cannot also be broadcast. Stress has been laid on the need by the media to broadcast and cover properly addresses delivered by the Head of State or Government and also correctly project messages related to health and weather. Restrictions have been suggested in the manner in which coverage can be given to chaotic situations or violent incidents to avoid inflaming public opinion, politicisation of the incident and to protect public interest.
In addition, the new Policy has underlined that nothing should be broadcast that may hamper friendly relations that exist with foreign countries. Stress has been given on using advertisements in a responsible manner, not just for commercial gain - and to abide in this context within the paradigm of self-regulated control.
The policy has generated controversy, widespread criticism and accusations that this is politically motivated. References have been made repeatedly to Article 39 of the Constitution by the media community and certain sections of the legal community. Representatives from one political party has alleged that this Policy is aimed at 'gagging' investigative media and is an effort by the government to stop any criticism related to governance issues, lack of transparency and consequent corruption.
The Association of Television Channel Owners (ATCO) has disagreed with the manner in which the Policy formatting has been undertaken and expressed their anxiety that the new Policy might not only affect growth within the electronic media industry but also might lead to regression.
The government has responded to this criticism by pointing out that the drafting process was participatory involving a Committee that included media representatives. They have also mentioned that the critics appear to have overlooked a certain passage in Article 39 (2) which spells out that while pursuing freedom of thought and conscience, one will still be "subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence".
Despite the above explanation, media personalities and rights activists have pointed out that most of their suggestions offered during the participatory sessions have not been taken cognizance of. They have urged the government to re-think implementation of the measures enunciated within the new Policy and suggested that efforts be made on a priority basis to create and constitute the independent Broadcasting Commission as envisaged in the Policy framework.
This measure has been proposed because, the Policy, it has been alleged, does not mention any time-frame for the formation of the Commission. This has apparently raised worries that the Information Ministry (in charge of enforcing the Policy till the formation of this Commission) might misuse the policy provisions in the name of maintaining standard of programmes and advertisements. There is consequently a credibility deficit factor. In this context, it is being emphasised that the Policy contains certain provisions that hold the risk of motivated, subjective and arbitrary interpretation of documents.
Nevertheless, one must understand that one should not call this latest effort of the government as another example of negative subjective initiative. This government has to be credited for trying to expand the areas of accountability through wider digitalisation and the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2009 and the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011.
Today, we have nearly 30 private Television Channels, with most of them having global transmission facilities. We also have FM Radio stations, Community Radio stations and numerous daily newspapers in the print media sector. We have a vibrant mobile phone sector with more than 110 million mobile phone users. We have nearly 15 million people using the existing internet facilities. There are millions who rely on the social media and propagate their views through Facebook or the YouTube or through inter-active blogs.
We must not forget that we are living today in a world without frontiers. Consequently, why should one be worried about the government taking advantage of a Policy to only permit the propagation of their political agenda? References have been made to the pre-1975 era and the curtailment of press freedom undertaken at that time. But it is a different ball game now.
Yes, there has to be media freedom, both in obtaining information as well as in its dissemination - through print, or electronically or through broadcasting. However, while undertaking this process, those involved with the media need to, through self-regulation (which unfortunately does not take place all the time), ensure that certain ethical standards are followed in the dissemination of news.
This will then ensure that the climate of accountability exists not only within the parameter of those to be covered by the media but also that their basic fundamental rights as an individual or institution are not compromised or tarnished.
This approach is more or less followed in the developed world because of the universal practice in those countries of awarding massive damages to a plaintiff and swift execution of principles as enunciated in the legal parameter of the Law of Torts related to acts of slander or defamation. Unfortunately, that apprehension does not exist in the truest sense of the term in Bangladesh.
We have also noticed in recent times, the disappointing trend of using digital measures related to photography to misrepresent news. In some cases certain media outlets have overlooked the principles of accuracy, fairness, professional integrity, neutrality, freedom from bias and effort to minimise harm in order to create greater sensationalism that helps to draw attention among the targeted audience. Sometimes such misrepresentation is also hinted at in the context of advertisements, particularly in the cosmetic industry. Such measures affect desired accountability.
It is in this context that one feels that need exists for some sort of regulatory approach in the framework of our broadcasting arena. Nevertheless, it is also true that the authorities should take all steps to create soonest possible an independent Broadcasting Commission with competent and honest persons through a transparent process. This body should, in its quasi-judicial role should subsequently re-examine all the provisions of the Policy and then take necessary steps, if so required, to amending any provision for greater interest.
The Policy should facilitate the role of investigative journalism. We must not forget that this is an essential tool for a corruption-free society and accountable governance. This is important to ensure that the citizens enjoy equal opportunity as envisaged in the Constitution. This Policy should also not become a tool for politicisation where sectional interest can take priority over national interest.
We will have to respect national security and those who are charged with the responsibility of doing so. However, if any member of any Authority stoops to pursue a personal agenda and illegal gratification, that person will have to face existing legal provisions. We all have to conform to these expectations.
We must remember that millions gave their lives to achieve our independence. It is for our martyrs that we need to uphold fundamental rights and freedom and equality and justice among citizens. We have media freedom in our country and this Policy must take it forward. Otherwise, it will be a case of lost opportunity.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. mzamir@dhaka.net
© 2026 - All Rights with The Financial Express
