Price of Admission?

The script is familiar; the cast recognisable, the performance well orchestrated if not well rehearsed. Some MPs of the ruling party have targeted an editor who, in his most good-natured manner and in an introspective lighthearted mood, made a frank admission at a TV talk show of having made an error of judgement in running the statements of some politicians incarcerated during the regime of 1/11, admitting to acts of impropriety of theirs as well as their top leaders at various times, particularly when they were at the helm of affairs of the country. And these stories were provided by the joint interrogation cell that had interrogated these political personalities, and were carried by almost all newspapers and TV channels of the country in June and July of 2007. 

These AL MPs are calling for the head of The Daily Star editor for running what they claim to be tendentious stories. The PM's son Sajeeb Wajed Joy called for the editor to be tried for treason on the grounds that he "assisted in a military coup" by running these stories and apparently smeared the current PM. This was followed by several talk-shows participated by some well-known faces demanding banning The Daily Star. 

I feel we should address some inexactitudes in the statement of Sajeeb Wajed Joy before going further. The editor never, "admitted he published false corruption stories" against his mother Sheikh Hasina. What he said was, and this has been repeated ad nauseam by the channel which interviewed him and set the editor up for this in the first place, and a web news portal, he made a mistake in not having those independently verified before running them. The veracity of the stories and its contents have never been contested by those who made those comments. His only slipup, if at all, was that he did not have those independently verified. I wonder whether he had the scope or the wherewithal of verifying such statements! However, just to jog the memories of those seeking the editor's scalp, it was not only The Daily Star that ran the stories but almost every other major newspaper and telecast over all major TV channels.  

As for the military coup, history bears out that the intervention of the military came well before the stories were published. And there is stark contradiction in this as well as the comments of those in the AL leadership about the issue of 1/11. A whole series of events, starting from BNP extending the judges' retirement age and ending with President Iajuddin making himself the chief advisor, engendered 1/11. 

Not only was the change welcomed by the opposition AL, the AL had also validated the new dispensation by their very presence at the swearing-in-ceremony of the Chief Advisor in Bangabhaban. And that is not all; the credit for the change was claimed by the AL as, "the fruit of our struggle." And the caretaker government was given the undertaking that all its actions would be accorded validity should the AL come to power in the next election, which it did. In fact, it is the general view that free and fair elections would not have been possible without the 1/11 government because they brought in a proper voter list, cancelling 1.3 crore false voters. In the final analysis, it can be said that without 1/11, there would not have been free, fair polls which the AL won. So AL is the beneficiary of 1/11. 

It should be made clear that there has never been any attempt by this newspaper, directly or indirectly, to perpetuate the tenure of the caretaker government, on the contrary, it had editorialised very often the requirement of holding the election as soon as possible. One thing that militated against holding the election sooner than it was held in December 2008 was the justifiable demand of the AL for a new electoral roll since the old one was suspected of major interpolations. 

As for banning and trying, since almost all newspapers ran the stories, we wonder whether all these newspapers should also be banned and all those editors that carried the stories be tried for treason too. 

Digs are being made at the editor of this paper for dabbling in politics and we are having to encounter new theories of politics and journalism from various quarters questioning the role of a newspaper in 'politically influencing' the readers. Heavens take pity on us! What are newspapers for if not to help people make up their mind in their choices in every aspect of their life including politics, and that includes the need to choose competent, honest, educated public representatives. This awareness endeavour was well undertaken by the sponsors of the project including The Daily Star. And this has gone towards fulfilling the major objective of any newspaper, which is to inform the public and keep the principle of people's right to know in the foremost of a paper's guiding code. 

Those who say that journalists have no business to talk about politics, to them I say, one doesn't have to be a politician to talk about politics and what ails it, just as one does not have to be a doctor to comment on the issue of health in the country.         

In other democratic countries, newspapers endorse different political parties and candidates without having to apologise for it. Does it mean that they are compromising their honesty and objectivity?  

The Daily Star Editor had the gumption to admit an error. And he stands out amongst his peers as a man of dignity and honesty. Those who believe in the true essence of journalism and the freedom of the media should applaud his courage. I do, and without any reservation or apprehension.   

The writer is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.