The government’s search for a columnist

In response to the adversarial journalism of some pesky reporters and writers, a ministry-level decision has reportedly been taken to engage third-party agents to counter and mitigate the detrimental effects on the government's and, by extension, the country's overall image. There is nothing wrong with such a strategy of recruiting media operatives. However, the open nature of the search robs the ploy of its X-factor and thereby self-sabotages its purpose.

Already, there are some complaints against said announcement of hiring columnists to write for the country – or should I say, the government. Critics are pointing at the overwhelming number of fair-weather friends who regularly write in the government's favour. The announcement then points at two facts: First, these non-critical writings do more disservice than service to the government. Second, these writings do not have efficacy beyond our borders. There is a serious dearth of skilled writers who can positively present the country in the international media. This is connected with the branding of Bangladesh where a clear, consistent message on the country is missing.

The situation is as absurd as Pirandello's play where the six characters of the drama start looking for their author. We are heading for a similar absurd situation. The need for an authoritative meaning is deluding us as more and more farcical comments are entertaining us in the name of politics. The late realisation of having skilled writers merits our attention – but we should be wary of using them for the greater sake of the country, and not for any faction. I remember, a few years back the online cricket portal Cricinfo used to be flooded with negative comments against the Bangladesh team. Now that there is a good number of cricket aficionados who can support their team with facts and figures, the commentators are much more careful in slighting Bangladesh even when the team is underperforming. This has been made possible by the collective critical mass that has organically grown with a level of ownership of the supporters of Bangladesh cricket. Similarly, the initiative to promote Bangladesh in the foreign media requires a much more skilful approach and strategic intervention. While the initiative to have "expatriate diplomacy" is timely, the way this information has been leaked to the press shows a level of inefficiency that exists in our bureaucracy and thereby defeats its purpose.

The government does need a media coordinator or a behind-the-scenes influencer. In absence of such media experts, we get to see the top leaders getting exposed every now and then. At times, they get unnecessarily and unwittingly exposed, especially when they cannot avoid the lure of the limelight. Earlier this year, a list of questions was circulated among the diplomatic correspondents during a meet-the-press event featuring the US ambassador. The foreign minister allegedly wanted the local journalists to ask the envoy about the state of democracy, human rights issues, and electoral participation in his country. No proud patriotic citizen would like to be lectured on issues by a foreigner, of which the foreign lecturers are guilty. Fair enough. We can always point out the double standard in our overseas assessors. But such a genuinely nationalist stance became a source of amusement because of the mishandling of the media. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the genre of political drama knows that this is not how you feed information to the press. These questions should not have come from the topmost position of a ministry. A junior-level officer with the right training could have briefed the journalists ahead of the event. I suggest the government give casual leave to its officers of information and external wings to watch the American drama series House of Cards or the Danish series Borgen to understand how spin-doctoring works. The purpose of a spin doctor is to craft a message, interpret speech, offhand remarks or writings of a political leader in a way to highlight its positive aspects or change the direction of the discourse to the desired goal. This is a well-established ploy in any political scene.

According to press reports, the decision to open an expatriate diplomacy wing to counter the anti-Bangladesh propaganda was suggested by the parliamentary committee. This, I believe, should have been a confidential policy that should not have come out in the open to give wrong signals. This has further become an issue as our politicians and administrators have constantly transgressed their boundaries to mix up state affairs with those of the government. No wonder, the message has already been twisted by critics to create a public perception that this is being done to help the ruling party ahead of the election. The ground is fertile for such suspicion as we have seen many such examples. For instance, the sanction of some of our uniformed officials over their alleged violation of human rights is seen as a Western stick to size up the government's eastward tilt. In response, it became immensely important for one such officer to shore up at a UN meeting in New York to change the public perception of travel restrictions. The officer now can use a spin doctor or a media adviser to pitch this information and change the discourse on sanctions.

But the problem with the government is that there are no consistent message centres. Too many people are airing too many ideas. When a government official publicly flatters the foreign delegate for their generosity and hospitality and secretly desires his media men to ask tough questions on his behalf, we get frustrated by the level of immaturity and inconsistency. To make things worse, there are some public comments which humiliate us before the wider audience. We all have heard of some "heavenly" remarks concerning inflation or cringed from the husband-wife analogy about our neighbouring state. In such cases, we need people who can do damage control. But for that, there needs to be a healthy practice of democracy within the party and accountability and transparency within the government offices.

Nobody can deny the power of words – how they shape our reality or change our perceptions. But unless words are backed up by clear, consistent, decisive actions, they can become a liability. Hiring writers will not solve anything if we do not sort out our national priorities. With so many international actors taking interest in the geopolitically significant delta of ours, we need to walk the walk and talk the talk. Thankfully, there are many playbooks to learn to walk and talk from, if we are to present ourselves as a democratic country. Once we know what we want for our country, we will be able to engage the right writers without making a public circus.

Dr Shamsad Mortuza is a professor of English at Dhaka University.