Gathering clouds darken sky over media landscape

Press Freedom Faces a New Test in Bangladesh

Bdbusinessdaily.com – Bangladesh’s media environment is facing renewed pressure from two developments that have raised serious concerns about the ability of journalists to work freely: the cancellation of a television reporter’s official accreditation and proposed changes to the Cyber Protection Act.

Each development is troubling on its own. Together, they create a wider concern that reporting, criticism and public-interest scrutiny could become increasingly difficult. The risk is not limited to one newsroom or one journalist. Actions taken against an individual can send a signal throughout the profession, encouraging editors and reporters to avoid subjects that may displease powerful institutions.

An Unexplained Cancellation

Habibur Rahman, a senior broadcast journalist at Channel One TV and the station’s sole reporter assigned to the Prime Minister’s Office, had his accreditation card cancelled. The cancellation was communicated through a Press Information Department letter, but no reason was provided and no allegation of misconduct was identified.

That absence of explanation is central to the concern. If a journalist or outlet had violated a law, published malicious material or breached a defined professional rule, a formal notice could set out the basis for action. In this case, neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor the Ministry of Information publicly supplied such justification.

Rahman and Channel One’s management have therefore drawn the conclusion that the action was connected to their reporting and to criticism from some government officials. Whether or not authorities address that concern directly, the effect of an unexplained decision can extend far beyond the person affected. Other reporters may read it as a warning that difficult questions, investigations or coverage that reflects poorly on the government may carry professional consequences.

Accreditation is not a favour that should depend on whether coverage is comfortable for those in power. Access to public institutions helps journalists carry out their role of informing citizens. Removing that access without transparent grounds can weaken both accountability and public trust.

A Broader Legal Threat

At the same time, the government is working on amendments to the Cyber Protection Act. Rights groups have cautioned that the revised law could create a digital climate marked by extensive monitoring, impunity and repression. The proposed provisions have prompted particular alarm because of the broad language used to describe offences.

The draft includes terms such as “rumour”, “misinformation”, “demeaning”, “defamatory” and “insulting to the state”. Such concepts can be difficult to define objectively, especially when they are applied to political debate, investigative reporting, satire or criticism. Vague provisions create room for selective interpretation, leaving journalists and content creators uncertain about where lawful reporting ends and criminal liability might begin.

“The draft law defines a number of concepts, including ‘rumour’, ‘misinformation’, ‘demeaning’, ‘defamatory’ and ‘insulting to the state’, in ways that create scope for deliberate misinterpretation, targeted misuse and, in particular, the violation of freedom of speech and fundamental human rights.”

Transparency Bangladesh executive director Dr Iftekharuzzaman made that warning in a statement. His concern reflects the practical problem with laws built around expansive and imprecise categories: enforcement may depend less on clear evidence and more on how authorities choose to interpret speech.

The proposed amendments would make spreading “rumours and disinformation” online punishable by up to 10 years in prison. False information can cause real harm, and responsible journalism requires verification. Yet laws addressing harmful content must distinguish deliberate deception from reporting carried out in good faith, developing stories, contested claims and honest mistakes that can later be corrected.

Without those safeguards, a newsroom may decide that an important report is too risky to publish. An individual writer, commentator or online creator may make the same calculation. The result is not necessarily a visible ban on reporting; it can be self-censorship, where people withhold questions and information because the possible punishment is unclear or disproportionate.

Freedom Cannot Be “Gifted”

Governments often enter office promising to respect the press and tolerate criticism. Some politicians go further, speaking as if freedom for the media is something an administration can grant. But press freedom is not a gift from the state. It is a necessary democratic principle that protects the public’s right to receive information and hold institutions to account.

A government’s real power in this area is often negative rather than generous: it can restrict access, create uncertainty, impose penalties and gradually narrow the space for independent journalism. Those changes may arrive through a single administrative decision, a poorly drafted law or a succession of small pressures that become normal over time.

The cancellation affecting Habibur Rahman is immediately personal, but its implications reach well beyond Channel One TV. The proposed changes to the Cyber Protection Act raise an even larger question about the future conditions under which every journalist, editor and online publisher will work.

Bangladesh needs laws that address genuine digital harm without turning uncertainty into a weapon against speech. It also needs transparent rules for journalists’ access to public institutions, with decisions that can be explained, reviewed and challenged. A media landscape governed by fear does not only harm journalists. It deprives citizens of information they need to judge the conduct of those who govern them.