Khawaza Main Uddin

When a nation struggles with dearth of democratic latitude in every step, an official press conference offers certain amusement and also triggers raw anger.

It happened when a section of senior journalists presented themselves more as speakers at the press conference on 27 August 2016, a day that social media activists have made memorable by expressing their disgust and with note of sarcasm.

The country’s mainstream media followed the textbook practice of reporting on the issues covered in the deliberations.

An online news portal went one step forward, reproducing entirely what the journalists including some editors “said” there. New development this is, no doubt!

As standard practice, editors do not attend press conferences, but when they take interviews – be it for newspapers or television – juniors watch them to learn how their guardians and idols in the profession, if so, use their experience and wisdom to get the most and the best from the person in focus.

Immediately after the 27 August press conference, a young reporter wrote in his Facebook post that he was ‘amazed by the sense of gratitude’ of his senior fellows, who, he sarcastically pointed out, “did not show any sign of betrayal”.

This gives answer to hundreds of queries about why those seniors did not give a damn to what we are proud of as ‘the best profession in the world’ as defined by Nobel laureate journalist-writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

We saw ‘orthodox’ professionals regretting the way the ‘senior’ journalists’ asked questions(?) at the briefing as, a columnist argued, journalism had been sacrificed to ‘genuflection’. He, who is a senior journalist, criticised his contemporary friends, just without naming, for ruining the press conference which naturally had a purpose.

Hardly anyone appreciated the fact that their speeches transcended the scope and subject of the press conference – the Rampal Bangladesh India Friendship Power Plant.

Since that talking has been a subject of discussion, it demands explanation, soul-searching, self-criticism and purgation. After all, some people think of an ethically correct professional position.

Fear not, if you can’t reconcile with the protagonists of the partisan role of the newspapers and television! A journalist, like a political actor, always has something to say, the beneficiaries of the establishment don’t have.

One may also ask why media practitioners’ professional conduct would be discussed so publicly. The answer is: A publicly made derogatory statement requires not a secret rejoinder.

And, be sure, journalism is not a hush-hush profession – every member of a democratic society has the right to talk about it. People have to buy newspapers and spend valuable time to watch TV and go through online contents.

Let’s not forget that freedom and privileges, that media professionals are entitled to, are actually meant for the people.

When an individual identifying himself/herself as a newsman kowtows to the powerful quarters, s/he no longer remains a professional. Marquez was even against worshipping the 'source'. “I think that a bad journalist believes that he depends on his source for his livelihood, especially if it is official,” he noted.

In the said case of half a dozen who tried wholeheartedly to prove their obedience, even their like-minded colleagues could not boast of their performance. Why should professional journalists own the acts of those who have separated themselves or are automatically secluded from those who have to work hard maintaining honesty and sensitivity for earning a living?

It is also a question of how I would love to see my public image. For some, parochial personal gains are more important than integrity and reputation – a standpoint that looked dominant on that day. By so doing, they have unfortunately exposed their journalistic heights and taste.

However, there is no new element in the flattering by the coterie of media professionals. A middle-aged journalist was telling his colleagues: “You are witnessing a reality what you read in history books – how the kings and queens were appeased by their subordinates.”

We often miss the point that the neo-flatterers are the products of the current political culture created over the years and they, too, contributed to the process. They were not intruders into the press conference.

They have time and again proved their utility, not any dissent that is often met with an unwelcome gesture. We understand why they do not afford to issue a statement when a journalist is arrested, despite lack of clarity in the case.

To this section, ethical advice of “loyalty to people” is of no value. Joining the mission of serving the establishment to secure patronisation is clearly their deliberate choice.

Who are others, especially ones among the newsmen, to feel ashamed of the deeds of those who are fully aware of readers’ and viewers’ reactions? There will be, as was there, individuals who would dedicate themselves to impressing a few rather than expressing the plain truth for the consumption of million.

Media activists may represent the people only if they constantly uphold public interests and democratic values through professional pursuits. Otherwise, there is no mandate by which each of them can swear s/he still serves the people. A renegade cannot represent a journalist.