• Mahfuz Anam’s analysis of press freedom in Bangladesh under the interim Yunus government presents only a partial truth, omitting critical context and historical nuances.

• Anam fails to mention his role in publishing unverified reports during the 2007-2008 caretaker government, which defamed former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and led to her arrest. This omission skews the narrative of tensions between the Daily Star and the government.

• His claim that only a “few” journalists defied threats before August 2024 ignores the critical work of numerous media outlets, TV stations, and online platforms over the past 15 years.

• The column neglects the significant expansion and liberalization of Bangladesh’s media landscape, including the establishment of over 1,250 daily newspapers, 45 private TV channels, and progressive policies like the Right to Information Act.

• Anam overlooks the previous government’s strong legal actions against extremists and militants who attacked journalists and bloggers, such as the sentencing of perpetrators in high-profile cases like Ananta Bijoy Das and Avijit Roy.

Mahfuz Anam, the esteemed journalist and editor of Bangladesh’s leading English daily, the Daily Star wrote a thought-provoking column titled “A New Reality for Free Media” on February 21, 2025. In his column, Anam analysed the state of press freedom in Bangladesh under the interim Yunus government. He contrasted the current situation with the past, noting that during the Awami League government, the media faced significant opposition from the state and its agencies. Despite this, a handful of journalists, including himself, courageously defied both overt and covert threats to speak truth to power. Anam observed that while state-led counteractions against journalists have diminished under the interim government, non-state actors now pose a growing threat to press freedom.

Anam rightly highlighted several alarming trends that endanger the free press. He pointed out that as of November 2024, 140 journalists have been accused of murder, with cases filed against them in connection with their reporting on the student-led mass uprising. Additionally, 28 journalists have been charged with crimes against humanity. He criticized the interim government for its sweeping and insensitive treatment of journalists, noting that Bangladesh now has the highest number of "murder-accused" journalists in the world. This raises the critical question: How credible is the government’s claim of handling the media fairly? International organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) have echoed these concerns, focusing on the government’s treatment of journalists.

Anam also revealed that months have passed since cases were filed against journalists, yet there has been no progress in verifying the accusations. Although the interim government formed an eight-member committee on October 27, 2024, to monitor harassment cases against journalists, no tangible outcomes have been reported. Meanwhile, the accused journalists face immense personal and professional hardships. Many are unable to work, support their families, or pay for their children’s education. They endure social humiliation and live in constant fear of arrest. While journalists, like any other citizens, must face the law for criminal or unethical actions, they are entitled to due process—a constitutional right. Anam urged the interim government to expedite the resolution of these cases and ensure they meet acceptable legal standards, in line with its professed commitment to a free and independent media.

Throughout his column, Anam tactfully referenced the harassment he and the Daily Star faced during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s tenure. He also dismissed as “totally false” the allegations that Professor Yunus attempted to undermine the Padma Bridge project.

However, Anam’s narrative omits crucial context. The strained relationship between the Daily Star and the previous government stems from Anam’s role in defaming former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during the 2007-2008 caretaker government. At the time, Anam and his newspaper published unverified reports, allegedly fed by the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), which led to Hasina’s implication and arrest in a politically motivated case. Anam later acknowledged this lapse in judgment and apologized in court for publishing unverified information. Yet, he fails to mention this critical episode in his column, leaving readers without the full picture of the tensions between his newspaper and the government. While Anam may argue that his apology should suffice, the media world knows all too well that a single misleading report can cause lasting damage—a mistake the Daily Star has repeated on multiple occasions, including its recent apology for an inaccurate report on a meeting between US President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Anam’s claim that only a “few” journalists, like himself, defied threats to speak truth to power before August 2024 is also misleading. In reality, numerous newspapers, TV stations, online portals, and social media platforms actively monitored, reported on, and criticized public policies and governance in the past 15 years. Talk shows regularly featured over 100 participants from diverse backgrounds openly critiquing the government. While the Daily Star deserves credit for its critical reporting, it is unfair to overlook the contributions of countless others who also exercised their freedom of expression.

Moreover, Anam’s analysis neglects the significant progress Bangladesh’s media has made over the past 15 years. The sector has undergone rapid liberalization, privatization, and expansion, with over 1,250 daily newspapers, 12,000 periodicals, 28 FM radio stations, 32 community radio stations, and 45 private TV channels. The previous government implemented several policy measures that positively impacted the media landscape, including the Right to Information Act, Cable Television Network Operation and Licensing Regulation 2010, Private FM Radio Centre Installation and Operation Policy 2010, National Broadcasting Policy 2014, Bangladesh Journalists Welfare Trust Law 2014, and National Online Mass Media Policy 2017 (amended in 2020). These policies reshaped the media environment and empowered journalists. Additionally, the government introduced two wage boards to ensure fair salaries for journalists, though Anam, as a media owner, may not favour such measures, given allegations of his reluctance to support an active Dhaka Union of Journalists within his organization.

Anam also overlooked the previous government’s zero-tolerance policy against attacks on journalists and bloggers by extremists and militants. The government took strong legal action against such violence, as seen in the sentencing of four individuals to death in March 2022 for the murder of blogger Ananta Bijoy Das, who was killed in 2015 for his critical writings on religion. Similarly, five Islamists were sentenced to death in February 2021 for the killing of blogger Avijit Roy, a vocal critic of religious extremism. In 2013, two individuals were sentenced to death for the murder of atheist blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider. These examples underscore the government’s commitment to protecting freedom of expression and combating extremism.

In conclusion, while Mahfuz Anam’s column addresses critical issues regarding press freedom, it conveys only a partial truth. A more balanced and comprehensive analysis would recognize the progress made by Bangladesh’s media, the contributions of countless journalists, and the complexities of the relationship between the Daily Star and previous governments. Can we anticipate an article that addresses these aspects?