| The day Parliament attacked press
It couldn't have been the same story with the newspapers. The editors must have stayed up late scratching their heads. They must have burned midnight oil thinking and worrying. News seldom invites such angry riposte from newsmakers in the parliament. So much so, one of the lawmakers asked the speaker to summon an editor before the Parliament. Another lawmaker demanded a ruling against a particular daily and also a censure motion against it in the Parliament. "If MPs are made unpopular in the country, there won't be any existence of parliament or democracy," he was concerned. That was an appeal loaded with sentiments. If I were the speaker, I would have been tempted to give in to the logic of this argument. But the real-life speaker showed restraint. He listened to the debate, interjected with his characteristic quips and then listened more. Since the Parliament is a place for debates on national matters, I am happy this is exactly what happened on September 21. It would have been perfect only if the opposition MPs had also attended. Good news is that it was a proof of something all of us should appreciate; our lawmakers do read newspapers and believe that newspapers can influence minds. The alarming thing, however, is that like iron cuts iron freedom has undermined freedom. Both the Parliament and the media are meant to be the bastions of democracy. And they aren't mutually exclusive for that matter. A gagged press is not democracy so much as an egged parliament is not. Of course, there are always tensions between these two defenders of democracy. That's more or less true in every country of the world. Roughly three months ago the Italian media went on strike over a proposed parliamentary bill to gag the media. Most of Italy's editors, judges and prosecutors said it was intended to shield politicians, and particularly the prime minister, whose career was ridden with financial and sexual scandals. Another example is when the Guardian was gagged from reporting parliamentary proceedings in October 2009. The Commons order papers contained a question to be answered by a minister, and the newspaper was prevented from identifying the MP who had asked the question, what the question was, which minister was going to answer it, or where the question was to be found. For the first time in UK history, the Guardian was also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper was prevented from reporting parliament. British historian Robert Hargreaves wrote at that time that the right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and the journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority up to the king. "It gradually became accepted," he underscored, "that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to." The Guardian eventually won the battle and reported the banned proceedings. It is clear what our legislators wished to seek by throwing their tantrums at the newspapers. If anything reported was wrong and misleading, it would have been more appropriate to set those records straight in a session of the Parliament. They could have asked the newspapers to run rejoinders, or going further, if they wished to teach those pesky newspapers a lesson to remember they could have taken the editors and the publishers to court. Instead, what the Parliament members did on that day amounts to a smear campaign. They taunted the newspapers, vented venom against them, and then singled out one particular editor for personal vilification. They made slanted remarks about his source of income and involvement in the grenade attack of August 21. They virtually ganged up on a single man and demeaned him. I suppose they have the evidences to substantiate their accusations. Otherwise, they are guilty of cooking up conjectures for which they have criticised the newspapers. Again, if they hold evidence then shouldn't it be their solemn duty to let people know? After all, the lawmakers of the country shouldn't suppress facts. They shouldn't condone anything that has enough implications to deserve exclusive deliberations in the nation's parliament. Both lawmakers and newspapers are people's choice, one in the parliament and other on the newsstand. Democracy is safe should they return that favour, choosing to attack each other only when they must fight for the people. http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=156605 |
__._,_.___
