"Journalism allows its readers to witness history." - John Hersey

There was a time when people blindly trusted the words printed in newspapers or broadcast by electronic media. Those days are long gone. Today, readers and viewers find themselves confused when a news article, or a story, whatever we call it, is published or broadcast. If they want to verify it, they have to go through various channels, a troublesome task indeed!

News content, whether text, video or photograph, is regularly misinterpreted by some mainstream Bangladeshi newspapers and other media outlets, both in their print editions and on their social media platforms, contributing to a documented rise in public confusion and mistrust.

The audience - readers, listeners and viewers - always expects the mass media to serve them with authentic reports so that they can remain updated and make informed decisions. And that is the rule, as the media has a commitment to society to keep people updated with everyday information emerging from various occurrences and events. But the question is: Are the media in Bangladesh dealing with facts or using incidents to make their own stories, misleading the audience?

In line with my question, it could be said that it is possible for a reporter or a media house to present information about an occurrence in their news articles in many ways. That is why we see the same report presented by different media outlets with a different tone and tenor, confusing the audience. This trend is not unique to Bangladesh; it is also found everywhere in the world where the media industry has reached the pinnacle of standards, at least technologically.

Amid rapid technological development, the situation in journalism is getting complicated everywhere, if not worse. Journalists are supposed to present their news stories based on facts and authentic information. Facts never lie, as they come from incidents and happenings, but we distort facts while writing or presenting stories in our own style, adding colours with our brushes.

Debates and arguments continue over whether journalists can be neutral. This debate is justified. No individual can be completely neutral, but one can maintain the required neutrality in news articles, as journalists are not supposed to write short stories or novels for their media outlets.

"Journalism allows its readers to witness history; fiction gives its readers an opportunity to live it," says John Hersey, an American writer and journalist known as one of the pioneers of 'New Journalism'.

John Hersey earned appreciation for his news-feature writing style, which he borrowed from fiction. His journalistic work on the Hiroshima bombing is considered one of the finest works of journalism in the 20th century, perhaps because it sparked emotions in readers as a novel does. But Hersey saw journalism as a work of history. We would like to say journalism is not a work of fiction or a novel; it is a presentation of facts that may be useful in writing history.

Misguiding people in the name of journalism is not a good practice in any way. Facts are facts, and one should not distort them to serve personal or group interests. We are living in the age of post-truth, in which we can portray facts as we feel like and thus confuse readers or make them believe an incident happened the way we want them to. If so, I am not ready to call it fair journalism.

What actually drives a section of journalists to distort information in Bangladesh and what are the key areas?

Untidy Reporting

Lack of verification in Bangladesh journalism is widespread. Many mainstream media-houses these days push reporters for breaking news and thus journalists rush to gather information. In some cases, they do so without the necessary circumstantial verification.

Out-of-context reporting is also common in Bangladesh due to pressure on journalists to publish news articles quickly. Credible research reports are often presented by diluting data and that is the more worrying part of the saga.

Raising false alarms is another bad practice here and the trend is growing. Many newsrooms frequently publish unverified obituary reports of prominent personalities or overstated numbers during severe national calamities, like cyclones, and many such practices have become textbook examples.

Weaponising social media and digital content has also turned out to be another unhealthy form of competition. This is another undesirable practice. People nowadays use fake photocards and fabricated quotes to undermine individuals.

A large number of unregistered digital platforms also rely on misinformation and forged graphic cards or photocards. Foul players even imitate the logos and templates of popular portals while creating content aimed at undermining political leaders or government advisers.

The use of AI-generated fake content and deepfakes has become unstoppable. To influence public opinion or manipulate sensitive information, deepfake videos are widely used alongside recycled old video clips.

Political and religious polarisation are also taking a heavy toll on the practice of ethical journalism. Independent fact-checking platforms log dozens of coordinated disinformation pieces aimed at inciting communal tension. Outdated images of routine fires or unrelated altercations are routinely mislabelled online as coordinated attacks on minority religious sites.

We know that many people depend on social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to stay updated about daily issues, and in doing so, they hardly cross-check information with the mainstream media. And a lack of media literacy is partly to blame.

Amid the evolving media landscape, we are actually standing at a crossroads. The mainstream media need to come up with effective measures to counter this dangerous issue, with a greater focus on cross-checking information and verifying visual content. This is how we can safeguard our dignity.