A Brown Envelope May Secure a Journalist’s Compliance, but It Can’t Buy Genuine Integrity or Quality Reporting
A Statement by Laila Kaniz, the Wife of NBRO Official Matiur Rahman, Stirs Controversy in Bangladeshi Journalism
Laila Kaniz, the wife of Matiur Rahman, an official involved in the “goat scandal,” has caused quite a stir within Bangladesh’s journalism community and organizations with her recent statement. Matiur and his family have faced extensive corruption allegations, which have been consistently reported in the media.
Suddenly, Laila Kaniz claimed, “I have bought big journalists, so everything will stop.” If this statement is true, it suggests an extraordinarily unusual event in Bangladesh’s media world, akin to a “rat-cat friendship.” The question arises: Can journalists truly be bought? Put another way, can journalism be bought? The answer is that while journalists in Bangladesh can be bought, journalism itself cannot. This is not just a phenomenon in Bangladesh; in no country can journalism be bought. As is often said, the powerful can suppress a story or even kill a journalist, but they cannot kill journalism. As poet Mahadev Saha puts it, “No matter how much you try, you cannot stop my voice; the more you silence me, the more you will hear my echo.” Journalism cannot be destroyed because any profession serving the public interest cannot be eradicated.
Laila Kaniz’s statement about buying journalists can be interpreted in three ways: positively, negatively, and alarmingly. The positive interpretation is that corrupt individuals typically manage administration, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), police, and judiciary to keep their corruption hidden. If someone now claims that they can manage journalists to stop the propagation of stories about their corruption, it implies that journalism is now a major concern for the corrupt, and journalists are seen as enemies. This suggests that public-interest journalism has not yet ended in Bangladesh. It appears that some media outlets and journalists still strive to expose information that corrupt individuals would rather keep hidden.
The negative interpretation is that Laila Kaniz’s statement suggests that Bangladeshi journalists can be bought or are sold. Until now, discussions about journalists’ corruption have mostly been confined to informal gatherings within the journalist community. However, Kaniz’s statement implies that she was referring not to a few journalists but to prominent ones. The fact that she talks about buying “big journalists” points to a broader issue of institutional and systemic professional decline in the media rather than just individual corruption among journalists.
The alarming interpretation is that if this model of buying prominent journalists proves successful, corrupt individuals may invest more to proliferate this practice.
Comments, sentences, and words can carry various meanings and connotations. The vastness of this variation depends on context. There might not be a literal “market” for buying and selling journalists like a cattle market, but buying big journalists suggests a submissive media system where the powerful can dictate media agendas. The decline in professional standards in Bangladeshi journalism over the past decade is evident from Kaniz’s comments. This decline is not due to a few journalists’ corruption or extortion but is a reflection of the systemic issues within the media. Journalism is not just a profession but a system and process deeply intertwined with a country’s political system.
Laila Kaniz’s comments reflect a phenomenon known in media ethics as “Brown Envelope Journalism” or BEJ. This term refers to the practice of journalists accepting financial or other incentives to provide favorable coverage or suppress negative information. Recent studies in Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, and Kuwait have examined BEJ, revealing it as a systemic issue rather than an isolated practice. The main driver of BEJ is not the corrupt journalists themselves but the corrupt media systems that create an environment where journalists can be bought. This means a submissive media system fosters corrupt journalists.
The spread of submissive media systems in Bangladesh did not happen overnight. After the country’s independence until the 1990s, the media faced state repression but did not collapse. Media played a significant role in the political movement against the autocratic regime of Ershad. However, systemic professional corruption in Bangladeshi journalism began after the “One-Eleven” period of 2007. Two processes were involved: the unchecked publication of information provided by a military-backed government and journalists acting as intermediaries to protect corrupt politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats. The submissive practices established during this time gradually became a widespread issue.
Before 2007, the media in Bangladesh held considerable influence over the political system. However, since the 2014 elections, the media has increasingly catered to the preferences of political and state actors, turning the media-client relationship into one of clientelism. This has led to a peculiar mix of political paralysis and clientelism, which is uncommon in other countries. According to media studies, this mix results in “Political Instrumentalization of Media,” where the media system becomes politically institutionalized. When media systems become politically institutionalized, the practice of buying journalists increases.
The most glaring example of institutional corruption in Bangladeshi media is the circulation figures for newspapers set by the government’s Department of Films and Publications (DFP). The DFP’s officials sign off on circulation figures that are scientifically implausible given the country’s educational and economic conditions. The continuous publication of unrealistic circulation numbers exemplifies the political clientelism and submission in Bangladesh’s media. Similarly, the issuance of TV licenses over the past two decades has been based on political affiliations, resulting in many TV channels serving as political tools.
The widespread presence of press clubs and journalist organizations, many of which are involved in silent extortion, further illustrates the decline in media professionalism. Despite the existence of numerous journalist organizations, only a few have protested Laila Kaniz’s remarks. In such cases, journalist organizations should file defamation suits in response to broad allegations against the profession.
Journalists should ideally be impartial and adhere to professional ethics. However, Bangladeshi journalist leaders often prefer division, which fosters the spread of brown-envelope journalism. The recent incident of a private bank offering journalists a cash packet during a press conference reflects the long-standing culture of submission and clientelism in the media.
In Bangladesh, no profession is free from corruption. Thus, there are corrupt individuals across all sectors. While isolated corruption can temporarily affect a profession, widespread corruption among those who set standards and manage the profession can lead to its downfall. Journalism cannot protect people if the political and media systems do not support journalism. Despite these challenges, there is still some public interest and accountable journalism in Bangladesh. If brown envelope journalism increases in prevalence and practice, it will be a troubling sign. However, research indicates that while some journalists can be bought, the spirit of journalism itself cannot be purchased. The essence of journalism remains, even if it is overshadowed by corrupt practices.