On September 2, 2024, Zulkarnain Saer, a journalist with a history of working for Al Jazeera and contributing to various international news media, posted on Facebook criticizing Prothom Alo for its coverage of BNP leader Salahuddin Ahmed using a vehicle owned by S Alam Group. In the final days of the Awami League government, Zulkarnain’s posts inspired and informed many people in Bangladesh. His ability to gather and publish information from security forces is invaluable, given the lack of reporting on the inner workings of our armed forces. His contributions to the fall of the AL government are undeniable. However, I respectfully disagree with the views he expressed in this post, which I believe are dangerous for our fragile democracy. It’s important to note that his perspective is shared by a significant group in Bangladesh.

I can quote him from the Facebook post to convey his point - “When it [Prothom Alo] can freely report on all of Sheikh Hasina’s crimes in the past 15 years, it is hyper-focused on painting the BNP in the worst possible light — which, to me, is dishonest journalism”.  “Is this objective journalism or a motivated report?” he asked. 

My disagreement with him is based on two main points. But first, let me clarify - I am not saying Prothom Alo is beyond criticism. I am critical of its coverage of certain big businesses that advertise in the newspaper. Prothom Alo does not cover these businesses as rigorously as it should, and it has other flaws.

First, Zulkarnain’s post reminds me of Jon Stewart’s comment on Joe Biden’s age and capacity. Stewart, a liberal, pointed out Biden’s age on The Daily Show, which some liberals disliked because it highlighted a weakness of the Democratic presidential nominee. Stewart later joked sarcastically that he didn’t know democracy dies in discussion. The idea that one should not discuss the weaknesses of their favored political party because it might help the opposition is a form of tribalism that does not help democracy.

When the Awami League came to power in 2009, there were assertions from some that criticizing AL would help BNP and Jamaat. At that time, AL was in the good graces of the people, and BNP was seen as the party to keep away from power, especially after BNP made it impossible for a fair and free election in 2006. We know where that led our democracy. If we remain silent on BNP’s crimes to avoid helping the Awami League, we haven’t learned from our recent history. Silence on Awami League’s mistakes did not help the party in the long run. Similarly, remaining silent on BNP’s crime would only help BNP become another authoritarian regime, necessitating another movement to bring them down.

Second, while it may seem like a distant past, the corruption of BNP is not that old. When BNP was in power 17 years ago, they engaged in serious corruption and supported certain terrorist groups. As various reports in the news media show, BNP leaders and cadres are becoming increasingly aggressive, aiming to replace the old regime and engage in the same illegal activities.

It is fitting for any newspaper and journalist to report on allegations against BNP to prevent a repeat of past mistakes. While the media covers the crimes of the Awami League, it must also report on the criminal activities of BNP to ensure that the current BNP does not mirror the old BNP. BNP must evolve into a better political party, learning from its old mistakes, and journalists must ensure this by openly reporting on the activities of BNP.

Speaking of change, journalists and civil society must abandon the idea that they need to remain silent about the unfavorable activities of their favored political parties. Recent history in Bangladesh clearly shows that silence does not help political parties or the country. They need to speak up and point out the faults of all political parties, thus holding them accountable. Democracy needs free reporting and open discussion.