ROLE OF MEDIA IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY: RESPONSIBILITY AND PRESS FREEDOM MUST GO HAND IN HAND
By TBS Report
16 September 2026
In a significant statement that has resonated across journalism and civil society circles in Bangladesh, Atikur Rahman Ruman has called attention to a growing concern that threatens the very foundation of credible media practice: the proliferation of distorted reports and the confusion they are sowing among the public. Speaking on Tuesday, Ruman, a respected voice in the country’s media landscape, expressed deep concern that such distortions are not merely factual errors but acts that undermine the trust placed in journalists by the general population. He pointed out that when news is presented without adequate verification, context, or a balanced perspective, it stops serving the public interest and instead becomes a source of misinformation. This, he argued, creates an environment of confusion where citizens are no longer able to distinguish between events of genuine importance, government policy decisions, social issues, and outright falsehoods manufactured for partisan or personal gain. The remarks were made amid a period of intense media scrutiny in Bangladesh, where the digital space has seen an explosion of content, both professional and amateur, making the discipline of journalism more necessary than ever.
Ruman’s emphasis on the relationship between press freedom and responsibility was nuanced and deliberate. He acknowledged that press freedom is a cornerstone of any functional democracy, a constitutional guarantee in Bangladesh that must be protected and expanded. However, he contended that this freedom cannot be treated as an unconditional license without accountability. A free press, he insisted, must be a truthful press. Journalists who enjoy the constitutional protection to report without fear have an equal obligation to ensure that what they report is accurate, fair, and contextually sound. The power of the pen, in his view, is most effectively exercised when it is tempered by ethical judgement and a rigorous commitment to the profession’s basic principles. He urged journalists to reflect on the long-term consequences of their work, warning that every distorted report, every headline designed to provoke rather than inform, and every story filed without cross-checking slowly erodes the public’s confidence in the fourth estate. Once that confidence is lost, he cautioned, the institution that is meant to hold power to account loses its own legitimacy.
The remarks come at a time when the media in Bangladesh is navigating a complex and rapidly changing landscape. Traditional newsrooms are competing with social media platforms, YouTube channels, and online portals that often prioritize speed over accuracy and sensationalism over substance. The race to break news first, Ruman argued, has led to a dangerous culture of omissions, half-truths, and unverified claims being published as facts. In this environment, distorted reports quickly go viral, and correction notices, if they are ever issued at all, rarely receive the same attention as the original misleading story. The public, bombarded with contradictory information from multiple sources, often becomes cynical and confused, unable to form a clear picture of reality. This confusion has tangible consequences. It influences public opinion on critical issues such as elections, the judiciary, economic stability, and public health. When citizens make decisions based on distorted information, they are not exercising informed choice; they are merely reacting to narratives constructed by others. Ruman’s warning thus underscores a fundamental challenge: if misinformation continues to dominate the information ecosystem, the very notion of an informed citizenry, which is essential for the functioning of democracy, becomes an illusion.
On the question of balancing press freedom with responsibility, Ruman suggested that the two are not in conflict but mutually supportive. He rejected the idea that calls for responsibility are attempts to silence dissenting voices or control the media. Instead, he framed responsibility as the internal discipline that journalists must impose upon themselves to truly honour the spirit of press freedom. Drawing a distinction between honest reporting and malicious content, he argued that while mistakes can be made by any newsroom, the deliberate distortion of facts to mislead the public is an ethical violation of the highest order. He called for greater emphasis on editorial oversight, robust fact-checking mechanisms, and a culture of transparency where corrections are made promptly and prominently. A responsible press, he noted, does not shy away from scrutiny of its own practices; rather, it welcomes accountability as a sign of professional maturity. By holding themselves to high standards, journalists not only protect their own credibility but also strengthen the institution of the free press against external criticism and the threat of restrictive measures. In this way, Ruman argued, responsibility is the best defence of press freedom, as it demonstrates that the media can govern itself without compromising its role as a watchdog over power.
Ruman also addressed the broader societal implications, urging collective responsibility that extends beyond journalists to include media owners, editors, and, increasingly, citizen journalists and content creators who operate online. He stressed that while press freedom applies to all who disseminate information, so too do the basic principles of accuracy and fairness. The ethical obligations traditionally carried by professional journalists now rest on a much broader group of participants in the public discourse. He encouraged media organizations to invest in training and capacity-building for their staff, particularly young reporters who face immense pressure to produce content under tight deadlines. Furthermore, he suggested that media literacy among the public must be enhanced. Citizens, he said, should be equipped with the critical thinking skills needed to question sources, cross-check information, and distinguish between credible reporting and biased manipulation. A responsible media, in his view, must also engage in educating its audience. This twin approach, professional responsibility on the part of journalists and informed scepticism on the part of the audience, is essential to remedy the confusion that distorted reports currently cause. Only through such a holistic approach can the integrity of information be maintained in the digital age, where the barriers to publication have been all but eliminated.
In conclusion, Atikur Rahman Ruman’s statement is a timely and necessary reminder of the ethical foundations upon which journalism stands. His call is not merely about condemning distorted reports but about embracing a vision of journalism that serves society with integrity. The challenge he places before journalists is to rediscover the higher purpose of their profession: not simply to transmit information, but to do so with the responsibility that information demands. In a country like Bangladesh, which has experienced significant political and social transformation, the role of the media in shaping an informed and stable society cannot be overstated. Press freedom must be celebrated and defended, but it must be exercised with the seriousness that its importance requires. A free press that publishes distortions is not truly free; it is a prisoner of its own recklessness. Conversely, a responsible press is a powerful force for justice, accountability, and progress. As Bangladesh moves forward, the words of Ruman should serve as a guiding principle for all those who practice journalism and for all those who consume it. The future of the nation’s democracy depends, in no small measure, on the future of its information ecosystem, and the choice between confusion and clarity is a choice that journalists must make with distinct intent, honouring the trust of the public over the lure of sensationalism.