A few weeks ago, the foreign minister attempted to make the news media the scapegoat of our image problem associated with the 'most corrupt country' ranking, because the media reports on corruption. Mr. Matiur Rahman Nizami, the Ameer of Jamaate Islam on November 25 finally identified The Daily Star as the principle agent helping the rise of the demons of religio political terrorism. He gave an impression that shutting down these news media will thwart the Islamic militancy (ATN Bangla TV news).

I read similar statements from other ministers as well from time to time. This only makes me conjecture how a group of people think alike, talk alike and act alike. One also wonders to know if these people eat alike, dress alike, and also look alike. Although making the media the scape goat is common to countries where politicians run for shelters from the press to hide their sins and sinister doings, many of us thought our politicians will be somewhat classier.

Freedom of press is threatened most in East Asia (with North Korea at the bottom of the entire list at 167th place, followed by Burma 165th, China 162nd, Vietnam 161st and Laos 153rd) and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia 159th, Iran 158th, Syria 155th, Iraq 148th). Bangladesh already belongs to this club with a ranking of 151. Now with all the warnings and growing threats of imposing censorship on press freedom its ranking will only slide downward to match its highest corruption ranking and all other disparaging statistics.

When working to thwart social wrongdoings, the media employ investigative journalism to divulge inequities, and violations and, in an edifying sense, reinforce social values that lessen the incidence of corruption in both public and private sectors. Because of lack of transparency, the journalists often write stories from unofficial and anonymous sources. What a good government would do is open up all files and channels to the journalists in absolute transparency to enrich their stories with official information.

A fair question to examine whether the media gives fair treatment to public officials suspected of crimes or immoral acts. It is here that the roles of the criminal justice system and the media diverge. The justice system operates within the bounds and on the authority set by legislation. The legal decision is usually months and years away. In contrast, the media, which deal with current events, publicises social injustices by stressing its immorality. Although it is not an explicit function of the media to prevent transgression and social injustice -- corruption included -- they do have an extremely vital role in maintaining values and fulfil their social function in satisfying people's yearning for "news and views", "points and counter points".

The media have been regulated in different countries both through legislation and their own ethical rules. International organisations and conferences such as the UN, WO, UNESCO, ECOSOC and CSCE (The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe) also have formulated journalistic codes of ethics. Moreover, different countries have their own ethical codes of press behaviour.

Regardless of the existence of codes of conduct the media gets rebuked in all countries for inadvertent errors and omissions but that government does not rush to legislate new acts to hold back press freedom.

Where the media infringe on people's rights, for example, by publicising allegations or suspicions of wrongdoings that later prove false, the conventional means of legal protection cannot repair the damage inflicted. However, the media could be restrained and the tensions and conflicts between the media and the government will disappear if there exists

• uniform rule of law for everyone,
• judiciary is not politicised,
• absolutely no interference by political functionaries in the execution of fair trials,
• there is unblemished transparency and unhindered access of media to information it asks for (barring national security).
• no intimidation from the ruling elites for punitive actions on the journalists or on the freedom of media.

Until such environment prevails there will always be allegations of wrongdoings by the very people who manipulate the justice system and the rule of law in their favour. They will cry wolf and slander the media without looking into the mirror for their own guilt and gaudiness.

Although in a democratic society the media is expected to function as a neutral and impartial watchdog, one cannot deny that symbiosis exists between the media and the powerful elite. In every society politicians use the media and thrive on publicity, and the media need the news and the material that politicians produce. The symbiosis breaks down once the politicians find that the media is not patronising their greed and wrongdoings. The politicians then engage in media bashing with intimidations of introducing constitutional provisions to tame the power of the media.

Mr. Nizami's quirky accusations about The Daily Star and justice Ahmed's obsessive proposal for adding punitive measures may have helped the cause of free media in the following way:

• Increased the circulation and readers of The Daily Star. People in the West cannot wait to click the Internet version of the paper and line up to know what other stupidities the government is set to incubate.
• Bangladeshi people everywhere wakes up every morning to see where the tussle between the government and the media is heading and how it is shaping up.
• People now know for sure what it would be like if Mr. Nizami's party ever comes to power - rule similar to those of the Middle Eastern countries.
• Dispelled my long held notion that Mr. Nizami and his colleagues do not read newspapers. I am glad that they do.
• Mr. Nizami and his colleagues pick and choose what they don't like and discard those that may help the country and the people who elected them to power.
• Exposed Justice Ahmed's ignorance about the power of the Internet in disseminating information in utmost transparency across national borders in a timely fashion. Can Justice Ahmmed and his colleagues dare control the Internet?
• Does he realise that censorship will distort news and views? Rumour mongers thrive and fabricate conflicting stories which drive the citizens in utter confusions and disarray. Is that what Justice Ahmed and his likes want to establish?
• "Does he realise that when the media is free to report events both the good and the bad" generally come out. A truly democratic government always benefits from the bad as feedbacks and the good to produce more such good in the future.

We expatriates remit dollars which provide our foreign exchange reserves to make the government function. Would the government want its expatriates use "carrot and stick" to tell what to do and send directives following those of the World Bank, and the IMF?

There are 10,000 Bangladeshi citizens living in Detroit and its suburbs in Michigan alone. We have several politically neutral Bangladesh Associations in big cities in the US functioning in absolute harmony on many issues of public interest. We all communicate with each other on issues of mutual interest via the Internet and emails. None of us regardless of political affiliations would ever endorse compromising the freedom of media.

Bangladeshi people living in Michigan are politically very active. At this stage we certainly do not want to make a mountain out of a mole concerning Justice Ahmed's move of adding punitive acts on media freedom. But we will certainly remain alert and watch his next move. We hope sanity would prevail and no punitive act would be introduced in any form or shape to denigrate the country's image any more.

No government ever failed anywhere because of transparency, upholding the rule of law, and the freedom of media. Francois-Marie de Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. But that does not mean I waive the right to argue with you! That is as much my constitutional right as it is yours." What a mind shattering statement?

Voltaire did not have to die to preserve the freedom of press, many thousands met deaths and persecutions and many more will give life for the right to read, write and speak freely.

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics, Eastern Michigan University, USA