Media reform in Bangladesh needs precision, not pressure

Dr S.M. Rezwan-Ul-Alam is associate professor and chair of Media, Communication, and Journalism Department at North South University.

Bangladesh is entering a decisive phase in its approach to governing its media. The proposed Broadcasting Ordinance, 2026 and the National Media Commission Ordinance, 2026 make this evident. Together, these proposed Ordinances signal the aspiration to update an old regulatory system to suit a media environment that has changed faster than the laws have been able to keep pace.

The ambition deserves recognition. Media regulation is no longer a simple matter of managing television channels and radio frequencies. Digital platforms, online journalism, and hybrid forms of broadcasting have reshaped how information circulates. Governments across the world are struggling to keep pace. Bangladesh is not late to this conversation. In fact, in some ways, it is arriving at the right moment—when lessons from elsewhere are already becoming apparent.

The real question, then, is not whether reform is necessary. It is whether reform is being calibrated carefully enough to make it sustainable. There is much in the draft laws that point in the right direction. Moving away from scattered, informal oversight towards commission-based regulation is a structural improvement. It replaces uncertainty with institutional order. The focus on professional standards, ethical conduct, and dispute resolution also reflects an understanding that media quality, and not just media control, matters. Even the decision to bring digital and online media into the conversation shows an awareness that regulation cannot stay trapped in the analogue age.

These are not small steps. They form a solid base. But a solid base still needs careful design above ground. One area where the drafts feel unfinished is their treatment of freedom of expression. The laws acknowledge constitutional guarantees of free speech and press freedom, but mostly in passing. What they do not do in their current form is make those freedoms an active guide for regulatory action.

In practice, effective media regulation works on a simple logic. Regulators intervene only when the law clearly allows it, there is a genuine public interest factor, and only to the extent necessary. This idea—often described as legality, necessity, and proportionality—is not an abstract theory. It is how regulators in countries like the UK justify decisions that restrict content while still protecting free expression.

When these principles are written directly into the operational parts of a law, they protect everyone. They protect journalists from arbitrary interference, regulators from accusations of overreach, and governments from legal and political fallout. Including such guidance would not weaken Bangladesh’s regulatory hand. It would steady it.

Another issue lies in institutional design. Under the proposed framework, both the Broadcast Commission and the National Media Commission are given broad responsibilities. Licensing, content oversight, ethics, dispute resolution, and directive powers all sit within a relatively small institutional space.

Coordination is essential, but overlap can be risky. When mandates blur, confusion follows—about who decides what, who is accountable, and where authority begins and ends. European regulatory systems tend to avoid this by drawing more precise functional lines. Broadcasting regulation is often kept narrowly focused, while broader ethical or professional issues are handled through separate or co-regulatory mechanisms. This is not about ideology. It is about administrative clarity. Clear boundaries reduce conflict, make enforcement smoother, and help media organisations understand the rules they are expected to follow.

Independence is another area where refinement could make a big difference. The draft laws establish formal appointment processes, but the system remains executive-driven mainly. That is not unusual, and independence does not mean absence of oversight. But experience from places like the US shows that even limited safeguards—fixed terms, transparent appointment criteria, and clear grounds for removal—can dramatically improve institutional stability.

Regulators who are seen as rule-based rather than personality-based tend to attract more compliance and less confrontation. For a government trying to implement reform smoothly, such credibility can be a strategic advantage. Then there is the issue of legal clarity. Several key ideas in the draft laws—professional ethics, responsible conduct, public interest, journalistic standards—are defined broadly. Flexibility is functional, but vagueness carries risks. It opens space for uneven interpretation and discretionary enforcement, which benefits no one. Many European systems handle this by pairing general legal principles with detailed codes developed through consultation. That approach allows standards to evolve without leaving everyone guessing. Bangladesh could move in a similar direction with relatively minor technical adjustments.

Due process is another quiet but essential concern. The proposed commissions have the power to issue directives and resolve disputes, yet the laws do not consistently spell out basic procedural safeguards. Notice, the right to be heard, reasoned decisions, and access to judicial review are not luxuries. They are what make regulation legitimate in practice. Courts in South Asia, including India, have repeatedly shown that they expect such safeguards even when the state has broad regulatory authority. Writing them clearly into the law reduces uncertainty and protects enforcement actions from being overturned later.

Digital and online media present perhaps the most sensitive challenge. Licensing and close oversight make sense for spectrum-based broadcasting because frequencies are limited. However, the internet operates differently. That is why many countries are now moving towards differentiated approaches—lighter-touch regulation for online media, focused more on transparency and accountability than prior permission. Applying broadcast-style control to digital media risks stifling innovation and creating legal confusion. A more apparent distinction in the draft laws would help avoid those unintended consequences.

Finally, transparency matters more than it often appears on paper. The drafts offer limited scope for structured consultation or public reasoning behind decisions. Yet experience from the UK and Europe shows that open consultation does not slow regulation; it strengthens it. When rules are explained and stakeholders are heard, compliance improves, and conflict decreases. None of these points argues against reform. They say to get it right.

Bangladesh has an opportunity to show that strong regulation and media freedom are not opposites but partners. With a few careful, low-cost refinements—embedding guiding principles, clarifying mandates, strengthening procedural safeguards, and improving transparency—the country can build a media governance framework that is firm, fair, and ready for the future. That kind of balance is more complex than passing a law. But it is also what lasts.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.