90 percent media outlets do not submit income-expenditure reports on time

Amidst multiple and multifaceted crises, the 11-member Media Reform Commission formed by the interim government has already submitted its report for the timely and effective reform of Bangladesh’s media sector. Headed by Kamal Ahmed, the commission made 20 recommendations concerning media ownership, income and expenditure, advertisement market, financial security, the future of BTV, Bangladesh Betar (radio) and BSS, and the freedom and protection of journalists and media houses. Under these 20 key points are several sub-points where various issues have been elaborated in detail. At the same time, the commission has submitted a draft of the ‘Bangladesh Media Commission Ordinance: 2025’ to implement these proposals. This draft ordinance is currently under consideration by the interim government. Media stakeholders hope that the commission’s proposals will soon gain legal validity.

Kamal Ahmed spoke in detail about the formation of the commission, its activities, various obstacles, and challenges, in an interview with Rahat Minhaz, assistant professor of the Mass Communication and Journalism Department at Jagannath University. The interview is being published in sequence in Views Bangladesh. Today, the second part of the five-part interview is published.

Views Bangladesh: The Reform Commission’s first recommendation was regarding ownership. In Bangladesh, some business entities own multiple media outlets. It seems this kind of ownership structure is destroying the media ecosystem itself. While working on media ownership, what aspects did you consider? Are those implementable?

Kamal Ahmed: Of course, they are implementable. We didn’t make any unrealistic recommendations here. No one imposed anything on us. We wanted to identify where the crisis in the media lies. What is the source of the crisis? And whether we have any historical lessons to resolve it. The Reform Commission also tried to learn how similar situations have been tackled around the world, drawing lessons from best practices.

Before the Media Reform Commission of the interim government, there was a Press Commission in Bangladesh in 1983. At that time, television or radio was not in the private sector. Only newspapers belonged to private ownership. Therefore, the Press Commission, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Ataur Rahman Khan, only focused on newspapers. The members of that Press Commission were all prominent editors of the time. Obaidul Haque of The Bangladesh Observer, Akhtarul Alam of Dainik Ittefaq, Ahmed Humayun of Dainik Bangla, and Enayetullah Khan of The Holiday—they were all members of that Press Commission. That commission recommended that there should be diffusion in newspaper ownership. By “diffusion,” what they actually explained was that shares should be distributed or given to employees and journalists. What was the logic behind that idea? It was to ensure that there would be no dominance of personal interest of a single individual in the media. There should be a form of democratisation within the institution. That recommendation or idea came from the 1983 Press Commission.

Views Bangladesh: But what are the global precedents in this case? Did you consider those?

Kamal Ahmed: Yes, we examined practices from around the world. If you look into it, you’ll find that many major newspapers in India are public companies. Internationally, we hear about major media tycoons like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg. They control multiple media outlets. But their companies are listed in the stock market. So, even though their families retain control over the media companies, there is still accountability. They are required to follow certain obligations. They must comply with rules and regulations, and hold annual general meetings where they present financial reports. They must explain their business policies for the media. That’s a form of transparency. A kind of accountability. Why shouldn’t we think in similar terms?

Views Bangladesh: Apart from Europe and the US, did you consider examples from Asia or neighbouring countries of Bangladesh?

Kamal Ahmed: Yes, Indonesia is a major example. In Indonesia, any citizen can own a media outlet. But if someone wants to establish a media company, it must be incorporated as a corporation. That means the company must offer shares to the public for investment—it’s mandatory. Otherwise, it won’t be recognized as a media organization. If Indonesia can do it, why can’t we? We believe the same should happen here. All major or mid-sized media houses in the country should become public limited companies. The public should be given the opportunity to invest. They should be listed in the stock exchange. Then, at the very least, they will have to provide explanations to shareholders once a year—we’ll know what accounts they are presenting. We’ll know whether the media company is making a profit or loss. We’ll also learn the sources of investment. And who the owners are, and how much percentage each one controls. This transparency is essential. Readers, viewers, and listeners have the right to informed choice. I should be able to make a conscious decision knowing whose interests are reflected—or not—in the newspaper I’m buying, or the TV news I’m watching. That’s exactly why we’ve stressed the need for this kind of transparency in our recommendations.

Views Bangladesh: But there are many small media outlets in Bangladesh. Will they be able to comply with these ownership regulations?

Kamal Ahmed: Small or startup organizations might not be able to do this right from the beginning. If some can, that’s excellent. If not, they may need time. That’s one aspect. The second is, why has the question of ownership become so critical? It’s because media wields a powerful influence. It can shape public opinion very easily. Now, when this influential power is used to serve personal, group, business, or political interests, shouldn't we ask whether that benefits or harms the public or the nation? Of course, we must. That’s where this concern originates—ownership of the media should not be concentrated in the hands of a few. This is why in many countries cross-ownership is prohibited. And that’s why we’ve proposed that a ‘One Media, One House’ or ‘One House Policy’ should be enforced in Bangladesh.

Views Bangladesh: Surely, this would face numerous obstacles and resistance?

Kamal Ahmed: Yes, there are many obstacles to implementing this policy. New hurdles are also emerging. We are already hearing various criticisms. As I mentioned earlier, owners of multiple media outlets in Bangladesh cite global media tycoons such as Rupert Murdoch or Michael Bloomberg as examples. They say those individuals own newspapers, television stations, online portals, and radio channels. They are involved in every form of media business. But what these Bangladeshi owners overlook is that each of those companies is a public limited company. The stakes in these companies are defined differently. Bangladeshi owners also point to India as a model. But Indian media cannot be held as an ideal. I’m sorry to say this. That’s why the term ‘Godi Media’ (lapdog media) has become prominent there. Even then, many Indian newspapers are listed on the stock market. That is why we have recommended banning cross-ownership. The main reason is that excessive concentration of power has occurred in the hands of a few groups. Some houses publish two daily newspapers in the same language. The same house also owns an English newspaper. That house also owns a radio station. It owns two television channels as well. There is an online portal. We also hear that they have investments, under other names, in other media outlets too. There are other such houses where both television and daily newspapers are under the same ownership. There are even houses with two television channels under one ownership, both broadcasting news and current affairs programmes. These practices go against market transparency and fair competition.

Views Bangladesh: While working on the commission, you repeatedly emphasised financial transparency. What kind of findings did you come across while working on this aspect? How many media outlets in Bangladesh submit their income and expenditure reports? To what extent is there financial transparency and accountability in the media?

Kamal Ahmed: Most don’t submit any income and expenditure reports at all. It’s a startling situation. From the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, we requested the audited accounts and company details of the earlier government-registered newspapers, as well as of licensed television and radio channels. They provided all the information. We received everything. Yet 90 percent of the media outlets do not submit their accounts on time. Some companies haven’t submitted any financial reports since 2013. Others haven’t done so since 2009. Some have only submitted reports for 2018, 2021, or 2023. It’s a strange and chaotic picture. Essentially, no one is complying with the law. And the government doesn’t take any steps to enforce compliance either.

Views Bangladesh: Why don’t these media organisations submit their financial statements? Do they consider themselves powerful because they serve the ruling party?

Kamal Ahmed: Not only that — government departments are afraid of the media.

Views Bangladesh: Afraid?

Kamal Ahmed: Absolutely. Government offices fear the media. These institutions think: what will happen if we probe them? So, they take no action. But according to the country’s Companies Act, if you fail to submit audited accounts at the end of the financial year, you can be fined, and your directorship can be revoked. Now, if a company hasn’t submitted audited accounts for 12 years since 2013, what should happen to them?

We reviewed the accounts from the last two to three years. Even if not more, at least a dozen and a half institutions are operating profitably. If 18 media organisations can run profitably, why wouldn’t investors be attracted to those companies?

Many have criticised me, saying I’ve proposed a very idealistic formula — among which is the idea of listing media organisations on the stock exchange. Since media is considered a struggling industry, critics say no one will be interested in subscribing to it, and the project will fail. But I’ve pointed out that we've analysed the accounts of 18 companies — actually more than 18 — which are making profits. So why wouldn’t people want to invest in those companies? Therefore, this is not merely an idealistic dream. It is a realistic ideal — a recommendation that can be implemented. And it can be done quite easily. That’s what we’ve proposed.

Views Bangladesh: Your commission has also made significant proposals regarding ownership — especially in the case of cross-ownership?

Kamal Ahmed: Regarding cross-ownership, we’ve said it should be prohibited. The government can do this immediately. By "immediately," I mean that from now on, whoever applies for a new licence — if they already own a newspaper, they should not be granted a television licence. And if they already own a television channel, they shouldn’t be given a newspaper licence. The government can adopt and announce such a policy.

For those who already own multiple platforms or media outlets, a specific timeframe should be set — it could be one year, two years, or even six months — within which they must restructure. The owners must decide how they will reorganise their media businesses. This reorganisation could involve selling off one outlet, or merging all platforms to create a single large entity. For example, one large television channel or one major newspaper. That’s a viable solution.
(To be continued)

Interviewed by Rahat Minhaz, Assistant Professor, Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, Jagannath University, Dhaka

Also Read
Part One: Obtaining license for political goals means blocking scope for journalism