The Bogeyman Defense: Media Accountability and the Fear of "Right-Wing" Labels

For over a decade and a half, Bangladesh witnessed a steady descent from a fragile democracy into autocracy—a journey many describe as a slide into outright fascism. Central to this transition was the role of the mainstream media. Today, as we begin to peel back the layers of this era, a new and troubling phenomenon is emerging: a coordinated effort to silence any critique of the media’s complicity.

The Fourth Estate or an Architectural Tool?

During the last fifteen years, the systematic weakening of opposition parties, the silencing of dissenting voices, and the erosion of independent news outlets did not happen in a vacuum. The mainstream media establishment played a pivotal role—sometimes through active participation and other times through calculated silence regarding human rights violations and state-sponsored oppression.
However, the moment these actions are brought into the light for public scrutiny, a specific group of defenders begins to push back. Their goal? To criminalize and delegitimize the conversation itself.

The Strategy of Labeling

The defense mechanism used to protect the media establishment is as predictable as it is effective. If you question the ethical lapses or the "crimes" of certain media houses, you are immediately labeled. The narrative being pushed suggests that:

1. The past is off-limits; we should not discuss the "mistakes" of the media.

1. Anyone who raises these questions is inherently "bad," "right-wing," or a "Jamaat" sympathizer.

1. Discussing media complicity is dangerous because it supposedly "strengthens the hands of extremists."

Using the "Extremist" Shield

There is a harsh reality we must acknowledge about our social fabric. Across the board—whether educated or uneducated, secular or religious, urban or rural—our collective mindset often remains primitive and tribal. It may take a century for this society to truly evolve into a civilized, collective unit.

But this societal maturity (or lack thereof) is being used as a convenient excuse. The argument that "we must not discuss the moral bankruptcy of the media because the right-wing/extremists will take advantage" is a fascinatingly cynical ploy.

By waving the "extremist bogeyman," the media establishment seeks a "get out of jail free" card. They want to bypass rules, ethics, laws, and even basic human decency to act exactly as they please, shielded by the fear of what might happen if they are held accountable.

The "Tender" Desire for Impunity

The original author sarcastically describes this desire as "soft and pure" (ko-mol o nir-mol). It is the desire to remain above the law and beyond criticism by weaponizing the fear of the "other."
If we allow the fear of "right-wing empowerment" to stop us from demanding accountability from our journalists and media moguls, we aren't protecting democracy—we are merely protecting the next iteration of autocracy.
A truly civilized society isn't one that hides its scars or ignores the crimes of its institutions. It is one that has the courage to look in the mirror, acknowledge the complicity of its "watchdogs," and demand better. Accountability isn't a gift for the right-wing; it is a necessity for the people.

© Qadaruddin Shishir