Abdul Mokim: Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) recently issued arrest warrants against 28 people in connection with two enforced disappearance cases during Sheikh Hasina’s government. The accused include former and current military officials, among them a former Director General of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI). This was a highly sensitive and historic development, yet the way Bangladesh’s mainstream media reported it shows a clear divide in emphasis and editorial choices.
We reviewed 51 reports from 33 news outlets. Out of these, only 11 reports directly mentioned ‘army’ ,’military officer’ or ‘DGFI’ in their headlines. These came from The Daily Star, New Age, The Business Standard, Amar Desh, Ittefaq, Kaler Kantho, Inqilab, Jugantor, and Samakal. On the other hand, a large majority, 40 reports (about 78%) avoided these words in their headlines, even though military involvement was central to the case. Instead, many focused only on Sheikh Hasina’s name, the number of accused, or general political framing.
In the body of the reports, some mention of DGFI or military links was found in 30 cases, but not in a strong or prominent way. These can be described as ‘weak reports.’ More concerning is that in at least 10 reports, there was no mention of military or DGFI at all. Not in the headline, nor in the main text. These included reports from the state-run Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS), as well as from outlets such as Bangladesh Guardian, Ittefaq, Dhaka Times, Desh Rupantor, Naya Diganta, Bangladesh Pratidin, Bhorer Kagoj, Jaijaidin, and Jugantor.
Another troubling finding was ‘copy-paste reporting.’ At least five reports were almost identical to, or lightly edited from, Bangladesh Guardian, which has been described as a DGFI ‘shadow project.’ These duplicate reports appeared in Ittefaq, Desh Rupantor, Bangladesh Pratidin, Bhorer Kagoj, and Jaijaidin. Such repetition, without independent investigation or added context, highlights the lack of editorial independence and investigative depth in covering even sensitive national security issues.
That said, not all coverage was equally weak. Amar Desh gave the matter the most weight, publishing two separate reports with military involvement highlighted in the headline and body. The Daily Star, New Age, The Business Standard, Ittefaq, Kaler Kantho, and Jugantor also published at least one report each where military links were clearly presented. These can be considered ‘standard reports’ in terms of journalistic responsibility.
Some outlets showed mixed patterns. For example, Jugantor published six reports. one was ‘standard’, four were ‘weak’, and one completely omitted military references. Another interesting case was The Business Standard. Its English edition used the word ‘army’ in the headline, but its Bangla edition did not, showing how editorial choices varied by audience.
The analysis suggests that most media outlets avoided directly highlighting military involvement in their headlines. This reflects either self-censorship or the effect of external pressure. Even the state news agency BSS followed the same cautious approach. The tendency to copy material from Bangladesh Guardian without independent work further shows the crisis of investigative and independent journalism in Bangladesh. Only a handful of outlets provided full and balanced coverage.
The ICT’s arrest warrants against senior military officials mark a significant turning point in Bangladesh’s justice and political history. Yet, the media coverage was inconsistent, divided, and in many cases watered down. By downplaying or avoiding references to the military, most news organizations failed to present the full picture. This demonstrates the structural limitations of Bangladesh’s media, its vulnerability to political sensitivities, and the ongoing weakness of independent, investigative journalism.