Gender Equality and Media Regulation Study - Bangladesh

"The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action for the Advancement of Women (BPfA)...called on governments and other actors to 'increase the participation and access of women to expression and decision making in and through the media and new technologies of communication' and 'promote a balanced and non stereotyped portrayal of women in the media'."

This study seeks to understand how gender equality concerns are being integrated into media-related regulations, policies, and self-regulatory frameworks in Bangladesh. It also explores implementation and monitoring mechanisms and provides recommendations and best practice examples that can assist stakeholders, including law- and policy-makers, to promote gender equality in and through the media without compromising professional independence.

The study was conducted by Media Resources Development Initiative (MRDI) and initiated by Fojo Media Institute in collaboration with Gothenburg University's Department of Journalism, Media & Communication (JMG) and other partners. It forms part of a set of country case studies that were designed to better understand how gender equality and women's freedom of expression are integrated into media regulation and self-regulation and within media in-house policies. The case studies were implemented in countries in which Fojo is active - namely, Armenia, Bangladesh, Rwanda, Somalia, Sweden, and Zimbabwe - and are accompanied by a broader global study of gender in media law and policy at international, regional, and country levels spanning more than 100 nations (see Related Summaries, below, for the global study).

Conducted from March through mid-October 2021, the research was designed to explore:

• to what extent and how issues around gender equality, gender sensitivity, or gender awareness have been integrated into regulation and self-regulation laws and policies around both media structure and content;
• whether such integration efforts could contribute to the overarching goal of increasing freedom of expression for women and girls, for people of non-binary gender, for people belonging to sexual minorities, and for men and boys in similarly relevant situations; and
• if any such effort could lead to compromising or curtailing media freedom and independence.

The study used a mixed methodology including both quantitative and qualitative research methods. A total of 43 acts and rules, including the Constitution and 12 national-level media policies, were selected for mapping and analysis. A questionnaire survey of 18 media houses (which included 8 national and local newspapers, 7 television channels, 2 radio stations, and an online news portal) was conducted, and interviews were held with 7 regulators and self-regulatory bodies.

The following are some of the findings as highlighted in the executive summary of the report:

• Provisions for gender equality and sensitivity in media regulations and national policies have two distinct features. Earlier provisions were concerned more with decency, obscenity, and other such issues - mainly from a moralistic perspective. The main concern has been protecting the morality of society from the effects of "harmful" content rather than protecting the rights of women.
• Over the last couple of decades, gender-related provisions in media regulation and policies have been markedly influenced by development concerns. Media advocacy for women's development and other development goals started occupying a central space in regulatory and policy frameworks.
• This era might have introduced a rights perspective, but gender equality in media organisations has not been the dominant primary approach. Provisions on "gender-sensitivity" were more frequent, yet laws and regulations lack a requirement for equal coverage of women or other gender minorities in media content.
• Laws variously provide eligibility criteria for ownership, which are basic, general, and mostly common in nature, not specifying any commitment to gender equality. Such mentions would be more appropriate and necessary in policies. All policies, with the exception of one, are silent about gender equality or gender sensitivity commitments of owners. No law or policy, however, has any prohibition on women being an owner of a media outlet.
• Sector-wide self-regulatory frameworks are very rare, as are individual house-level ones. There are few written in-house policies on gender equality or gender sensitivity.
• Regulatory and supervisory authority of all media rests primarily with one central ministry, while gender-related supervision is the responsibility of another ministry. No implementation or monitoring mechanism could be located. Scarcity of data in this field is another major problem, and implementation and monitoring are generally weak in media organisations.

The recommendations elaborate and include:

• An overarching anti-discrimination law and an umbrella gender-equality law encompassing public and personal spheres need to be formulated. These laws could facilitate gender equality and gender sensitivity in internal structures of the media and in media contents.
• An overarching and overriding freedom of expression Law needs to be formulated in order to help ensure media freedom.
• There are demands for job quotas ensured by the law, but this approach might not work. Given the political culture and intolerance to dissent, regulations can be used to curtail press freedom - e.g., propping them up as excuses for sanctioning any media outlet that displeases the government for reasons other than gender equality concerns. Such provisions should best be emphasised as goals in policies.
• While regulations are important, law alone cannot do much. Besides, stringent media registration and related laws could be abused to suppress dissent. Policies are more important for media, especially self-regulatory ones. Diverse platforms of women journalists, rights activists, development planners, and academicians have long called for a comprehensive, single gender-integration national policy for the media. Appropriate state policies and corresponding in-house policies are essential.
• Written in-house policies of recruitment, promotion, enabling benefits for women, and safety and security are essential. Regulations can fix pay scales but cannot deal with glass ceilings. Emphasis on national policies and then on similar in-house policies for gender equality in internal structures would be more effective.
• Safety and security of journalists, including the cyber dimensions, need legal protection and effective mechanisms at the national level. Media houses need to have safety and security mechanisms in place, especially for women journalists and journalists belonging to other gender minorities.
• In-house and other training and orientation programmes on gender and diversity, gender equality, and gender sensitivity in and through the media need to be ensured. Simultaneously, regular training on improving the quality of journalism, with a focus on editorial standards and ethics, needs to be provided.
• Existing regulations (barring licensing conditions) and policies need to be reformulated to incorporate clear and specific provisions for gender equality and gender sensitivity in internal structures and in content. Regulations and policies must pay special attention to the facilitating and enabling provisions. They also need revision in their texts, which are often insensitive and at times raw, reflecting gender-insensitive mindsets and stereotypes. These regulations and policies need to be rewritten in a gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive manner.
• A free and responsible press is the goal. Freedom carries responsibility. Self-regulation needs to be stressed more. (Even there, the legacy of political culture can leave its traces, as manifested in the existing code of conduct issued by the Press Council. This code does not stress media independence and, rather, encourages subservience to the political power.)

The Discussion section of the study points out the following issues, among other things:

One major concern of many media houses is now survival, especially in COVID-19 times. Pay is irregular, and job loss is a frequent threat. All sorts of fears, management's conflicts of interest, and repressive use of certain laws by the state authorities have strengthened self-censorship of the journalists. And doing journalism is becoming more difficult. The reasons comprise various controls by the state agencies and other sources, self-censorship of the houses, and conflicts of interests of the owners, but are not limited to these.

At the level of media houses, the awareness of what is fair is there. But what might be missing is conviction in the justness of gender equality in media. While issues of sensitivity gain support, equality faces resistance - both for recruitment and for women's share in coverage. Why is this so? To paraphrase one senior woman journalist, you need "change in the head". How do you change heads? One core inequality that exists in Bangladesh concerns women's rights in personal life. One's status in personal life is a core determinant of one's overall status - how society perceives women stems from there. You cannot progress far if your feet are weak and the ground is wobbly. The quest for gender equality in media must keep this inherent contextual drawback in mind.

In short, for women or other minority genders to gain importance, the work should perhaps start from recognising the value of human life from the perspectives of journalism. Perhaps, the quest for gender equality in the media and in media content is also a quest for saving journalism. Adding worth to the profession of journalism is essential.