G.M. Shahidul Alam
As of 11 August 2025, Israel had killed up to 274 journalists, 269 of them being Palestinians, in the Gaza war. There has been universal praise for the journalists’ integrity during a trying period of significant national and international events. In these days of hybrid warfare methods, where tactics could be reconciled with fright, the risks they take to inform the public are formidable.
Aside from the information factor, their reporting can have a variety of beneficial, as well as some negative, effects on the course of the conflict or other events.
Even U.S. President Donald Trump does not mince words regarding journalists, should their work have defamed him and/or his work, or those from his own political domain. A particularly startling example was demonstrated only recently when, at a conference of senior American generals and admirals called by the U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, and himself, he made it a point to single out, at the press conference, CNN as being liars about him and his political party.
The journalists of that organisation carried on with aplomb (including asking the President questions). And Trump was soon to be rewarded as the key figure who had been instrumental in setting up a truce between Hamas and Israel. One can only hope that the issue between the two can be brought to a lasting positive end.
In these days of rapid communication, being of vital importance, those countries having such a boon have been able to benefit in various ways as against those that do not. The United States has been able to benefit in various ways as against those that do not. The U.S. has been able to take advantage of all the different modes of communication (including various American media) to have been able to be classed as one of the most powerful countries of the world, with pioneers and experts in journalism and communication.
The names of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, both of the news division of another broadcasting giant, CBS, are remembered with much fondness and awe. Murrow gained prominence during World War II with his broadcasts from Europe, while Cronkite did so during the Vietnam War. And with what integrity and aplomb that continue to serve the journalistic community very well, and the world with news that matters.
Cronkite became a phrase for journalistic integrity during a period of significant national and international events. His iconic sign-off for the CBS Evening News from 1962 till 1981 was: “And that’s the way it is…”
And right there lay all the hallmarks of great journalism, rooted in great integrity. I will relate a personal journey during his final broadcast that also seemed to have the entire United States watching (that is, of course, an exaggeration, but not by much).
I had become a MALD student at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Massachusetts, U.S.A., in 1980 and lived in one of the housings on campus. Gradually, I became accustomed to the CBS Evening News that seemed to attract the student community, as all gathered in the common room of our building to watch the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.
What struck me at the outset was his avuncular appearance and, in his gruff voice, reading out the news to the accolade of all present. He was so believable!
One day while I was still a resident in the hall, the news broke (much earlier than the actual date) that Cronkite was retiring. And so, on the final evening, our hall room jammed with day students and boarders, Cronkite appeared on the screen, seeming more avuncular than ever. And he began, his gruff voice and reassuring air, the final cycle of his broadcast when it stopped with “And that’s the way it is.”
So, it was! Exactly as he had been doing for 20 years! No farewell words, no sob-sister story. Just a regular ending of twenty years and fade out from the screen. Well, a lot of us were disappointed, but that was the way with Walter Cronkite. He is no longer in the land of the living. But his legacy of no-nonsense newscasting will endure!
That no-nonsense legacy includes the development of clear, unvarnished political news, primarily as this involved audiences all across the globe, favouringly or intuitively looking for: individual journalists’ attitudes, news media routing, organisational factors, economic forces, and social and political system influences.
Bangladesh has its own share of such parameters, as it has its own distinctive culture and traditions to acculturate and influence. News does not reflect reality verbatim but is subject to myriad interpretations. Those are writings that are not entirely partisan biased comments that continue the grey, or vitriolic, depending on one’s viewpoint and/or traditions of partisanship.
Sensible partisanship can do a world of good, preferable over a lot of irritation, misunderstanding, and suspicion across various quarters.
The writer is an MALD (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) and PhD (Boston University)
