The Shafiqul Kabir Auditorium of the Dhaka Reporters Unity felt alive with expectation on the afternoon of the reception ceremony for new members. Journalists, old and young, gathered to welcome fresh voices into an organization that has long served as a common home for reporters in the capital. The atmosphere was not one of celebration alone; there was also a sense of purpose, a quiet recognition that the profession they shared was passing through turbulent times. Saleh Shibly, the Prime Minister’s press secretary, arrived as the chief guest, and his address carried a weight that went beyond the usual formalities of such events. He did not lecture. Instead, he spoke as a fellow communicator, someone who understood how quickly a story could travel, and how easily a falsehood could outrun the truth. Before the new members, he placed a central challenge of contemporary journalism: the rising tide of misinformation and rumours. He pointed to a fact-checking organization’s report, explaining that during the same period, 118 pieces of misinformation had been aimed at the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, while 451 pieces had targeted the current government. These were not abstract numbers. They were signs of a digital battlefield where political forces, interest groups, and anonymous accounts use lies as weapons to shape public perception and unsettle democratic discourse.
The scale of the figures deserves a moment of reflection. If even a fraction of the 569 false or misleading pieces of content identified in a single reporting window were widely shared, the potential for confusion is enormous. The press secretary’s decision to cite both sides of the political spectrum was significant. It suggested that misinformation does not belong to any one party or ideology. It is an equal-opportunity threat. The 118 items aimed at the BNP, the main opposition party, and the 451 items aimed at the government show that falsehoods are being manufactured to attack whoever holds power, and equally to undermine those who seek it. In a polarized society, these fabricated stories do not merely mislead; they deepen distrust, inflame animosity, and make rational dialogue nearly impossible. Behind every false headline is a person who may be made to fear a neighbour, doubt an election, or dismiss a public health warning. The press secretary’s choice to reveal this data in front of a room full of journalists was no accident. He was calling on the profession itself to understand the scale of the problem before trying to solve it. For the new members of the DRU, this was an initiation into a much larger struggle: the fight not simply to report news, but to protect the very idea of fact in public life.
Shibly’s remarks moved naturally from data to duty. He acknowledged that social media has transformed how information is produced and consumed. Anyone with a smartphone can broadcast a claim, a rumour, or a manipulated image, and it may reach thousands of people before verification begins. The platforms reward speed, emotion, and outrage. Credibility, however, is far harder to establish. This is why, he argued, people still turn to responsible media. There is an enduring trust in professional journalism, a trust rooted in the belief that a reporter will check sources, weigh evidence, and correct mistakes. But he warned that this trust is fragile. Journalists must now play a more responsible role in combating misinformation and rumours, he said, and this responsibility begins with routine discipline. He proposed something remarkably simple and practical: regular fact-checking segments on every television channel and media outlet. Even a ten-to-fifteen-minute programme each day, dedicated to verifying claims and debunking falsehoods, could help the public separate what is real from what is manufactured. His suggestion was not glamorous. It was the kind of unglamorous, methodical work that journalism is actually built upon. He stressed that no information should be broadcast before its authenticity is ensured. In an age when being first is often rewarded more than being right, Shibly’s words were a reminder that accuracy is the only lasting currency a journalist possesses.
He also addressed the delicate question of law. Rumours and disinformation can cause real harm, from communal tension to public panic, and it is tempting to demand harsh legal responses. Shibly acknowledged that an effective law is necessary to combat these dangers. But he was careful to draw a line that is often forgotten in the heat of public anger. The law, he said, must not hinder the freedom of journalism. Its formulation and application, especially in the area of cyber security, must respect the essential role of a free press in a democratic society. The balance is difficult. Too little regulation leaves citizens defenceless against malicious falsehoods. Too much regulation can turn a well-intentioned measure into a tool for silencing critics, intimidating reporters, and criminalizing legitimate dissent. The press secretary’s statement suggested that he understood this risk, and his caution was reassuring. He was not asking journalists to choose between truth and safety. He was asking them to remain vigilant, not only against external misinformation but also against any attempt to use the problem of falsehood as justification for undermining press freedom. For the young journalists in the audience, this was an important lesson: the fight against misinformation requires ethical responsibility from media professionals, but it also requires a legal framework that protects the rights of those who ask difficult questions.
Turning to the immediate occasion, Shibly offered words of guidance to the new members of the Dhaka Reporters Unity. His advice was less about journalism technique than about organizational character. He emphasized the importance of maintaining unity within the DRU, acknowledging that differences of opinion are natural, even healthy. A group of reporters will never agree on everything; their training and instincts push them to question, scrutinize, and debate. But he stressed that the beauty of an organization lies in reaching a common goal through mutual respect and understanding. In a profession that often rewards individuality, his call for collective spirit was a useful counterbalance. The unity he spoke of is not about suppressing dissent or pretending that everyone shares the same political leaning. It is about recognizing that the fundamental mission of the DRU, the welfare of its members and the credibility of its profession, is bigger than any single dispute. His words seemed to resonate beyond the auditorium, applying to the wider journalistic community as well. The event itself was a demonstration of this unity. DRU President Abu Saleh Akon presided, General Secretary Maynul Hasan Sohel moderated, and a series of leaders and former leaders offered their thoughts, from welcome speeches to reflections on the organization’s journey.
As the ceremony drew to a close, the lists of names read out, the thanks given, and the photographs taken served as reminders that journalism is ultimately a collective enterprise. The organizing secretary, M M Jasim, delivered the welcome address, while Vice President Mehdi Azad Masum and Joint Secretary Md. Jafar Iqbal spoke, along with former General Secretary Kabir Ahmed Khan and former publicity and publication secretary Md. Shahidul Islam. The room included the treasurer Niaz Mahmud Sohel, office secretary Md. Rashim, sports secretary Omar Faruk Rubel, cultural secretary Md. Manowar Hossain, reception secretary Aminul Haque Bhuiyan, welfare secretary Rafiq Mridha, and executive members Md. Akhtar Hossain, Ali Azam, Mahfuz Sadi, Al-Amin Azad, Sumon Chowdhury, and Md. Abdul Alim. Their presence was a quiet proof that the DRU is built on continuity and shared commitment. In the end, the most lasting image of the afternoon was not any single speech or award, but the simple fact that a room full of journalists had come together to reflect on their own failures and responsibilities. Saleh Shibly’s message was clear: misinformation is not an abstract enemy that will defeat itself. It will be defeated by careful verification, by daily fact-checking, by a legal system that protects rather than punishes truth-tellers, and by a journalistic community that remains united in purpose while respecting diversity of thought. For the new members, that is the world they are entering. They are not just joining an organization; they are joining a mission.