Bangladesh's media has undergone a major transformation in the last three decades. Along with print newspapers, television and online media have developed. During this time, the country's economy has also gained momentum. As a result, not only has the cost of media operations increased, but so has the financial needs of media workers to survive in this profession.To meet that demand, various corporate organizations are investing heavily in the media as part of their 'corporate social responsibility'. This has increased the popularity of the media much more than before.At the same time, the open and free dissemination of information has increased. This enthusiasm is about to fade with the recommendation of the Media Reform Commission for 'one entrepreneur, one media'. Media professionals are not finding a match between the Commission's observations or recommendations and reality.Some journalist leaders see a 'purpose' in this recommendation. The Reform Commission, in its recommendations regarding media ownership, said, 'Multiple daily newspapers or multiple television channels in the same language under single ownership destroys the competitive environment.'At the same time, the influential power of the media is concentrated in its own interests. That is why this system needs to end. 

‘The existing system must be resolved as soon as possible.Just as marketing the same soap in multiple packages destroys market competition, having multiple daily newspapers in the same language under the same ownership also destroys media competition and harms readers. The same applies to television.Implementing the One House, One Media policy is the best way to prevent concentration in the media.The commission's report further states, "Companies/groups/institutions/individuals/families that own both television and newspapers can retain any one media outlet and transfer ownership of the others through sale."Or, they can merge the journalists, officials and employees of two media (television and newspapers) to run a stronger and larger media (television or daily newspaper). 

Media professionals are unable to find a match between the Commission's observations and recommendations and reality.Their argument is that even if the same group manages multiple media outlets, the editorial policies are not the same. Because different media outlets are not managed by the same journalists. Therefore, comparing the issue of media with marketing the same soap in multiple formats has become very simplistic and emotional.The issue of media competition that has been mentioned has also not been found to be correct. The reality is that there is competition among multiple media outlets within the same group. Readers do not buy newspapers solely based on ownership, but also judge the content.For this reason, there is a huge difference in the circulation of multiple newspapers of the same group in many cases. Because, an editor presents his newspaper. Here, the role of the owner is very secondary. 

Those concerned say that the recommendation made regarding the transfer of ownership is completely unrealistic.Because, the history of newspaper ownership transfers in the past two decades is not very happy. A review of history shows that professional journalists alone could not sustain the media without the support of corporate groups.Media workers have been subjected to mass layoffs in media organizations where ownership has been transferred. In many cases, many entrepreneurs have been forced to close their media operations on their own, unable to meet operating costs.Rather, corporate institutions have been able to keep the media alive, even though it is like a sick industry.

The commission's report also states, "The issue of people's trust or confidence in information is inextricably linked. The credibility of information is comparable to the public's trust."However, while listing of banks and financial institutions on the stock market has been made mandatory considering bank deposits as public deposits, the same has not been done for media institutions in our country."In the banking sector, no individual, institution, company, or family member can hold more than 10 percent of the shares of an entrepreneurial director in the banking sector, and no more than three directors from the same family can be on the company's board of directors at the same time."But there is no such obligation in media institutions. Therefore, a change is needed. ’

It further states, ‘The Commission considers it appropriate to initially set a time limit for medium and large media institutions to issue shares to the public and get listed on the stock exchange.The entrepreneur feels the need to limit the shareholding limit between directors and individuals, institutions, companies or members of the same family to 25 percent and to make share distribution among the employees of the institution mandatory.Those concerned say that by putting the media on the same level as financial institutions, the commission has made recommendations in the light of a policy that is devoid of reality in this sector. Banks collect deposits and make loans or investments. This is a purely financial matter.However, even though money is invested directly in the media, the feedback in many cases does not reach the desired level. The media has to fight a lot in the corporate advertising market, where even social media platforms are now capturing the advertising market.Moreover, the media outlets have to struggle to get government advertising bills. The media outlets have to face a difficult reality due to newsprint imports, press expenses, satellite bills, staff salaries and other operating expenses.It is worth discussing whether the commission has conducted any factual research on bringing such non-profit service organizations to the stock market. 

Media people believe that the commission has failed to identify the real crisis of the media in many cases.Therefore, the issues that need to be brought up for real reform have not come up in many cases. The media has been stifled by authoritarian rule for the past decade and a half. Because of this, the media has failed to play its desired role in many cases.Media owners claim that they are not responsible for not playing the desired role. Rather, the media had to go through a special situation throughout. Whenever a media outlet went beyond the interests of the ruling elite, it was shut down or pressured in various ways.Media outlets like Channel One, Diganta TV, Islamic TV, and Dainik Amar Desh were on the list of closures. Several repressive laws, including the Digital Security Act, were imposed on the media. Due to this, in many cases, not only the owners but also the professional staff associated with the media were forced to impose self-censorship.Several things that are so closely intertwined with a democratic system—such as an independent judiciary, a free press, and a functioning civil society—cannot exist in an authoritarian regime.Starting from One-Eleven, the media in Bangladesh has had to deal with that pressure for the past two and a half decades. Here, it is not only the media that has to be 'appeased', but also media workers and owners have been put under pressure in various ways.People like Ekushey Television owner Abdus Salam, NTV owner Alhaj Mosaddek Ali, Amar Desh editor Mahmudur Rahman, and Jay Jay Din editor Shafiq Rehman have been imprisoned.The owner of Diganta Television has been hanged for crimes against humanity. The office of the Daily Sangram has been vandalized and its editor has been arrested. People like journalist leaders Shawkat Mahmud and Ruhul Amin Gazi have been imprisoned for long periods for speaking out for press freedom.Journalists Shahidul Alam, Rozina Islam, Shamsuzzaman, Shafiqul Islam Kajol and many other field level media workers have been imprisoned under various oppressive laws including the Digital Security Act and the Official Secrets Act. Several journalists have even been subjected to disappearances.The media has had to go through two long decades of such a reality. Even in this difficult situation, large groups or institutions have been able to maintain the media as a 'corporate social responsibility'. Many large institutions have also had to suffer huge financial losses.Those concerned say that the corporate groups that at least kept the media alive during these difficult times have tried to take a hard line against the recommendations of the Media Reform Commission. The commission's 'One House, One Media' policy is proof of that.Dhaka Journalists Union President Shahidul Islam said, "We, Dhaka Journalists Union, do not agree with this proposal. An entrepreneur can have more than one media outlet. We need to see whether he follows the media guidelines or not. We think such proposals are not realistic."Therefore, the Dhaka Union of Journalists will not agree to the implementation of any such proposal. 

BFUJ Secretary General Quader Gani Chowdhury said that some of the proposals of the Media Commission are good.But there is nothing new. It is completely conventional. Looking at some decisions, it seems that some recommendations have been influenced by some media house. The commission has made many recommendations that are out of touch with reality. For example, fixing salaries like the BCS cadre! Is this possible for all houses?He said, the country's economic situation is very fragile. It can be easily guessed by seeing the line of people behind the TCB trucks. No one is coming to invest. Industries are constantly closing down. Millions of workers are losing their jobs and becoming unemployed. There is unrest in the media.Most media outlets are unable to pay salaries regularly. The government is unable to pay advertising money to the media. In this situation, when the commission wants to determine the salaries of journalists like the BCS cadre, most media outlets will die.He also said, "Another thing surprised me. They have also decided how many newspapers or television stations each house can launch. A media house has been running this campaign for a long time to capture their rival house."Is there any legitimate reason for such control? Why can't someone who has legitimate money be able to do more than one media? You have to see if these media violate the policy or not.This journalist leader said, there are many media groups around the world. Our neighboring country, India, has many newspapers of the Anandabazar Patrika group. Has the Indian government imposed any control on this? The 'One House, One Media' proposal proposed by the Media Commission is not objective, how can we say?There have already been reports in the newspapers that a big business house has a hidden influence on the recommendations of this commission. I also think that is what happened.Many people may know the name of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. His company is News Corporation. He owns hundreds of local, national, and international multifaceted publishing and broadcasting companies around the world.The same company owns The Sun and The Times in the UK; The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and The Australian in Australia; and The Wall Street Journal and New York Post in the US.He also owned the television channels Sky News Australia and Fox News (through Fox Corporation), Twenty-First Century Fox, and News of the World (now defunct).John Karl Malone, chairman of Liberty Media, also known as the "Cable Cowboy," owns a variety of media, telecommunications, and entertainment companies around the world.In 1992, he used the concept of the 'Five Hundred Channel Universe' to describe the future media landscape, pointing to the need for a large number of TV channels.His Discovery Communications, now Discovery Incorporated, is the company that owns Discovery Channel, TLC (The Learning Channel), Animal Planet, etc.It's not just Rupert Murdoch or John Karl Mellon, the list of organizations with many media outlets under one person or organization is quite long.