Here is a clear, professional English translation of the provided text:

Seeing a news item circulating on social media, it was hard to tell at first whether it was actual news or a laudatory piece crafted to build a particular individual’s image. An entirely routine event—getting food in an airport lounge—was presented in a way that made it seem as though they had set a rare example. If one understands the basic rules of taking food in a lounge, this balloon of "extraordinariness" deflates in an instant. The question then is no longer about what that person did, but rather: is our journalism looking for real news, or is it glorifying ordinary events to turn them into news?

This is not merely an objection to the word choice in a single news report. Bound up with it are questions of a journalist’s professional competence, fact-checking capabilities, and, most importantly, editorial independence.

If a media professional fails to understand a normal process and presents it as an exceptional event, it points to a crisis of professional competence. And if, knowing full well, an ordinary event is reported with special significance, the question becomes even graver: was the news piece genuinely produced based on its news value, or out of an eagerness to burnish a particular individual's image by portraying them as close to the common people?

This is where the uncomfortable question arises—is this kind of news a result of spontaneous flattery, or the outcome of direct or indirect pressure? Declaring either as fact without proof would be irresponsible. However, given the current media situation in Bangladesh, the question cannot be dismissed as entirely irrelevant either.

In Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2026 World Press Freedom Index, Bangladesh ranks 152nd out of 180 countries. Even more significantly, at a discussion titled “Media Rights & Responsibilities” held in Dhaka in July of this year, self-censorship, political pressure, and financial constraints were highlighted as threats to independent journalism. Concerns were also raised there about the erosion of public trust in the media if professional standards fail to be maintained.

Pressure on the media is not always visible; not every instruction comes via phone call, nor does every act of censorship come with a written order. If a journalist anticipates in advance what a powerful figure would like to hear or see and shapes the news accordingly, there is no need for external censors—the journalist becomes the censor of their own pen. Sometimes out of fear, sometimes for job security, sometimes to serve the media owner’s interests, and at times perhaps out of a sheer culture of sycophancy. And right there, in the dangerous space between self-censorship and self-promotion, the credibility of journalism begins to fade away.

In a democratic society, the role of the media is neither to belittle the powerful nor to magnify them. Its job is to present events to the reader exactly as they are. Just as press freedom demands protection from state interference, that freedom is not a license for incompetence, exaggeration, or flattery.

Therefore, today's minor incident cannot simply be brushed off as a laughable news item. Rather, that small event holds up a large mirror—a mirror that simultaneously reflects uncomfortable questions about journalistic competence, editorial independence, and the media’s relationship with power.

Journalism in Bangladesh today needs two forms of freedom: freedom from the pressure of power, and freedom from the urge to please power. Ensuring the former is the state's responsibility; safeguarding the latter is the responsibility of journalists and the media themselves.

Otherwise, one day even the most mundane act of daily life will become "special news"—and readers will have to wonder before reading an article whether they are consuming news or a story manufactured to build someone's image.

Author: ABM Kamrul Hasan, Expatriate Physician and Columnist