The multiplier effect of an editor's admission

French existentialist philosopher Albert Camus said that a guilty conscience needs to confess, and a work of art is a confession. Somewhere between his desperation to unburden his conscience and his desire to create an example of honest journalism, the editor of The Daily Star blurted out an uneasy truth on a television show, which has now got him in the soup. Instead of appreciating his honesty and courage, he has been subjected to painful harassments. Dime a dozen lawsuits are popping up against him across the country, and some politicians are asking for his resignation. Anyone else contemplating confession anywhere, beware! Truth doesn't set you free in this country, but gets you in trouble.

That Mahfuz Anam was in error has been signified by his own admission. In other words, he wouldn't have accepted responsibility for what he had done some eight years ago were it not bothering him already. Anybody who missed that show can check. He didn't resort to circumlocution to dodge the question. He went straight for the kill, and made his admission.

But how much is he guilty of what he admitted? He may have failed to uphold his professional standard by publishing leaks. True, he had failed to follow a vast conspiracy to its logical conclusion. That's exactly what the editor said in his admission before publicly regretting it on television. He didn't hesitate to bite the bullet or pretend innocence to deflect the blame.

Yet, he has been getting flak as if what he had printed was his own invention. He had printed what he was handed under questionable circumstances and those who handed him a motivated story had acted out their own ambitions. If anything, the editor acted as a mere messenger, sort of a courier service for ideas. He either didn't have a choice, or unsuspectingly chose to deliver the wrong package.

By God, it's not about defending an editor who, for one time, had deviated from the ideals of his job. It's about defending a profession that's now threatened because one man's editorial judgment faltered many years ago. If this is how a leading editor of this country is intimidated, the cub reporters aspiring to lead the news industry in future must be shaking in their boots.

This isn't to exonerate the editor of his share of guilt. But if one could map the trajectory of his soul from the time he had committed the mistake to the time when he admitted to it, perhaps one would find fluctuations recording many nights he must have spent tossing and turning in bed. How could you tell? The straightforwardness, instantaneity and innocence with which he accepted responsibility for his mistake had the readiness of an abscess ripe for incision. 

There are many walking monuments of mendacity in this country, those who swallow truth without as much as a twitch. Many of us know many of them; YouTube postings as well as sound bites, images and newspaper commentaries of those fateful two years still bear witness to their mischiefs. If they are being tolerated and some of them have been rewarded, why should this editor be isolated for ludicrously heavy-handed treatment?

The standard common law test of criminal liability has it that the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty. If anybody really believes that this editor should be punished then she or he needs to find that connection. It must be proven that the mistake was made with a criminal intent.

History books, biographies and autobiographies are filled with instances when influential people confessed to their errors in judgments. By that time millions had perished and billions were squandered in wars, conflicts, famines, and dislocations. How many of them have been put on trial because they thought they should honestly step back and take a second look at their mistakes?

Sixty-nine lawsuits to date have been filed against one man that makes this great country look like a giant incubator for witch hunters.  All the war criminals are being tried by two tribunals, whereas courts after courts are being engaged to drag a decent man from pillar to post. If anything, every lawsuit filed against Mahfuz Anam is only lengthening the trail of his incremental persecution. 

What we are watching is a convoluted crucible. A conscientious editor attempted to elevate the ethical standard of journalism by investing his honesty in a sincere admission. What he gets in return is an accelerating stream of blows below the belt.

No man can be tried twice for the same offense, and the exponential number of court cases is redundant. The line between justice and vengeance gets blurred when a man is the target more than his mistake. The multiplier effect is how political madness amplifies one innocent admission into a nationwide wild goose chase.

The writer is editor of the weekly First News and an opinion writer for The Daily Star. 

Email: nadrul151@yahoo.com