A great tragedy of the Bangladeshi people is that their own journalists have simply disappeared into sycophantic oblivion like the Pravda journalists of yore; the very idea that any newspaper or broadcast show would even ask where does the so-called Prime Minister’s uber-nationalistic son live, or who he is married to, or how he makes a living, is simply unimaginable for the chattering conglomeration of cowards known as Bangladesh’s “editors” and “broadcasters”, never mind anything more substantial A greater tragedy is that the ‘respectable’ international media–think the New York Times, the Economist, the Christian Science Monitor, the BBC, etc–have their Bangladesh beats staffed by junior stringers too dependent on their New Delhi offices or too enamored with the concept of a woman ruling a Muslim-majority country or too thoroughly compromised with family ties to the Bangladeshi dictatorship (like the head of the BBC Bengali Service) to be of much use in pointing out the bloodthirsty and cruel nature of the Bangladeshi dictatorship that is little more than a corrupted family enterprise dedicated to greed. In regards to almost any other country (think present day Sri Lanka), journalists in London and New York would be making a big deal–rightly so–about such a state of affairs. But alas, poor Bangladeshis must be children of a lesser God.
Virtually all of the things you articulate happens to be supprisingly legitimate and it makes me ponder the reason why I hadn’t looked at this with this light previously. This piece truly did switch the light on for me as far as this specific issue goes. However at this time there is actually 1 position I am not necessarily too comfy with and whilst I attempt to reconcile that with the actual core idea of the point, permit me observe what all the rest of the readers have to point out.Very well done.