Before coming to the United States from Bangladesh, I didn't have any clear understanding how only one sentence (the First Amendment) can be the foundation of this nation's freedom of speech, religion and press through the ages. And as I pack my bags at the completion of a fellowship at the Post-Gazette, I wonder whether those who articulated this freedom in only 45 words knew exactly what a great achievement they were going to make.

Thanks to the responsibility shown by the custodians of this freedom, especially the media, the First Amendment has become an institution for personal freedom and an open society.

After working in a developing country like Bangladesh, where for some journalists freedom is opportunism, I have reason to wonder when I notice the objectivity, fairness and enterprise in American newsrooms.

The watchdog role of the vibrant independent media in the United States -- best displayed recently through reports on the CIA's secret prisons, the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, torture at Abu Ghraib prison, wiretapping and earlier in the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War -- has earned my high respect. This is the epitome of a free and responsible press.

Although Americans themselves may not appreciate it, the media are a powerful means here for informing people about their rights and upholding the values of democracy.

Although the Bangladeshi media enjoy freedom (with some exceptions during military interventions ), journalists face strong obstruction in investigating government officials' corruption and irregularities due to a culture of secrecy. Officials often resort to taking some legal shelter provided by the Official Secrets Act, rules of business and service rules for government officials to block the passage of information.

By contrast, this country has the First Amendment, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and sunshine laws, not to mention open records and shield laws in various states. These are good models for me, and on my return to Bangladesh, I intend to work toward passage of a right-to-information act.

Although the incumbent military-backed government of Bangladesh has tried to put some types of censorship on the media, it has not succeeded totally due to the strong media role in society. For example, the press is a major reason for the government's failure in its attempt to send into exile two former prime ministers (although the government denies this attempt).

But much needs to be done to raise the standard of Bangladesh's press, especially the ethical standard. Unlike those in my country, publishers here are not out to interfere in editorial matters.

As I have observed firsthand, the media in the United States are constantly seeking to provide information in an objective way without considering who is hurt or helped.

But reporters in Bangladesh, sometimes even in big media outlets, are discouraged to write stories that might hurt major advertisers. It is not only that any story can be shelved forever if it hurts the interest of the owners or the advertisers; reporters have to write stories at the dictate of the newspaper bosses, even if it involves quoting imaginary anonymous sources to attack certain parties. Newspaper ethics have little to do there.

I am very impressed with the role of media watchdogs like the American Journalism Review and the Columbia Journalism Review, and I strongly feel the absence of such watchdogs in my country. I remember a recent criticism of journalists contributing to political parties in the United States and feel sorry for the fact that many Bangladeshi newspapers nakedly support certain political parties.

During my 5¹/₂-month stint as an Alfred Friendly Fellow, I found that commitment, dedication, discipline, firm journalistic drive and professionalism are some of the traits that distinguish top-class newspapers like the Post-Gazette. I'm simply impressed with the teamwork between the reporters and editors and among different editorial departments.

Many reporters in Bangladesh file a story without cross-checking the information adequately and without caring much to make it a balanced one, thus putting the burdens on the copy editors to correct the information and make it readable.

Stories sometimes do not have any clear focus, lack quotes and the people's voice. Most times they are merely statements of high officials without any good analysis. The practice of discussion with an editor here gives the reporter a clear understanding of what he needs to do to get the best out of an assignment, what all the angles are and who may be his sources.

With the fast slide in newspaper circulation, the efforts of U.S. newspapers to tap into a new set of readers is also interesting. The use of multimedia to produce blogs, make Web sites interactive and put reporters' e-mail addresses and phone numbers at the bottom of stories are good ways to engage readers and get their feedback.

What also attracted my attention is the use of police scanner radios in the newsroom. Crime reporters and photographers in my home country could also benefit from such radios.

People with whom I worked at the PG have become my models for high journalistic standards. As I rotated through different sections at the Post-Gazette, my editors encouraged me to present ideas in a way that discouraged readers from leaving the story before going to the last word.

The bottom line of their suggestions was to tell a story in a balanced, fair way, and from all possible angles. The Alfred Friendly Press Fellowship, especially the part of my work with the PG, has made me more sure of my strengths. I'm taking with me the best examples of journalism and the warmness of the U.S. people, and I leave determined to raise the standard of journalism in my country.