Archives

by Harim Peiris

The private media, those tightly held and closely controlled family businesses with strong links to the United National Party has of late, together with that Party, been at the forefront of attempts to stifle the freedom of expression of the State media in general and those supportive of the PA government in particular. The free media and alternative policy types, notwithstanding their normal pious pronunciations on media freedom, have been the leading lights in this campaign to monopolize the dissemination of news and views in the marketplace of ideas.

They have alleged that the State media is biased and partisan towards the government. This is a matter of opinion, but let's not contest the point, let's even perhaps concede it. The State media will always be reflective of the opinion and views of the government of the day, which is representative of a transient majority of the population. Prior to 1994, the State media was supportive of the then UNP government. Accordingly, the State media is not the preserve of a single political party - it merely vests, as with the rest of State power, with the government of the day.

In contrast, the private media in Sri Lanka is extremely biased towards the United National Party and its links are obvious. The Opposition leader's brother owns a TV and radio station, his uncle owns a newspaper group, his media advisors own Sunday papers and a weekly political rag while the Party's chief financial backers own another TV and radio empire. The pro UNP bias of these private media houses continue irrespective of whether that Party is in power or in Opposition, their bias becoming rather obvious in desperation while in Opposition and much more subtle when in the comforts of government.

Further, the private/free media types love to call themselves the independent media. Oh please! Let's have a limit to hypocrisy. What do these private sector media types claim to be independent of? Are they independent of opinion? Are they independent of political bias? Are they independent of the political strategies of their owners all of whom are players in the political game, aren't their leading lights well known political participants rather than objective bystanders in the political milieu to the same extent that they claim the State media acts according to dictates of government, the private media also faithfully sing for their supper according to the sound and tone of their master's voice and obediently do their bidding. At least the State media is constrained by the fact that governments change and hence the tenure of its political media appointees are limited, while the private media is free to be biased and prejudiced with gay abandon, secure in the knowledge that its pro-UNP line will never change in essence, only in the matter of degree. However the political Opposition and the private media have essentially argued, including before the Supreme Court during submissions on the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, that it is perfectly okay for the private media to be biased and prejudiced.

It's their inherent constitutional right of free expression, but the State media as public property must reflect both government and Opposition views.

The private media holds themselves exempt from any such requirements of balance or impartiality. Try to find any positive aspects about the President or the government in the private media, print and electronic. Does that mean that there is nothing good about the President or PA, or does that reflect bias and prejudice? The reality is that within the private media the lunatics scream abuse against the President and government while the rest are more subtle but nonetheless exclusively negative and critical. According to the private media there is no redeeming feature in the President or the government. Does the fact that their issued equity capital rest in private hands exempt the private media from objectivity? It apparently does, since they vehemently opposed the same standards applicable to the state media being applied to them. In fact, when the Seventeenth Amendment sought to empower the Independent Elections Commission to monitor all media, State and private, for equal access and equity during elections, the private media went to court to ensure that sauce for the goose was not sauce for the gander. Further, the arguments put forward by the UNP and the private media against the State media is not based on some lofty ideals of democracy or the role of a responsible media in a free society.

No, it is a much narrower argument that by virtue of the State media's equity capital being vested with the Public Trustee or the Treasury, as opposed to cronies of the UNP, it could not be reflective of the PA government's view.What is particularly illogical, irrational and even insidious in this argument for this columnist personally as a political liberal and for a liberal democracy, is that what is surely required is the free clash of views in the marketplace of ideas and allowing the public to make up their own mind. Let us all report and let the public decide. Let us all be in with the news and free with our views. The PA's approach to media freedom has been just that. To allow the most horrendous, vituperative diatribes against the President and the Government to be carried in the private media and merely attempt to give its side of the issue through the State media, on the cardinal principal that there are two sides to every coin. Remember, it was the PA in 1994 that allowed private TV to air their own news and current affairs broadcast as part of the process of restoring democracy in Sri Lanka. Prior to that the UNP information policy under our modern day Puran Appu was to monopolise the news by the State-owned Rupavahini - so much for his liberal democratic credentials.

Moreover, the private media probably harbours grave doubts about the ability of its half-truths and outright falsehoods to hold water under tight scrutiny or criticism. Which is perhaps what prompts them to seek to silence the State media. Take for example the public debate about the economy. The UNP through the private media have been raising a cacophony that the economy is crumbling.

In response the State media has made a relatively feeble rebuttal that this is shortterm pain brought on by external factors and that longterm prospects are better. The reality of the economy lies somewhere between the two extremes - that it's hit rock bottom or it's all rosy. Let the public make an informed choice. But the doomsday prophets in the private media, those "independent and free" media types would seek to stifle the opposing voice of the State media, demonstrating a dangerous trend that rather like the Party they support, they are intolerant of dissent, which is surely crucial for a free society.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager