Archives

by Lucien Rajakarunanayake

Not surprisingly, the Free Media Movement jumped at the idea of setting up an Independent Media Council, to ensure the freedom of the State Media. They even asked for it as soon as possible, because an IFJ sponsored international conference on "The Challenge of Public Broadcasting in Asia" was held here from 1 to 3 December.

There is absolutely no need to take any such action just to impress some foreign media activists here for a conference. If any consensus is to be reached on this matter, it should be to convince the people of Sri Lanka of the commitment of the State to Media Freedom as a whole and not just one section of the media.

The FMM states: "in a statement released soon after the president took over the Ministry of Mass Communication, FMM urged the president and the government to take steps to transform state media into genuine public service media institutions. This request was reiterated and emphasized by two major international media and journalists' organizations, the International Press Institute (IPI) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), in separate statements issued soon afterwards."

Of these two organizations, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) at least issued a statement condemning the arbitrary action taken by the former Chairman of ANCL against a journalist of the "Dinamina' and even threatened raising it at the ILO.

The other organization, the International Press Institute (IPI), showed no concern about how journalists and workers in the government media organizations were treated from the time the UNF government was elected in December 2001. Even if one is to believe that the FMM had any concern about the large scale victimization of over 200 journalists and media personnel by the UNF government and its lackeys, it certainly did nothing to stop it all the while.

Even though suggested by the President, what prompts this haste to establish a Media Council to transform the State media into genuine public service media institutions? Personally, I am indeed wary of these commissions and councils, having seen the ill-thought out, but hastily introduced "independent commissions" to oversee the Police, the Public Service and the conduct of elections.

The 17th amendment to the Constitution that brought in these commissions was supported by all but the TNA members in Parliament, who had other priorities than the appointment of commissions.

Although the UNP, supported by the JVP, and actively backed by the private media, created the impression that independent commissions would be the panacea for all our political problems, reality shows that "government by commission" is certainly not working.

No Government media

The question that one has to ask now is why a Media Council for the State media only? There is certainly no fault in seeking ways and means of ensuring good Public Service Media in the country. It is proper for the State media to give a lead in this matter. But that is a long term solution and certainly cannot be achieved by a Media Council to see the "freedom" or "independence" of the State media only.

It is important to understand, whether one likes it or not, that there is a qualitative difference in what is described as the State media today. All these years there was the easy criticism that the institutions of the State media were the voice or even the trumpet of the Government.

However, with the recent take over the Ministry of Mass Communications by the President, and judging the emphasis with which the UNF seeks to distance itself from the President, showing that she is not part of Government, it is highly questionable whether the State media organizations can any more be considered the "Voice of the Government".

What has happened today is that there is a section of the media that is owned or controlled by the State that comes under the President, which by interpretation of the UNF's insistence that the President is not part of the Government, is an Opposition media, and not the servile voice of the Government anymore. It is this contrast, where the Government does not have control of a powerful section of the media, which prompts organizations such as the FMM and others to urge rapid action on consensus to transform the State media into a Public Service Media.

They ignore how the UNF government used these institutions for vengeance against journalists, contemptible public misinformation with open disregard for the truth, and to actively foster a decline in the values of decency and good taste, especially in the electronic media.

What we now have is a "State" media not controlled by a Parliamentary majority. Far from needing a Media Council to ensure the freedom of the State media, it is now the duty of President and the Opposition, that has greater influence over these sections of the media, to ensure there is much more independence for the journalists in these organizations, and carry out changes to make them represent a wider spectrum of public opinion on matters of national importance.

Creative methods should be found to make then carry out the genuine educational role that is part of their responsibility, in addition to entertainment, whether it is political or otherwise. Doing this, will to a large extent make them examples of Public Interest Media.

It is certainly not the role of the media to carry on balancing acts between the government and the opposition. The entire concept of balanced reportage is one by which you present all or as many sides to an issue or an event. It is not any proof of freedom to make media organizations assure political parties of a certain amount of time, especially on the electronic media.

With over 40 political parties registered in the country, this will be an impossible task to achieve. Giving time to parties represented in Parliament only, is being unfair by those that are not in Parliament that may have a valid point of view to present.

This kind of balancing act could justify a demand that a party or political grouping that has more MPs in Parliament should have a proportionately larger time than parties with lesser MPs. One must not forget that the parties represented Parliament have good organizational resources, and they can always express their views in Parliament, that will be reported.

The concept of balanced media coverage requires that more opportunity be given to the voices of dissent within society, and the assurance that what is reported is what is in fact topical, rich in content and newsworthy. The weighing of a subject should be on its merits of genuine public interest, and how much it will engender serious debate and discussion among the public.

This should not be to the exclusion of good, quality entertainment, with a considerable content of what is local, thereby fostering the development of local talent. In the current context in Sri Lanka, it is also necessary that both the print and electronic media, especially in Sinhala and Tamil, provide much more foreign news, analysis of foreign political developments as well as education and science.

All of this can be achieved without any Media Council to ensure the freedom of the State media. Also, one need not be overawed by the so-called BBC model in crafting our own guidelines in broadcasting.

Anyone who saw how BBC, as well as other wire services, reported what happened in Sri Lanka no sooner the President took over the portfolios of Defence, Interior and Mass Communications, will shudder at our trying to copy BBC models or standards of freedom or reportage. BBC told the world that what had taken place was a "coup" although not in the same word. The same report added, however, that everything was done very legally. The day after the President's action a BBC TV report on its South Asia service said the President had taken over the portfolio of Defence at a time when the Tamil Tigers were laying down their arms, and also decommissioning their weapons. From what cuckoo land did that story come?

So much for the BBC model! This is not to say one must not learn from the technological advances and the better traditions of the BBC, or even better the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other good international media institutions.

Include them all

If any Media Council is to be established it should of necessity cover the entire media in the country, both State and private. There is considerable criticism that can be made of the standards of the private media in this country, of its partisan nature and its massive contribution to the decline in standards of language, culture, decency and good taste. There are many questions about the freedom of the journalist in these organizations. The standards and quality of advertising, especially on TV, are also matters for grave concern. One must also not be led to believe that privatization of the state media is the answer to its many faults. That will only help replicate the currents evils of the private media.

For anyone who seeks to bring about changes in media culture through a media council, it will be useful to read the "Report of the Committee to Advise on the Reform of Laws Affecting Media Freedom and Freedom of Expression" that was chaired by none other than Mr. R. K. W. Goonesekere P. C. The committee was appointed by the PA Government in 1995, and it recommended a Media Council embracing all sectors or the media.

www.ppilk.com

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

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager