Archives

Minister of Information and Telecommunication Lakshman Kadirgamar replying to allegations levelled by UNP General Secretary, Senarath Kapukotuwa that State media institutions were being controlled by political appointees, has reminded the UNP General Secretary that when the State media was under the UNF, all Boards of Management and key positions had been held by persons who were political appointees and also by members of the UNF government's propaganda unit.

Kadirgamar has stated he did not think it can be credibly argued that had the State media institutions been under the control of the UNF government at the time of dissolution of Parliament, non-political appointments would have been made to such positions.

Recalling the past evidence to substantiate his claim, the Minister has recalled the period of the local government elections in March 2002, covering a large part of the country, after which the UNF had said it was the mandate further endorsed by the people, the same political appointees of the UNF had controlled and directed the State media institutions.

The Minister in his reply has regretted that despite airwaves, channels as well as space in the State media being available to the UNF, the members of the UNF did not participate in talk shows and other programs of political interest to the public.

"In such a situation it is difficult to give balanced coverage of the UNF's point of view", the Minister has stressed.

The Minister has pointed out that the UNF cannot simultaneously boycott the State media, while complaining of inadequate or biased coverage of its activities.

Following is the full text of Minister Kadirgamar's letter to the UNP General Secretary:

Re:conduct of State Media Institutions

I refer to your letter dated 19th February, 2004.

I have considered it carefully over the weekend having instructed the relevant officials of my Ministry to study its contents and give me a report.

Let me commence this reply by referring to the letter dated 20th November, 2003 addressed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Mass Communication to all Secretaries of Ministries, secretaries of all political parties and a large number of others informing them, on the directions of the President, who was then Minister of Mass Communication, that free air time will be allocated on the State electronic media to all the political parties represented in Parliament "to enable them to educate the public regarding their political party".

As far as I am aware this policy directive is unprecedented. There appears to be no rule, regulation, convention or guideline that requires the Minister of Mass Communication to grant free air time to any political party on the State electronic media.

In his recent letter to the Commissioner of Elections, copied to me, the Deputy Leader of the UNP, Mr. Karu Jayasuriya, made a number of allegations of bias and misconduct against the State media. I requested him, when he telephoned me, to send me details to substantiate his allegations. He said he would do so but has not in fact done so up-to-date.

By their letter dated 12th February, 2004 to the Commissioner of Elections, the heads of the State media institutions refuted the allegations made by Mr. Karu Jayasuriya and made a series of counter allegations against your party.

I note that your letter too contains a number of allegations of bias and misconduct on the part of the State media in favour of President Kumaratunga and her party couched in strong language.

For instance, you, say that the State media is being used as 'propaganda organs of one political party'; that 'the degree of bias on the State media today is unprecedented', that 'the Boards of Management of these institutions continue to be controlled by political appointees'; that 'the state controlled Independent Television Network and the Lakhanda Radio Service are also administered by political supporters of the President'; that 'during the past ten days, following the announcement of elections the State media has functioned in contravention of all rules, regulations, conventions and guidelines applicable to State media institutions during election campaigns;' that 'this conduct is also in cynical contravention of the guidelines regarding State media conduct issued by (me) on taking office;' that there is an urgent necessity to address the 'appalling nature of State media behaviour during the last ten days'.

However, you have not sent me, or directed my attention to, any material in support of any of these rather sweeping allegations. You could have invited me to consider the specific rules, regulations, conventions and guidelines applicable to State media institutions during election campaigns which have, in your view, been contravened. You have not done so.

Thus, in order to inform myself of the 'appalling nature of State media behaviour during the last ten days, I called for a list of clarifications and corrections, if any, sought from and made by the State media over that period. I believe that the offer of a right of reply to an aggrieved person is one important way of testing a media institution's attitude to allegations of biased reportage. My inquiries yielded the following information:

Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC)

At Rupavahini a system has been in place since 4th November, 2003 of informing in writing a person in respect of whom some adverse news story is to be telecast that if he wishes to "air" his views he should contact the Deputy Director General (News and Current Affairs) at a given telephone number.

In pursuance of this policy Mr. Charitha Ratwatte, for instance, was so informed in writing on 16th February that an allegation of bribery against him would be referred to. He replied in writing on 17th February refuting the allegation and the refutation was aired immediately. Other instances of corrections relate to the following persons:

(a) Mr. K.N. Choksy, telecast on the Visanvadaya programme

(b) Mr. Paskaralingam, telecast on 16th February

(c) Mr. Tilak Marapane, telecast on 18th February

Independent Television Network (ITN)

A correction was telecast on the news bulletin of 13th February regarding irregular appointments and promotions in the UDA after dissolution of Parliament, at the request of Mr. S. Amarasekera, Secretary to the Ministry of Western Regional Development.

Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC)

A correction was carried over SLBC on 19th February at the request of Mr. Choksy regarding the settlement of Yashoda Group liabilities.

Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited (ANCL)

At least three corrections of clarifications have been made by ANCL newspapers after 27th November 2003 which are not itemized in detail because you referred to "the appalling record of the last ten days".

The above list is incomplete since there were only a few days for its compilation after receipt of your letter. I have instructed the State media to keep a record of all requests received for clarifications and corrections and what action has been taken on them.

I would appreciate it if you could obtain for me a list of requests for clarifications and corrections and any action taken on them during the nearly two year period when the UNF government held the Ministry of Mass Communications.

I could profit from a comparison of the two lists and possibly improve the performance of my Ministry over the next 35 days.

At present there is a policy in place on the correction of news by the State print and electronic media. When a clarification or correction of a news item is received the editor or other person in charge of the news will peruse the request and carry it giving it the same prominence that was given to the original news items.

However, if the editor or other person in charge disagrees with the contents of the clarification or correction, a note will also be carried stating the editor's position.

In the case of the electronic media the clarification or correction will, after perusal, be carried in the same programme on which the original item was aired.

Further, aggrieved parties will also be given the opportunity to participate where necessary in any appropriate programme which will enable them to air their views. If any aggrieved party feels that a clarification or correction is not given due publicity he or she may appeal to the Secretary to the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications (Fax No. 2542861 Tel. Nos. 2346762/2346767).

As for your charge that "the Boards of Management of these State media institutions also continue to be controlled by political appointees", I am constrained to remind you that when the State media was under the control of the UNF government all Boards of Management and key positions in these institutions were held by persons who were political appointees, and also members of the UNF government's propaganda unit.

The making of political appointments to the Boards of Management of State media institutions has become an inveterate practice over many years.

I do not think it can credibly be argued that had the State media institutions been under the control of the UNF government at the time of dissolution of Parliament, non-political appointments would have been made to these positions.

It is also useful to recollect that during the local government elections that were held in March 2002, covering a large part of the country, after which the UNF said its mandate had been further endorsed by the people these same political appointees of the UNF controlled and directed those media institutions.

Today the airwaves and channels, as well as space in the State media, are open to the UNF. However, members of the UNF do not participate in the talk shows and other programmes of political interest to the public. In such a situation it is difficult to give balanced coverage of the UNF's point of view.

It seems to me that your party cannot simultaneously boycott the State media while complaining of inadequate or biased coverage of its activities. For instance, the Prime Minister, who also leads your party, thought if fit to make his recent address to the nation only on the private media.

This gives the clear impression that your party does not need space or time in the State media, or considers the State media unnecessary, whether fairly or not, to communicate with people. However, as part of its duty by the public, the State media did give coverage to the Prime Minister's address.

I understand that it is the policy of the UNP to black out the State media from invitations to its political events connected with this election campaign. The Prime Minister is still to respond to an invitation dated 17th February extended by the Chairman of the SLRC to the Prime Minister's Secretary for an interview on its channels.

Thus, these well publicised complaints of your party of unfair treatment by the State media seem to me to be somewhat artificial in the face of a declared policy of non-cooperation with the State media.

I turn now to my final observation on the question of media coverage during a general election. Any fair observer of the local media scene would undoubtedly notice a marked imbalance in the general coverage extended by the private media to your party in relation to the President and her party.

When the Ministry of Mass Communications is held by your party this imbalance is exacerbated because your party then enjoys a preponderant advantage over the President and her party with respect to media coverage.

While there is, no doubt, a legal duty cast on the SLRC and the SLBC to promote unbiased and impartial reporting of news and views during the election campaign, it is perhaps a matter for consideration whether the public has a moral right, especially during the campaign, to receive from the entire media, both state and private, fair and balanced coverage of the views of all political parties.

Thus, a question for discussion could well be whether in addition to an internal balance between the political parties being maintained by the state media a national balance should be maintained by the media as a whole. I have noticed that the Commissioner of Elections seems to have in mind the same question.

In his letter dated 11th February he has laid down guidelines to be observed by the electronic media in regard to broadcasting/telecasting of matters relating to the pending general election without drawing any distinction between the state and the private electronic media.

Paragraph 3 of the letter states, inter alia, that all radio and television broadcasters should refrain from broadcasting/telecasting programmes likely to be construed as biased and partisan towards any political party etc. In paragraph 11 of his letter he expressed the hope that the media (again without differentiating the state from the private media) "will voluntarily observe a code of conduct designed by themselves in order to promote unbiased and impartial reporting of news and views during the election campaign."

In conclusion, let me say that I would be happy to arrange a meeting with you to suit our mutual convenience and I would request you to contact my private secretary (telephone Nos. 2676630/2682692) to fix a suitable date and time.

It would he helpful if you could send me in advance any material that you have in support of the allegations you have made so that our discussion could focus on details rather than generalities.

Since your letter is already in the public domain I am releasing this letter to the media. I am also sending a copy to the Commissioner of Elections."

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.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