Media and disinformation

Mass media is a powerful instrument in the dissemination of news, views and information. Since the media has a hold on the public it is expected to perform its functions within a code of ethics.

A basic ethic in the media is to be truthful. It is also expected to publish, broadcast or telecast news without comment. Comment, of course, is not prohibited. Actually it is a necessity. What is excluded, however, is disinformation.

Perusing the media for the past several weeks one could find many instances of disinformation. Let us take a few examples. The Presidential election that was held on January 26 was by far the most peaceful and incident free one. Compared to it, even the first general election in 1947 look quite violent. This is a fact. However, certain sections of the media began to paint it as violent and rigged. Observers, both local and international first accepted that it was fair. Only later did some local observers begin to look for incidents in order to tarnish the result.

The Elections Commissioner gave a detailed account of the election, the counting procedure and concluded that it was free and fair. Even this did not stop the detractors from propagating disinformation.

The latest disinformation campaign is with regard to the arrest of former Army Commander and Chief of Defence Staff General Sarath Fonseka by the Army. He was arrested by the Army under Article 57 (1) of the Sri Lanka Army Act which empowers the Army to arrest any officer for offences committed during his service before the expiry of six months after his retirement. In instances of mutiny and some other offences he could be arrested even after six months. Now this is a fact. One may or may not agree with the arrest or the manner of arrest. It is one's opinion. Any one is entitled to his or her opinion. That does not permit any one to conclude that the arrest was illegal as certain media and certain politicians claim. Any media or person who propagates that view is carrying out disinformation and misleading the public as to the powers of the Army.

The danger of disinformation lies in that the enemies of the country could use them to bring discredit to the country and even put it in embarrassing situations which could even compromise national security and state sovereignty.

Already the United Nations Secretary General and several heads of states have called upon the political parties and the Government to end post-election violence. Yet, there is no post-election violence.

When thousands of employees were sacked in the July 1983 strike no one made any accusations of human rights violations.

It is time to halt the disinformation campaign and return to principled ethical conduct.

Just not cricket

In 1997 a Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna proposed the use of a Third Umpire in an appellate capacity with powers to entertain and decide upon appeals from a player dissatisfied with the decision of an on field umpire.

Twelve years later after much debate and discussion in the cricket world the ICC accommodated Weeraratne's proposal in the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS). The rule became applicable in Test Cricket from October 1, 2009.

Even though the key mechanism of the UDRS is Weeraratne's proposal the ICC has still not recognized his authorship. Though the Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) has accepted his authorship it has also shown a lukewarm attitude and not canvassed vigorously to get it accepted by the ICC.

Even the international media remain silent on the question of authorship in this case. This is in contrast to the established practice in the ICC where two Englishmen, for example , Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis were projected as authors of the Duckworth Lewis rule applicable to rain affected one-day matches.

We cannot understand the logic of the ICC unwillingness to give credit to Senaka Weeraratna. Only reason we could surmise is that it is yet another instance of racial prejudice.

The ICC must realize that the West has lost its hold on the cricketing world as more Asian, African and Latin American nations are taking up the game. It is high time that the ICC got down from its colonial ivory tower and recognizes talent wherever it is found. ICC reluctance to give in is just not cricket.