Towards a national media policy

This article is reprinted from the issue of the Daily News, of October 16, 2007, for two compelling reasons. Firstly, in today's on-going public dialogue on a National Media Policy, the views in this article make a substantial contribution. Secondly, the writer Kalakeerthi Edwin Ariyadasa, is 89 today. (December 3, 2011) Excerpts from the keynote address delivered by Kalakeerthi Edwin Ariyadasa, at a panel discussion sponsored by the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS) recently. Kalakeerthi Edwin Ariaydasa is the chairman of the committee appointed to formulate a national media policy for Sri Lanka. Given here are his personal views.

Over the last few years, there has been a whole series of tentative initiatives at establishing guidelines to provide, if possible, a sense of direction to the practice of media in this country. In most instances these efforts have proved ad hoc exercises, prompted by an urge to cope with a development or developments, in the current media scene. Though these tended to be temporary palliatives, there has not been any substantial, co-ordinated or seriously formulated move to integrate all those ephemeral responses, into a lasting national media policy.

The theme of the present discussion has been spelt out as ‘Towards a National Media Policy for Sri Lanka.’ The public appearance of the draft of the national media policy, formulated by the committee appointed to propose a national media policy, does not in any way diminish the poignance of the present theme. The draft is in the public domain, to elicit public responses, which will enable the formulation of the final form of the National media Policy. Given this background, we are still in the process of tending towards a national media policy.

Such isolated sentiments as freedom of expression, freedom to be heard or freedom of information were bandied around, mostly as election pledges. More often than not, such expressions proved convenient shibboleths, bereft of significance. Though some Acts of Parliament approached the spirit of a media policy, they remained at the level of basic guidelines.

Nearly 60 years after Independence, the practice of media in this country presents an excessively turbulent picture. And, this amalgam consists of both positive and negative factors.

Today, the present government has taken a decisive step towards the formulation of a national media policy, that would impose order on this chaotic media field and would contribute towards the definition of our national identity.

While we forge ahead towards the formulation of a national media policy for Sri Lanka, we should be quite clear in our minds about what a media policy actually is. A media policy is not at all a tool to regulate, to punish, ban or proscribe. On the other hand it is a covenant of honour, establishing the values we uphold and the abuses we abhor, for the purposes of defining our national identity in terms of media practice.

It is of utmost importance that, a media policy should ensure the emergence of a national media practice that, not only serves public interest, but with equal commitment, inspires the trust of the media-consuming masses.

The duty and the responsibility of a national media policy, will be to create the enabling environment, in which the media personnel could practice their profession, without betraying the trust the public places in them. The media can engender that trust only if their freedom of expression is not curtailed and their desire to keep their public well and adequately informed is not thwarted.

Freedom of expression

It is essential therefore, that freedom of speech and untrammeled expression of views should be elevated to a high level in a national media policy.

My considered view of the matter, is that had we been properly focused upon the need for national policies in vital sectors, at the time we won independence, the framers of our constitution would have decidedly and adequately accommodated freedom of speech and expression in that crucial document. When the colonial Americans broke away from their mother country - United Kingdom - they adopted on March 4, 1789, one of the world's oldest national constitutions. On December 15, 1791, ten amendments to the constitution were adopted.

These came to be known as the Bill of Rights. The first among these Articles reads this way; ‘Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a readress of grievances.’ In any worthwhile national media policy, it is imperative that freedom of speech and the freedom of media should receive priority placement, because the central requirement for building public trust in media, is that they should transmit unabridged truth to the public.

If a national media policy commits itself to the safeguarding of the freedom of media, it cannot, logically speaking, impose regulatory measures on media practice. It is here, that there should be a solid compact between a media policy and media practice.

Quality consciousness

The spirit of a media policy, derives primarily from the media practice, prevalent at the time of the formulation of such a media policy. In today's media practice in Sri Lanka, one of the dominant drawbacks is the deterioration of quality. To discern what quality loss is, it is essential to take a look at what constitutes Quality Journalism. Defining this concept Jean Seaton states in her work ‘Carnage and the Media-The Making and Breaking of News About Violence'. (2005) ‘Quality journalism attempts to make sense of unfolding stories as clearly as possible. Like a scientific observation this can be done only by using reflective knowledge that is historical in form. This kind of journalism needs curiosity and expertise. It needs local familiarity with the context of events'.

Achievement of this status of quality is an exacting and demanding process. Educated curiosity, sustained expertise, intense commitment to the search for truth are called for if quality is to elevate media messages. If quality is not pursued as a central value in media, the practice of media could easily slip into works of atrocious taste, as these can easily be negotiated.

A national policy for Sri Lanka should be specifically conscious of this quality loss. In most instances, what are meant to be sober public discourses, staged mainly on the popular platform provided by the small screen, plummet into raucous, harsh and soul-searing verbal squabbles, stopping at times, just short of fisticuffs.

A media policy cannot directly intervene to regulate these communications atrocities, which are an outrage to the media consuming public. But, provision should be found in a media policy to persuade media practitioners to recognize their social responsibility to refrain from foisting such inane effusions on the masses.

Accountability

Some areas of media practice in Sri Lanka are sorely marred by an attitude of arbitrariness and gross irresponsibility. Whatever may be the proddings or the biases that dictate and determine this state of deviation from the right path, a Media Policy should take due note of this development and should propose measures to correct this anomaly.

Though it may be outside the purview of a media policy, it would be quite helpful, if we could enable Sri Lanka's national media policy, to signal a series of provisions, that could counter this entrenched arbitrariness and irresponsibility. In some countries US for instance - national commissions have occasionally been established by the state or private foundations to assess the responsiveness of the media to society. Some among them are ‘Commissions on the Freedom of the Press, Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence and Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting.

If a media policy could usher in, the environment in which such investigatory bodies could emerge and function, it will go a long way towards inhibiting the arbitrariness and irresponsibility prevalent in some sectors of media, while contributing substantially towards the augmentation of knowledge about press freedom and responsibility and about the impact, operations and capacities of media institutions in open societies.

In the absence of a clearly defined attitude towards women, children and other segments of underprivileged persons in society, the media tend to adopt, at times, postures that are harmful to these vulnerable groups.

Certain media programmes, both in the print and the electronic sector, exert an injurious effect on the child-mind. This stance may not be a deliberate posture. But, its negative impact on the personality of children is, in any way, inescapable. Some of these media presentations, meant for children, set up an emulative process in children. The outcome of such a development could lead to situations, that could even be life-threatening. Being specifically conscious of this kind of negative impact of media, is a social duty that a media policy has to perform.

The obnoxious phenomenon of the run-away escalation of the victimization of media-practitioners, specifically because of their professional commitment, is the troubling outcome of the social turmoil of our day. As UN sources vouch, the numbers of those media professionals who are killed while they perform their duties, increase year after year. No other professional groups pay so grievously for their dedication to duty, as men and women of media.