News

News

State media and elections: A response
A group of academics and lawyers, referring to our last week's Editorial headlined "State Media and polls" have sent us the following response:

Having carefully read the detailed reply Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar, Minister of Mass Communications, had sent to the General Secretary of the United National Party, Mr. Senerath Kapukotuwa, regarding the latter's allegations of bias, incorrect and unfair reporting by the State media, we are surprised by your observation that Mr. Kadirgamar "has now caved in to the latter argument [vide that of the State media heads that the State media had a duty to correct that imbalance, and therefore, support the President] by the looks of his letter this week to the UNP Secretary, and with it relegated himself from respected public figure to everyday politician".

Minister Kadirgamar's reply at no stage states that the State media has to correct the imbalance in the reporting during the election campaign, and therefore, should support the President. In fact the Minister has taken great pains to show that he has taken action for the State media to implement the Right of Reply, with regard to any wrong reporting, and also has given examples of the occasions this was done since he took over the relevant portfolio. This is a welcome departure from the past.

The Minister's reply does not show that the State media is wholly without blame, but stresses the fact that the existence of a very large private media that has its own media agenda in connection with the reportage of the elections, and the refusal of the UNP leadership to use the opportunities available in the State media for coverage of its events, makes it difficult for the State media to be fully balanced in its coverage of the elections. His example of the Prime Minister refusing to use the State media to address the nation makes this very clear.

In a very pertinent and pointed response to the allegation by the UNP's Secretary that the Chairmen and Boards of Management of the State Media Institutions are all appointees made after the President took over this Ministry on November 3, 2003, Mr. Kadirgamar asks whether it is the position of the UNF, even by implication, that if these institutions had been under the UNF Government at the time the elections were announced, the political appointees of the Prime Minister and the UNF who held these positions from December 2001, would have been replaced by other persons, who could be considered neutral or independent, during the period of this election.

He also draws the notice of the public to the fact that when the March 2002 local government elections were held, involving at least 2,000 local bodies, and when the UNF Government said it had received an endorsement of its general election mandate, there were no such changes in these key positions in the State media institutions.

One must also note that the Organization of Professional Associations in its own observations on the role of the media in the conduct of a free and fair election, did state that the private media too needed to be fair and unbiased as far as possible in the interests of the public at a time such as this, and even suggested that guidelines by the Commissioner of Elections should cover the private media, too.

What Mr. Kadirgamar has done as Minister in charge of this subject is to open the way for a healthy debate on the role of the media itself, and also the special role or function of the State media in the context of Sri Lankan political developments. We would expect respected newspapers such as "The Sunday Times" to participate in this debate in a healthy and constructive manner, so that together the State and the private media could build a better media culture in this country, not confined to the period of an election.

We note that your editorial in its last paragraphs has been appreciative of at least some changes or innovations that have taken place in the State media, with regard to political skits, in the context of the current elections. That, as well as the acceptance by the State media of the Right of Reply is an important new development. We hope that with the progress of a good debate on the role and responsibility of the media, in the overall context of the country and its needs, we would see a greater improvement in the State media. We must appreciate that there is some new beginning.

You state that: "In most democracies, there is no such thing as State media. In some countries like Japan, there is even no Media Ministry. Political leaders are left to their own devices to win the support of the Press." The very reference to "most democracies" shows that in other democracies a State media does exist. There are many such democracies, even in the West. The example of Japan bears little comparison with Sri Lanka, given the economic giant that country is, and the opportunities for candidates or political parties to win the support of the Press.

The conditions here are certainly different. What we see in the Minister's reply to the Secretary of the UNP is far removed from what we have heard and read from everyday politicians. He is prepared to take issue with the allegations made by the UNP Secretary, admit flaws, offer solutions to existing problems, and look beyond the confines of electoral politics to a transformed State media which would in fact function as a Public Interest Media in the future. There are many hurdles to be cleared before that goal can be achieved. It would be in the larger public interest if your prestigious newspaper too could play a serious role in achieving that very commendable goal.

As regular readers of The Sunday Times, we trust you will give this response adequate publicity and prominence in your valuable newspaper. Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Prof Jagath Wickramasinghe, Nigel Hatch, M M Zuhair, Prof Bandula Karunatilaka, Prof G Samaranayake, Dr Vijitha Nanayakkara, M P Jayathilaka, Dr. A Senaratne, Aruna Rajapakse, R A W Ranasinghe, V Kumar, Dr P B R Dissanayake, Dr H Dheerananda, N P M Sarifdeen, Dr Ranjith Amarasinghe, Dr. M D Nelson, R M Ruwan Kumara, K M R Dasanayaka, Tissa Atukorala, R Maheswaran, Dr A M Navaratna Bandara and Dr C P Udawatta

Our Comment:
We are told that the above statement is by a group of lecturers at the University of Peradeniya, but the entire exercise has been devalued by the few names of lawyers on top of the list - unashamed card-carrying apologists of the PA.

It may not take much to hazard the guess that this 'petition' was the work of those apologists, and therefore does not deserve reproduction, but we have decided to do so merely as a courtesy to the caretaker Information Minister whom these petitioners seek to defend.

The petitioners say that "at no stage" does the Minister say "that the State media has to correct the imbalance in the reporting during the election campaign, and therefore, should support the President".

Should these petitioners remove their tints from their reading glasses, they might re-read from the 9th paragraph from the end of the Minister's letter, beginning with the words;

"I now turn to my final observation on the question of media coverage during a general election ....". What does the Minister say? He says;

1. "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 (UNP) in relation to the President and her party".

2. When the Ministry of Mass Communication is held by the UNP this imbalance is exacerbated

3. There is a legal duty on the part of the SLRC and SLBC to promote unbiased and impartial reporting during an election campaign.

4. It is a matter for consideration whether the public has a moral right, especially during an election campaign, to receive from the entire media, both state and private, fair and balanced coverage of the views of all political parties.

5. "Thus the 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".

This was not what the Minister said when he assumed office and gave guidelines to the State media, for this is what he said then;

"The private media belongs to its owners, who may use it as they please. The State media belongs to the people. It cannot be used by the Government of the day as it pleases".

The State media bosses thereafter wrote on their own to the Elections Commissioner irregularly on the Information Ministry's letter-heads and said inter-alia;

"... it becomes incumbent on the State media to not only ensure an internal balance of news and views within its own institutions, but also to ensure an overall balance of reportage and coverage in the media as a whole".

Don't these petitioners see how the words of the media bosses have crept into the Minister's revised views - especially how the words "an internal balance" have crept in?

Frankly, all this is new jargon for us journos, and that is exactly why we said that the Minister most unfortunately "caved in" to the argument of the State media bosses.

Our position simply is, the state media belongs to the people - not to any Government or party, be it UNP, SLFP or JVP, and therefore not to be abused by it for its electioneering propaganda. The theory of "internal balances" or " National balances" is just an impracticable excuse to continue the abuse of the State media.

This position of ours does not change with each changing season.

Top

Back to News