It is not always that the media have to talk about themselves, their job being to report what's going on in the world outside, inside their country and their locality. The fundamental task before them - to keep the public informed.

For a very long time, the media in Sri Lanka have been under siege. Government leaders have found living with a free media often uncomfortable. But the free media form a pillar of any democratic society.
Newspaper houses have been proscribed, editors have been prosecuted, journalists have been pursued and pilloried, and censorship there has been galore over the years. And for quite some time now, there has been a war within a war, journalists caught in the cross-fire of a quarter century-old insurgency.

The situation has now become intolerable; on that there is unanimity among the members of the Fourth Estate. It was too much for any publisher worth his salt to stomach. An unending series of brazen physical attacks saw an unprecedented show of solidarity last week, not seen even in 1964 when all newspaper groups rallied together against the take-over of Lake House. Publishers did not face a press conference of local and foreign correspondents then. The primary concern has been the safety of their own. Lives are at stake. Some have been fortunate to survive the ordeal, while others have not.

Publishers, journalists and media workers in the North and East have been the hardest hit. Almost always, their cries are not heard in Colombo. When they step out of their homes and offices, there is a multitude of persons with gun in hand and axe to grind. It’s a recorded fact that Sri Lanka recorded the most number of killings of media personnel in Asia last year. All armed groups are collectively responsible for this dubious distinction. Ultimately, however, the buck stops with the President of the Republic and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces - a friend of the media not so long ago.

Those responsible for the recent wave of attacks, splashed all over these days in the media, is freely talked about. And it would seemingly appear that they, in fact, want it known too, to have a chilling effect on what they see as a truant media. This explains why the Police have got the unsaid message to look the other way. The media in general, and defence analysts in particular, have an unenviable task. They must report on what is, undeniably the most important issue before the country. On the one hand, a ruthless fascist organisation is trying to split the nation. It has waged an armed struggle that is bleeding the country to slow-death. Its defeat is a sine quo non for the very survival of the nation. On the other hand, we have elected governments, always eager to translate battlefield successes into political mileage, and those prosecuting the war knowing that only too well.

The 'white van syndrome' that has now stuck as part of this government's legacy is not some random intimidatory gesture. It would seem to have some powerful patronage which enables its participants to move about with impunity. From ostensibly security connected activities, it now has extended to deal with news and views concerning the conduct of the war.

There lies the underlying concern, that the erosion of the fundamentals of a free society has begun.
The Defence Establishment has made it crystal clear that it is entirely focused on winning the war against the terrorists, and that anything or anyone standing in the way will be treated as an obstacle. In a different signal its officials have said they dislike reportage of military strategies, procurement or appointments. What they want is a carte blanche for the Armed Forces to do their job without let or hindrance, or distractions. And there is large support for this school of thought.

The crunch is that the media do not agree with that view, entirely. While there cannot be any argument on divulging strategies beforehand and endangering the lives of troops, are military blunders sacred cows? Should one ignore corruption, a matter all Service Chiefs will readily agree exists at different levels? There is public support for this argument as well. Arguments are aplenty that in foreign countries, the media support its Forces in times of war. But counter-arguments are equally plentiful about the dereliction of duty by the media in not pointing out the shortcomings at the right time, and leaving wounds to fester than highlighting them when it mattered. The Armed Forces are gallantly fighting to end a tyrannical foe, not to replace it with another brand of the same. The media on the other hand must come to terms with the fact that the officers, men and women of the Tri-Services are shedding their blood and laying down their lives for a worthy cause and for the very survival and future of this nation.

An astute government would make the most of the national media rather than clobber them into submission. To maintain a balance between them lies very heavily on the shoulders of the President. He must ensure that Sri Lanka does not slide towards becoming another Zimbabwe for instance, by those living here and abroad. The conclusion that something must be done to reverse this trend, is obvious.