Thoughts from London

Snooty politicians show no respect for the media
So the prime minister came and went. He did not come alone. He had three cabinet ministers with him. Two of them represent the government at the peace talks with the LTTE.

The composition of the delegation showed the importance of the talks the Prime Minister was having with his British counterpart and other ministers. The presence of the two government negotiators heightened the importance of this visit as the delegation also met Norwegian government representatives to discuss ways of getting the peace process back on the rails.

Tagging along with the official delegation was a group of Sri Lankan journalists who were obviously expected to cover the events. The very fact that the government decided to invite journalists showed that the Prime Minister and his administration considered the visit important enough to require on-the-spot coverage.

Yet the manner in which the accompanying media were treated showed not only official disrespect for the media as a whole but also the lack of opportunity for adequate and independent coverage of the London visit.

I am told that the accompanying journalists were briefed by a media official from the Prime Minister's office. That official was apparently briefed by the Prime Minister's secretary who himself had been briefed by the Prime Minister or a minister.

So the journalists were getting a third hand story. And what are the possibilities of getting answers to questions that would inevitably arise from the briefing? Hardly any immediate responses. And even if immediate responses were forthcoming, they could hardly carry the weight that would surely come from a more authoritative source.
Understandably the government would be concerned how the news is reported particularly because of the sensitivity of some of the issues.

Surely that is all the more reason why the news media should be briefed by authoritative sources who are in a position to answer sensitive and critical questions. Leaving the task to a minor official, even if that official has been briefed, is hardly the manner in which a responsible government, sensitive to the importance of the news media and respectful of it, would behave.

Bringing along a group of journalists in itself does not underline the importance the government attaches to coverage. It is the manner in which the journalists are handled and permitted to perform their task which is to cover the story fully, that shows whether the government is acting responsibly.

The media are invited because it is the medium that carries the message to the public. To constrict the task of the messenger and to deny him the opportunity of asking questions at the highest levels of government shows not only a lack of respect for the media but also for the public to which both the government and the media should be responsible.

The attitude of this government to the media, for all its public utterances and attempts to convince foreign institutions of its commitment to a free and independent press, is best expressed in the Sinhala saying "Kapanne beri atha imbinawa wage" (kissing the hand you cannot sever).

Basically it has a rather snooty approach to the media- a Colombo 7 parlour nose- in- the- air attitude. At a Foreign Office briefing last week when I asked about the Sri Lanka Prime Minister's visit, the spokesman said he expected the question but had little to say. Why? Because the Sri Lanka Government wanted "a low key visit."

Now if that is the official attitude of the government why drag a group of journalists along like an unwanted appendix? Particularly when the accompanying journalists are not permitted to add more than the media releases that are issued in Colombo anyway.

If the government wants to placate the media by taking a few journalists along to capitals some of them have not visited before it should leave the task to the Tourist Board or SriLankan Airlines.

But if it wants to show it takes the media seriously, then its manner and actions should show it. The problem lies partly with the media which have a kind of 'incestuous' relationship with political leaders. Some media deliberately cultivate them and behave slavishly in their presence, bowing and scraping. This has tended to breed a kind of superiority in the political psyche and politicians have come to believe that the media can be kicked around at their political will and pleasure.

If the Sri Lankan media want to kick this habit of servility they must start picking up the strands of robust and unbiased coverage based on the fundamental principle of the public's right to know. Let the local media look round and pick the best of such reporting as examples of how to deal with the political establishment and officialdom when they try to evade issues and deny the public its right to information.
Last week, for example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was put on trial. The charge was that he had lied to parliament and the public and led the country into an unjustified war with Iraq.

It was admittedly trial by the media in the sense that the programme was produced by Channel 4 and conducted by the respected Jon Snow. Yet it was not trial by media in the usually derogatory sense of the phrase used by politicians and others often to cover up their own indiscretions, misdemeanours and inadequacies.

Channel 4 did not act as judge and jury and pronounce the verdict. That task was performed by a jury of 250 members of the public, selected by a research organisation as a representative sample of the British public.

The counsel for the prosecution and defence were journalists and a ex- intelligence officer and the witnesses for the two sides were prominent academics, researchers, politicians and intelligence officials with access to material on Iraq and the like.
When the jury voted at the end of the trial the verdict was overwhelmingly in favour of the prosecution -- Britain's leader had been tried and found wanting.

In British politics nothing is more serious than lying to parliament. In the life of a nation nothing is more serious than leading a country to war. How much more serious then if a country is led to war on false pretences and conjured up evidence in defiance of morality and international law?

In fact the minimum of truth and the use of spin doctoring to mislead the British people have been at the heart of a national debate that led the media to assess public opinion on a series of assertions made by the Blair government to justify its involvement in an enterprise that should go down in posterity as America Inc.

One of the most serious charges that has been made is that intelligence reports were jazzed up, or "sexed up" to use the phrase of the month, and outdated student research with significant changes made to show the imminent danger to the UK from Saddam Hussein.

Two important matters arise out of this and should serve as an object lesson to all politicians, particularly those in Sri Lanka who seem to treat their responsibilities to their vocation and the nation in a manner as cavalier as some of them would deal with their domestic relations.

The first is the lack of transparency in dealing with the public. The second is the spin applied to news and current events that would put to shame even a Muralitharan.
Much of the problems that Blair faces today is because he and his cronies have not been open with the public and that a battery of spin-misters have spun the leaders into a web of deceit and culpability.

Admittedly the British media leave plenty to be desired. But by and large they tend to create public opinion and reflect public views on domestic issues with a vigour that is admirable.

If the Channel 4 trial of Blair is the kind of journalism that is required to bring home to a prime minister that he is living in a vainglorious world of his own making, it is a journalism that Sri Lanka needs to shake up the bloated egos of some politicians who think that power is eternal and they have descended from Olympus.

Back to Columns