Thoughts from London

Feverishly gnashing their nationalistic molars
That was the week that was. I cannot recall in recent years when so much newsprint was spent in hurling so much abuse by a relatively small section of the media in such a short time on a single person on the briefest of visits.

It does not take modern-day sages such as Minister and TV interviewer extraordinaire Milinda Moragoda or Dr. Jehan Perera of something called the National Peace Council to guess who and what I am referring to. For a moment I thought all the excitement must be because Zeus had descended from Olympus. But it was only Christopher Patten, now Commissioner for External Relations of the European Union and formerly governor of Hong Kong. Patten who withstood years of abuse by the Beijing leadership and some lesser but richer mortals in Hong Kong and left a legacy that is now being appreciated, is hardly likely to find the petulance of those wishing to emulate those bulls in a China shop more than a minor and amusing diversion.

If a section of the media believe it is their calling to abuse Christopher Patten, who visited Sri Lanka recently, that is its business. Patten does not need a defender. He is quite capable of doing so himself, if need be, as he so clearly demonstrated during his five years in Hong Kong and thereafter.

But when all the chastisement is in the name of a high moral purpose there is a heavy responsibility cast on the media and those who write for them to be factual, accurate and observe certain journalistic norms and practices, even when it is done with the gnashing of nationalistic molars. Protestors who carry placards and believe they are rebels with a cause are not bound by the same ethical standards as the media, though one does wish at times they were.

Their intention is to gain attention while pulverising persons or institutions. They could be generally excused for their attempts at being witty and succinct at the expense of accuracy and truth. But the media cannot be allowed the same elasticity and to abdicate their commitment to truth and accuracy. The media are more than the mere purveyor of entertainment. Those who claim to be the watchdog of the public and defend their right to be the Fourth Estate cannot, and indeed should not, take the same liberties with truth and accuracy as those who stand outside the Hilton Hotel and display placards saying Patten is the chief guest at "murderer Prabhakaran's birthday party."

If a section of the media does not wish Patten to come to Sri Lanka it is its right to say so. The freedom of expression should not be circumscribed except by law and in special circumstances. That right should be preserved and defended. While one climbs the editorial soapbox and preaches righteousness and patriotism with great gusto, one should also be humble enough to recognise that they and their ilk have no permanent licence on verity and accuracy.

So when attention is drawn to factual errors and historical inaccuracies appearing in print, do these great media publish the corrections out of respect for their misinformed readers, if not respect for themselves. Of course not. Why? Because then the ignorance and misinformation are exposed to public view.

Who invited Patten and all that is a different issue. One thing is clear. Patten did not invite himself, as those who understand matters of protocol will know. One might disagree strongly with the government's policy of increasingly involving the international community in Sri Lanka's main national issue. That could be debated till the cows come home.

To vent one's spleen on Patten who came not in his individual capacity but as the representative of the European Union which is co-chair of the Tokyo arrangement, on the assumption he was going to do certain things or utter certain thoughts was, to say the least, premature. Then when Patten does not do what was assumed and makes remarks which seem more acceptable to his critics, then at least have the journalistic objectivity, if courtesy is too much to expect, to provide balanced analysis. Is that too much to expect?

As though to give some argumentative credibility to the philistine hostility of the earlier anti-Patten tirades who enters the ring, but a writer by the name of Nalin Swaris and a Dr. to boot. I mean he is not the kind of chap who slogs for six years at medical school and then is shunted off to some hospital where he spends his years prescribing aspirin for the lack of other drugs. Every week or so I receive unwanted emails offering me doctorates from American universities and other institutions, some even here in England without really having to exert myself mentally. All one needs is a fistful of dollars or Sterling Pounds.

A dissertation is merely optional. Actually I've been thinking of one- IMF and the threat to the Sri Lankan hopper and I have already registered the subject with the WTO and every other place including the Metropolitian Police and the Anti-Terrorist Squad in case somebody runs off with the idea and ends up with Dr. prefixed to his name.
But that's another story and we must not neglect Dr. Swaris. Now if he was intended to be the intellectual heavyweight thrown into the ring against Patten he is punching far above his weight- I mean his intellectual weight.

He may be an academic godzilla in some circles, but his inordinately- long piece headlined "Patten of Euro-Arrogance" (and in two parts too), might not have passed muster at those on-line 'educational' institutions given the factual errors, inaccuracies and obvious lack of political perspicacity. Space constraints do not allow me to deal with Swaris at length. For the moment let me say this.

He claims Patten was dressed in the "full regalia of a model governor general" at the ceremony when Hong Kong was returned to China. Utter rubbish. As a journalist who spent 10 years in Hong Kong including the Patten years, he was one governor who never wore ceremonial dress. He wore business suit. By the way he was governor not governor general which is an entirely different designation.

Swaris says that after the ceremony Patten set sail on the Brittania for "the land of Hope and Glory". This must be the first time the Philippines has been called that, for Patten sailed to the Philippines not to Britain.

Swaris says that as Environment Minister Patten introduced the notorious Poll Tax that proved his undoing. The Poll Tax was passed in Parliament in 1988. Its architect at this stage was Michael Howard. That is why when Howard became Conservative Party leader recently, his Labour opponents kept needling him calling him "Mr Poll Tax". Patten who became Environment Secretary had to implement legislation already passed.

Patten lost his seat in Bath not because of the Poll Tax but because he canvassed for Tories across the country but hardly in his own electorate.His observations on China and Hong Kong politics are not only tendentious but argumentative frippery. But comments on those, alas, will have to wait.

Back to Columns