Editorial - The Sunday Times

Speculation was rife this week that the defence establishment -- or a certain influential section in it -- was arguing for a censorship on the reporting of war-related news as the fighting in the North and East, and the sporadic explosions in Colombo and elsewhere took a new turn. These sections were pointing out to one-off articles in the different newspapers, and the manner in which at least one local and one foreign television and radio station were reporting the news of these happenings, arguing that they were detrimental to the Armed Forces.

We understand that the Foreign Ministry had strongly counter-argued the case, saying that a censorship would bring more bad than good to the Government. Had the Government opted for the imposition of a censorship, there would have been a surfeit of hostile comments from the media at the decision -- the same comments made ad nauseam over the years, often to fall on the deaf ears of the powers-that-be. Their credo seemed to be "if it was not reported it never happened", and to take what they thought was a 'sweep-under-the-carpet' approach to handling a war situation.

The fact that the President very emphatically turned down this move would equally qualify for some space because the President deserves some kudos for this. It is ironical that one must therefore compliment the President for once for something he has not done -- rather than something he has done.

The President was to explain to the media this week that he was certainly one, who when in Government and in Opposition listened to the arguments in favour and against censorship -- and that he preferred the argument against censorship.

The propaganda war is very much part of modern warfare -- and the Government is always pitted against a well-oiled, well-run rebel propaganda machinery. Ever since the inception of this separatist insurgency back in the early 1980s, the LTTE has had the edge over successive governments in the propaganda war.

What ails the Government's propaganda machinery? Our Political Editor just across on this page refers to the Government speaking in different voices, and points out to an instance this week when one arm of it did not know what the other was doing in announcing the Government's willingness to enter into a ceasefire with the LTTE. We have cited several previous instances in recent weeks where there is a cacophony of voices -- when in fact, what it ought to be is a symphony. All kinds of different officials with different titles are allowed to shoot from the lip enabling anyone hostile to the Government's efforts to pick and choose the quote he or she wants for his or her purpose.

When the Air Force was accused of bombing an orphanage, the State media apparatus first gave different confusing accounts of the attack - they said that they bombed an LTTE training centre; one military officer said that the information about this centre was received from Government 'spies'; another Government version said this information was obtained from the aerial surveillance pictures. The Defence spokesman for the Rajapaksa Administration made an appalling statement to the effect that the military did not take age into consideration when it came to killing rebel combatants. Surely, this could have been better phrased.

This is why it is important that the Government's different media arms sit down and come up with one definitive version, and better still if it could be drafted properly by persons well versed in the facts, the language and the nuances. Speed and credibility are the two corner-stones required for a government statement on any issue. One without the other is utterly useless.

With regard to speed, ask any ambassador serving overseas and he will tell this Government how helpless they are in reacting to adverse publicity from media outlets in those countries. Ambassadors get regular signals to counter these reports, but by the time the Government's position is given for dissemination, the story has moved on. We are quick to blame some of them for biased reporting, but ask those reporters and they will tell you that when they are ready to go on air or go to print, there is no Government version available.

It is for the Government to accelerate the process of fine-tuning its own media house while at the same time, applying some brakes on their army of spokesmen.

Censorship only breeds rumour, which is a very dangerous tool at the hands of the enemy when a nation is fighting an insurgency. It also helps to cover up major inefficiencies and corruption which have a bigger impact on the drop in morale in the Armed Forces than the publication of a military debacle because military debacles are expected in war, as are the loss of lives -- but not military blunders and corruption.

And the nation today, has matured since the bad old days of July 1983 when they reacted to the death of 13 soldiers. They understand the exigencies of war better; and any censorship will only raise the legitimate question; "Why?"