Who is wrong and who is right in the Lohan Ratwatte issue? The position of sections of the press need not be elaborated. The Minister of Defence has already defended himself by shooting down “sections of the press.” The truth probably lies somewhere in-between what the press says and what the Minister tries to make out.
Papers do have an agenda. At least some papers do. Ministers are on the other hand, inclined to attack the press in unpleasant situations. Richard Nixon said once that the press “won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” Nixon couldn’t sack the press, but he sacked the special prosecutor who was appointed to investigate the Watergate cover - up. Yet, Nixon couldn’t save himself from Watergate.
What’s the whole issue about anyway. The killing, or the “cover-up?” Sections of the press say it’s about the killing. But, others were more worried about the attempts to “cover up.” Of course the press got over zealous and said Lohan was present at the scene. But, though Mr Ratwatte has given the UNP organ beans in his statement, he has forgotten that it is the UNP organ. What does one expect a party paper to say anyway? Ensnare the opposition, among other things. Who takes party papers seriously?
But there are party papers and party papers. There were papers which never really said “Lohan killed Pera” but tried to make out the same . There was that strong pall of innuendo that hung about those articles.
But, there were other papers more interested about the process of investigation. Those who said “investigate” did not say “ Lohan killed Pera.” The Deputy Defence Minister seems to think that those who called for an investigation were also trying to say that his son killed a man. Not necessarily. Those who said “investigate” only said investigate — they did not say anything beyond that.
That’s probably the difference between the press that has an agenda and a press that does not. The press can’t overstep its investigative function and try to ensnare a minister. But, on the same count, the press cannot abdicate its watchdog function merely because a Minister’s son is involved.
But the Minister was right about some things. There is no doubt that sections of the press were guilty of an attempt at “entrapment.” Investigative reporting is one thing, entrapment another.
What’s customary now is that the government has got used to looking at the press with blinkers on. For instance, sinister motives will be read into this article as well. But, what’s being said here is plain and simple. Yes, sections of the press are guilty of entrapment. No, the press as a whole cannot abdicate its responsibility to see that an investigation is done. This does not equate to saying that the Minister’s son killed a man!
The Minister’s statement takes the high ground. The Minister’s contention is that his son did not kill a man. The question did not arise. The press ( by and large ) was collectively agitating for a proper investigation into the matter. However, the Minister’s Nixonian statement makes certain that the press, or representative sections of it, had conclude that his son killed a man. This contention is not correct. The few articles which had presupposed that the Minister’s son had killed a man were not from representative sections of the press.
The Minister’s defence of his son is only natural. Any father would be expected to defend his son. But the Minister’s assertion that his son “did not kill a man” is by and large irrelevant to the public. No importance can be attached to it; at best that part of the statement can be seen as an affectionate paternal gesture.
Many of these questions would not have arisen if “sections of the press” did not have an agenda. It has come to a point when no Sri Lankan can read a newspaper without reading between the lines. This is the method : you first take the newspaper. Then, you see from where the newspaper originates. Who is the Editor? Who is the publisher? What are their politics? Then you read the story, and decide what motivated it. If the story has something to do with the publishers politics, then you decide that the story cannot be all that credible. If the story is largely independent of the publisher’s ( or the Editor’s ) politics, you decide that the story cannot have much of a slant after all.
It’s sad that reading a newspaper has become this kind of an enterprise. Also, there are some sections of the public who don’t know anything about the publishers or the Editor’s politics. They would swallow any drivel, entrapment bias agenda and all.
But , there are newspapers with redeeming qualities. That’s where the Minister made the mistake — by tarring all papers with the same brush. The Minister thinks that the entire independent press has daggers drawn at him, and that the entire independent press tried to falsely implicate his son in the Pera imbroglio. THAT’S JUST NOT SO.
But, on the same count, the press cannot be made a whipping boy, so that the state can escape its responsibility. Shades of Watergate again. The press was not worried about the killing per se. The press was worried about the lethargy of the state apparatus in taking proper steps to investigate.
Is the matter over here? Probably. But Nixon thought Watergate was over long before it was. Also, today’s newspaper is tomorrow’s wrapping paper, and many scandal’s including those about the sex life of Clinton were just blown over.
But a word about the newspaper business. A former Editor of the Washington Post Mr Ron Howard said that he worked “only in newspapers that towed a line that he liked.” What’s implied in that statement is that “ most newspaper’s tow a line.” That is so, in America as well, where we are used to thinking the press is lily- white. In Sri Lanka, the Associated newspapers were accused on many previous occasions of being kingmakers. Such was the power of the press monopoly. Not anymore.Today is the tenth anniversary of the Sunday Times. It’s nobody’s monopoly now, and certainly not all papers are interested in bringing down the government. Then, the question is, why is the Minister going on the defensive? Or does he just customarily like to play on the back-foot?
Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page