Media : turning the searchlight inwards

By Kishali Pinto Jayawardena

Like champagne bub- bles, the hype and the hoopla surrounding this week's national media symposium was intoxicating. On the face of it, it did appear to be heady stuff, an 'ambitious effort', as one particularly tongue in the cheek headline in a daily paper termed it. After all, publishers, editors, journalists and media analysts coming together in one forum to discuss media issues is in itself a remarkable feat, given Sri Lanka's reluctant dynamics of communication. Somewhat surprisingly, it also turned out that this was the first time that this sort of thing was happening, not only in Sri Lanka, but in any Commonwealth country.

Then there was, of course, the intensive lobbying thrust, aimed at the Parliamentary Select Committee currently meeting to look into matters of media law reform. That the foreign delegates attending the conference were senior and respected opinion makers carrying considerable international clout was of primary importance. The aim was to convince parliamentarians that their promises to implement legislative reform had to be taken seriously.

But for those who think that the champagne bubbles were the Alpha and the Omega of the symposium, a surprise is forthcoming. That was far from the case. In actual fact, the event was unique for a far quieter reason. For the first time in the recent history of the Sri Lankan media, a representative gathering of media persons began asking themselves some very crucial questions "What are media ethics? What are media responsibilities? How can we turn the searchlight in wards"?

This was in the context of some necessary acknowledgements. As the preamble to the Colombo Declaration on Media Freedom and Social Responsibility, drafted at the close of the two day deliberations said succinctly "Convinced that freedom of expression and freedom of information are vital to a democratic society and are essential for its progress and welfare and for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms bearing in mind that it is imperative if people are to be able to monitor the conduct of their government, be politically informed and to participate fully in a democratic society, that they have access to information recognising that the journalist performs a critical role in society in facilitating the above"

Much lies behind these bland words. Note that there is no mention of the fact that the journalist is entrusted with the task of conveying the truth to his or her readers. This was one of the more obvious fallacies that were to break down not long into the deliberations, with the conceding of the fact that the sacred cows of the objectivity and independence of the media cannot be taken too far, be it at an institutional or individual level.

Like the other branches of the system, the Fourth Estate too has its agendas, be they liberal or conservative, overtly political or subtly manipulative. Above all, the truth is relative and the only safeguard for democratic debate remains a pluralistic media which will "reveal many aspects of the 'truth', and by doing so will reveal many different aspects of the mind, bringing the citizen nearer to the truth."

More obvious fallacies were laid to rest, particularly that the private media can lay claim to no sacrosanct bar from criticism as contrasted with the state media. While in obvious terms, the private media manoeuvres within a greater space than the government owned media, it too has its motives that are at times in conflict with the public interest. Therefore the conflict here is not between private profit and the public interest but rather between media ownership and the public interest with coverage of environmental, consumer, gender and minority issues being bypassed due to profit motives. Tragically, the power of the individual journalist to fight against these pressures is limited in Sri Lanka due to lack of organisational capacity.

That the state has to shoulder its fair share of blame was a predictable conclusion arrived at. Two areas in particular were again predictably singled out for discussion, reportage of the ethnic conflict and criminal defamation. With regard to the former, it was an obvious reality that there is news management by both parties to the conflict and that this was the reason for government restrictions being imposed on the media, rather than for the simplistic purpose of preventing intelligence information getting to the enemy The point made was not that there cannot be regulation of the media in situations of internal conflict but rather that such regulation must not be foolish. The fact that a ban has been currently imposed on the Sri Lankan media to communicate any order or exhortation made by the LTTE was said to be one good example of this foolishness, for it has been made in a context where any Sri Lankan can go to the nearest cyber cafe and access the necessary information through the Internet. More dangerously, it has also resulted in the LTTE propaganda going uncontradicted, an inevitable result of censorship which breeds a culture of cynicism. In contrast, where the views of the enemy are given space, they are often shown to be unattractive compared with the democratic alternatives put forward by the government. The enemy is exposed for what it is. Persuasive arguments exist therefore against censorship, not the least of which are that if men and women are dying for their country, at the very minimum, they deserve to know why.

That the end result is counterproductive could again be clearly seen in the laws relating to criminal defamation. One school of thought was that where serious libel occurs against a person, be it the President of a country or a humble clerk, swift retribution ought to follow on the erring journalist The fact remains however that selective processes of prosecution where only the mighty use the resources of the state for their own purposes is not the answer. Bringing such punishments within the penal laws of a country with deterrent jail sentences only increases media antagonism towards the government and not media professionalism. Instead, the safety valves for relief in the case of any person wronged-any person ought to be strengthened, with effective non penal punishment and provision being made for the right of reply. An interesting titbit of information was that in the African countries, journalists found guilty of defamation have to make a public apology to their victims in person as well as in print. But that's Africa

Legal loopholes were also discussed in a session relating to the broadcasting and electronic media where structures in Sri Lanka, India and South Africa were analysed, and consensus arrived at that legislation setting up an independent broadcasting authority should specifically state the public's right to receive information and opinion on matters of public interest, maintaining a fair balance of alternative points of view.

In the ultimate reckoning however, much depends on the professionalism of the media.

The searchlight ought indeed to be turned inwards. Holding politicians accountable for their real or perceived failures can only be part of the process.

Many obstacles exist in this journey towards media professionalism, in the Sri Lankan context, foremost among them being structural problems such as lack of training and unrealistic salary scales which can be corrected only to an extent by publishers besieged by increasing costs of newsprint, and the inability to increase the price of the newspapers due to prevalent high costs of living.( behold therefore, the plaintive reminder that publishers are not in this business for reasons of philanthropy )

At present therefore, the alarming contradiction is that on the one hand, the reach and effectiveness of the media is increasing while on the other hand, its professionalism is not keeping equal pace. This too is in an environment of high technology where the trend is to emphasize instant news, and to disregard the development behind the news.

As noted Indian broadcaster, ex-MP, columnist and author George Verghese imaginatively summed up on Wednesday, development involves processes, social change, the underlying trends in society which is what is truly important but which most journalists miss out on. It requires thoughtful and responsible journalism to bring these processes out, in their absence, journalism merely becomes a succession of instant and fleeting images that are not contexualised and often not correct.

So, the question then becomes, who watches the watchdogs ? In the first instant, public opinion will ultimately judge the journalist for what he or she is, and will treat the news that is being disseminated with that degree of acceptance or rejection. In the second instance, that the media should develop self corrective mechanisms is of critical importance, for judgement by one's own peers is the best litmus test. Towards this end, laws and codes of conduct are important but are ultimately limited in their effectiveness. One interesting idea floated by participants at the deliberations were voluntary media councils where the state plays no part but breach of journalistic ethics are handled by persons chosen by the media community itself.

That the symposium should close with a provocative warning by Mahatma Gandhi that "Rights come from duties well performed" seemed particularly apt. The argument is that only by taking one's responsibilities seriously can one demand rights. The one goes with the other and are inextricably intertwined.

Media reform must necessarily embrace both these two concepts. That this acknowledgement came from not only media critics but also media insiders was the true gain of these "ambitious" deliberations. That, and of course, the champagne bubbles.

Talking on Media Freedom and Social Responsibility

Three of the coun- try's most influen tial media organizations on Wednesday placed their signatures to a Colombo Declaration on Media Freedom and Social Responsibility reiterating their commitment to further co-operation a unity in efforts to promote the freedom of expression and media freedom. A fourth organization participated in the deliberations and said they could ratify the Declaration after their Executive Committee agrees to it.

The Free Media Movement, the Editors' Guild of Sri Lanka and the Newspaper (Publishers) Society of Sri Lanka announced the Declaration at a joint press conference at the BMICH on April 29 following a three-day symposium attended by local and foreign media personalities, Government and opposition leaders and public servants.

The Sri Lanka Working Journalists' Association also participated in the symposium as co-organizers along with the Centre of Policy Alternatives and the Paris-based World Association of Newspapers was a co-sponsor.

The Colombo declaration begins as follows.

Convinced that freedom of expression and freedom of information are vital to a democratic society and are esential for its progress and welfare and for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Bearing in mind that it is imperative if people are to be able to monitor the conduct of their government, be politically informed and to participate fully in a democratic society, that they have access to information.

Recognising that the journalist performs a critical role in society in facilitating the above.

Considering that public officials by nature of their office should tolerate more intense levels of criticism than private individuals.

Convinced that debate on public issues should be uninhibited and roubst and that some erroneous statements are inevitable in a free debate recognise the necessity for legal protection of critics of official conduct, who given the current law of criminal defamation would be deterred from voicing their criticism even if it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact untrue thus dampening the vigour and limiting the scope of public debate.

Recognizing that the application of censorship has often been arbitrary and erratic and in violation of the public's right to know, and also in violation of international standards of freedom of expression.

Nothing with concern the acts of intimidation and threat to media personnel which have adversely affected the conduct of their duty.

Desiring to promote a clear recognition of the limited scope of restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of information that may be imposed in the interest of national security, so as to discourage government from using the pretext of national security to place unjustified restriction on the exercise of these freedoms.

Agree upon the following proposals and recommend that the appropriate bodies undertake steps to promote their widspread dissemination, acceptance and implementation.

Among the proposals and recommendations made in Colombo Declaration are:

1) A better formulation of the words defining freedom of expression, opinion and information in the Constitution and a suggestion to adopt either the South African Constitution wording or the wording of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the subject.

2) Proposals to avoid the derogation of fundamental rights in times of Emergency.

3) The need for a Freedom of Information Act to ensure transparency and open Government with special types of information such as medical records, trade secrets, law enforcement information etc. to be exempted.

4) A new Press Committee Act that would articulate the freedom and responsibilities of the print media in terms of the requirement of the ICCPR.

5) Broad-basing the ownership of the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon (ANCL).

6) The repeal of the provision of criminal defamation both in the Press Council Act and Penal Code, with provision to provide citizens with redress in the case of defamation.

7) The repeal of Sections 118 and 120 of the Penal Code which relate to the offence of bringing the President of the Republic to ridicule, and sedition respectively.

8) To introduce a Contempt of Court Act in order to clarify the substantive and procedural law concerned, including that of the sub-judice rule.

9) To repeal the provisions in the 6th Amendment relating only to those which impinge on freedom of expression for the peaceful advocacy of secession.

10) Censorship under Emergency Rule to be within the framework provided in the ICCPR.

11) The exorbitant duties presently imposed on newsprint which make the price of education and information through newspapers costly to the economically deprived to be reduced to a zero rate of duty on imports.

12) The introduction of a genuinely independent Broadcasting Authority that is not dominated by one political party to be responsible for the licensing of community radio, public and private broadcasting and to maintain a fair balance of alternative points of view and to convert state-funded broadcasting services in Sri Lanka to public bodies.

13) Legislation to be introduced to protect the confidentiality of sources of information.

14)The introduction of a voluntary Code of Conduct which will inter-alia, include the obligation by the media for fair, balanced and accurate reporting of news, divulging conflict of interest faced by media personnel, the exercise of due care in the presentation of programmes where children are likely to be part of the audience, the granting of a Right of Reply to persons aggrieved by the publication or broadcast of a news items or commentary.

The Colombo Declaration also calls upon media orgainzations to overcome differences of opinion and divergences in style in order to work together to actualize the common vision set out in the Declaration.

Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar and the Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe hosted receptions for the foreign participants from the Commonwealth Press Union, Article 19, the World Press Freedom Committee the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, Prasarbaharati and the Media Institute of Southern Africa.

The foreign delegates also briefed the Parliamentary Select Committee on Media Law Reforms at a meeting specially convened for the occasion.

The Cornerstone of democracy

Press Freedom

It was only a few days ago that four organizations representing the interests of journalists, editors, and media owners, issued the Colombo Declaration on Media Freedom and Social Responsibility. It was a landmark event, that for the first time it, brought together these different sections of the media, and was able to issue a declaration which found consensus among these groups on important aspects of Media freedoms and the Freedom of Expression.

The Colombo Declaration was timely, in that it came just a few days before World Press Freedom Day, which is celebrated today (Sunday, May 3). It is apt to remember that World Press Freedom Day is celebrated today in the midst of a marked increase in the threats to Freedom of Expression, in every region of the world. This is quite in contrast to the apparent increase in interest in Democracy as a form of government by many countries. However, the necessity by rulers, both in states that claim to embrace democracy and others, to curb Freedom of Expression, particularly the Freedom of the Press, has far outstripped the new interest in democracy.

This year, World Press Freedom Day is celebrated at a time when at least 139 journalists are imprisoned in countries around the world. It is a time when increasing numbers of journalists are being killed, in many parts of the world, for carrying out their social responsibility of reporting on corruption and other social evils. So far, this year alone, it is established that at least seven journalists have been killed for their exposure of corruption. There are another countless number of poets, artists and writers around the world who have been imprisoned, banned or their works prohibited from publication or performance.

In our own South Asian Region, with many countries having democratic forms of government, there is increasing threats to the Freedom of the Press and the journalist. In Sri Lanka, in the past few months of this year, we have seen attempts at armed intimidation of a journalist who made certain exposures of the individuals in the defence establishment; the attack on an outstation correspondent by the Police for his attempts to expose the work of bootleggers and other criminal elements, and the increasing use of Criminal Defamation against journalists both by politicians and high government officials. In India, seven journalists were killed last year for carrying out their duties. This was the highest number killed in any country that year. In Pakistan journalists and the media remain under threat due to the rivalry of politicians. In Bangladesh, there is a sudden rise in the curbing of Press Freedom and official intimidation of journalists.

It is important to note that Press Freedom today is more than preventing attacks on journalists. It is the duty of governments to encourage a climate in which both dissent and the free exchange of ideas are allowed.

To repeat what the European Court has said: "Freedom of the Press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders.

In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupation of public opinion; thus it enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society."

It is also relevant to quote here what the President of the World Association of Newspapers, Mr.Jayme Sirotsky, said at the meeting of the world's ministers of culture, at Stockholm, in Sweden last month. "Some of the greatest obstacles to development, some of the greatest obstacles to the growth of culture which could accelerate that development, and indeed human progress as a whole, are erected and maintained in place by scores of governments represented in this hall. Where a free Press is suppressed, all other forms of major cultural expression are the victims of similar persecution." It is our view that too little attention is given to the link between development and the existence of a strong, free and independent media.

Governments, the private sector, and international institutions can all do no better to protect investments and ensure that development aid is not wasted, than by ensuring an independent and free media in a country. It is important that the right to dissent is accepted as an essential aspect of genuine public interest, as well as the growth of democracy and culture, especially and a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society as we have in Sri Lanka.

Lucien Rajakarunanayake

Convenor

Prajathanthra - Foundation for the Freedom of Expression

'Washington would support devolution proposals'-expert

America's South Asia policy has assumed a particular significance now, in the light of recent strategic and political developments in the region. The Sunday Times talks to Asia expert, Dr. Sumit Ganguly, Professor of Political Science at the City University of New York, author of the Crisis in Kashmir and the contributing editor of Asian Affairs, on US stakes in and responses, to the developments in South Asia. Excerpts:

Q: In South Asia US concern has traditionally centred round the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. What is the current US thinking on it?

A: In the fifties, the US was influenced by the British Foreign Office. It had backed the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 calling for a referendum. But now, the US does not talk about these things. Yes, the US continues to say that Kashmir is disputed territory, but it wants its future to be decided through talks between India and Pakistan. That any solution should take into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir is also an important component of this prescription. But interestingly, the US has not specified the mechanism to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiris.

Q: There seems to be a softening of the US stand on Kashmir. To what would you attribute this?

A: The US has been alert to Indian sensitivity and sensibilities. The point to note is that the US does not attach great importance to Kashmir, though there is a Congressional Human Rights lobby whose concerns have to be addressed. The US is also keen that Kashmir should not become a flash point in the region. But today, Kashmir is much less of a flashpoint than it was before.

Q: But isn't there the Azadi or freedom movement in Kashmir supported by Pakistan? What is the current status of this movement?

A: The Azadi movement is over. It's a lost cause. The Hurriyat Conference which is spearheading the movement has to enter the mainstream of Indian constitutional politics to survive. The Indian state's display of military might, coupled with the holding of free and fair elections, and the display of political accommodativeness by the Gujral and BJP governments have brought about a change in Kashmiri perceptions about the Indian state. Meanwhile, the militants had alienated themselves from the people by running extortion rackets. The Afghan mercenaries' lack of scruples and brutal methods only contributed to the alienation.

Q: What about the Pakistan factor in keeping militancy alive?

A: Pakistan had a big role in 1988-89. But Pakistan has not delivered the goods. For Pakistan too, Kashmir is a lost cause.

Q: Aren't the Chinese interested in keeping India out of Kashmir?

A: The Chinese have made it clear that an independent and weak Kashmir is not in their interest. Further, Beijing and New Delhi, have put the long standing border dispute and even the Tibetan issue in the back burner and are talking of co-operation.

Q: Has Kashmir lost its strategic, geo-political or political importance for the US?

A: Strategically, Kashmir is of no great significance to the US. For one thing, the Soviet Union is not there to contend with. The US does not need Kashmir to have a listening post. The facilities at its base in Peshawar in Pakistan are considered adequate. As regards China the US is probably more worried about the growing interest in Burma. Further, the US has no domestic compulsion to take an interest in the Kashmir question, because there is no domestic, political lobby or constituency to satisfy.

Q: How do you visualise the US role in Sri Lanka?

A: Sri Lanka's supportive role in the UN on the NPT issue has endeared it to the US. Washington would support Colombo's devolution proposals and encourage talks with the LTTE to end the war. The US would like India to continue with the Gujral Doctrine, but given India's sensibilities vis-a-vis the region, the US would desist from playing an active role in Sri Lanka.

More News/Comments * Now your hypocrisy is badly exposed * The political patrons of the Lankan underworld * Two thirds majority of parliament and the package

Return to News/Comment Contents