Moving toward truth while censorship holds on
By Sunanda Deshapriya Posted Oct 1 2003
Instead of accurate, impartial and responsible coverage of ethnically explosive issues, media in Sri Lanka cater to the religious and nationalist emotions of the ethnically divided people. In January, more than 10,000 people marched toward the city center and staged an anti-government rally accusing the government of giving too many concessions to the Tamil Tiger rebels.
Despite numerous incidents of violence and intimidation against Sri Lankan journalists in the past year, the IPI Board of Directors has considered taking Sri Lanka off its Watch List because the organization believes there are “great hopes for the future” that a free press can be restored.
After a decade-long campaign started by the Free Media Movement (FMM) and supported by the Editor's Guild of Sri Lanka, major improvements in Sri Lanka's press freedom have been achieved.
In a landmark conference in 1998, the FMM, the Editor's Guild and the Publishers' Association pledged to work together to campaign to reform the legal structure and agreed on a code of professional conduct for journalists.
The organizations have now finalized plans to establish an independent Press Complaints Commission and a professional journalist-training institute. The hope is that with better training and more accountability, the journalists will be better equipped to work in a freer environment.
In June 2002, the current United National Front (UNF) Sri Lankan Government presented a proposal to parliament to abolish the criminal defamation law. The proposal passed unanimously. Defamation law has long been a thorn in the side of journalists. At the beginning of this year, there were five defamation cases pending in the high Court of Colombo: The most notable against Victor Ivan, the editor of the newspaper, Ravaya.
However, now that the UNF-led government has repealed the dreaded criminal defamation provisions, discussions are taking place with media organizations to introduce the Right to Information Act, as well as review and repeal the Public Performance Act and the Official Secrets Act, both of which restrict the freedom of the media.
Although an atmosphere of media freedom is at last beginning to prevail, and no official censorship is imposed, there is a deep-rooted culture of self-censorship among Sri Lankan news media. Mainstream newspapers generally show a bias toward their own language community. Instead of accurate, impartial and responsible coverage of ethnically explosive issues, media in Sri Lanka cater to the religious and nationalist emotions of the ethnically divided people. There is a tendency to pander to political power, while social, democratic and human rights issues do not get sufficient coverage.
Although Sri Lanka was not placed on the IPI Watch List until Oct. 29, 2000, on the grounds “that the profound animus shown towards the media by President Chandrika Kumaratunga warranted the inclusion of the country on the IPI Watch List,” the question of media freedom in Sri Lanka has been a critical issue for over a decade. The conflict in the North and East of the island, as well as authoritarian politics, has resulted in the imposition of various forms of censorship and restrictions on the media by the nation's main decision-makers: the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
During the past two decades, the LTTE has harassed, abducted, imprisoned and assassinated dozens of members of the media. Tamil journalists who work in the North and the East have to be extremely careful not to report anything that would “upset” the LTTE. Even Tamil journalists and editors working in Colombo have been cautious in their criticism of the rebels.
Opposition political parties routinely accuse state and private media outlets of being political tools for the government. As far as the opposition is concerned, its only vision is to capture or force media to tow its political line.
Such a vision can be seen at a recent rally of opposition parties. There, Wimal Weerawansa, the propaganda secretary of the nationalist-Marxist People's Liberation Front Party (JVP), who is also a member of parliament, told a crowd of supporters that it is only a matter of time before people lay siege to privately owned media institutions. At the same rally, Anura Bandaranaike, member of parliament and a leading figure of the opposition People's Alliance Party (PA), requested that the president, who is the head of PA, take over at least one TV station and one radio channel from government control.
When the PA came to power in 1994, it promised media freedom as a crucial step in the democratization of politics. Members appointed a cabinet subcommittee and a parliamentary select committee to formulate a free media policy.
However, by the end of their term, the PA government had degenerated into an anti-media regime that antagonized almost all independent media in the country. A special police force called the Presidential Security Division was used repeatedly to harass the media.
As a direct response to various campaigns launched by local media freedom organizations in collaboration with international media freedom organizations over the past decade or so, the new United National Front government has promised to implement an equally impressive media law reform program. But these are refrains that have been heard numerous times.
No government has ever come to power without promising extensive reforms to expand media freedoms, and to date, no party has delivered on those promises.
Sri Lanka is at a crossroads today. Any lasting settlement must be a process of democratic transformation – a long and arduous process – which not only needs constitutional changes, but also the creation of a culture of tolerance and diversity.
Even the best laws need a corresponding social-political culture to show results. The problem in Sri Lanka is not just a hostile political and legal environment. But a culture of intolerance and violence also must be changed before Sri Lanka can usher in a true era of free expression.