Media landscape not as gloomy

2013-07-29 

Last week, during an embassy luncheon, this columnist happened to have a chat with a diplomat who, has recently arrived in Colombo for his posting. “Political columns in your (Sri Lankan) newspapers are informative,” he told me. I replied that it was because newspapers sell for political news and that we hardly have inspiring business news that would tickle public attention, which most emerging market economies do have. Hence political news makes the staple of newspaper coverage.

But, Sri Lanka has a vibrant press, he quipped. I reminded him that we are ranked fourth from the bottom in the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Impunity Index, and are classified as ‘not free’ in terms of press freedom by the Freedom House.

He laughed it off. What are the others, he queried. I told him that another is Philippine, which, whatever, the indices say, has a vibrant press and is an emerging liberal democracy, whereas, the CPJ Index, on its part, gauges Manila, solely  on a 2009 political massacre in Mindanao, which killed among others, 34 reporters.

Pondering
I am inquisitive. However, the question I have been pondering over for sometime has been whether media freedom in this country is restrictive as it has been depicted in the dominant narrative.
Surely, Sri Lanka has a problem in terms of media freedom, a situation which has been further aggravated under the incumbent regime. The objective of this column is not to discount that reality, but rather to put it in perspective.
The dominant narrative on the absence of media freedom in the country is supported by a rather self serving argument that the servile mainstream media has abdicated its responsibility, and that those mushrooming websites are filling the vacuum. And when the mainstream press refuses to publish unverified, politically motivated and agenda driven slander and fringe opinion, that appear in those websites, the press is blamed as being subordinate to the government.

This narrative also goes on to imply that the local media had their freedom of action cut off, and that the exiled journalists are the torchbearers of the struggle for press freedom in Sri Lanka. I reserve my comments in order to avoid a fratricidal warfare.
A myriad of reasons

However, it is the contention of this writer that, this narrative is one that is exaggerated for a myriad of reasons, some of course self serving, some factual, and others imaginary and perceived.
A couple of years back, the then Foreign Minister of Bangladesh was quizzed by an interviewer of Channel News Asia, who asked: ‘You have a serious corruption problem. Your government is accused of high level of corruption by your own newspapers. What do you have to say?’  

‘Granted, we have a problem. But, many others also do have the same problem,’ the Bangladeshi FM retorted. ‘But why we have been exposed and why others have not is because we have a free press, which liberally takes the government to the task,’ he contended.
That is the crux of our problem as well. In fact, it is the case with much of the Indian subcontinent, which generally has a liberal, free press, and also has a penchant to wash our dirty laundry in the open, just like any other free press does.

World rankings
But, take for instance the rankings of the Reporters Sans Frontiers’ Press Freedom Index. India, which has one of the most vibrant press’ in the world, is ranked at 120, well behind Mauritania, the last frontier of slavery (67), coup-prone Central African Republic (65), Haiti which had no functioning government until recent election (49), Niger, another African hellhole (43), the UAE, where you would end up in jail for reporting rape (114), and Qatar, the land of Al Jazeera, of which activism ends at the palatial gates of the Emir.
Sri Lanka is ranked at 162, behind DR Congo, where rape is endemic (142) and Swaziland, the last feudal kingdom in Africa (155).

Glancing through the index, it did not take very long for this writer to realize that what he was reading was garbage. But, every now and then, we dutifully borrow from those indices to remind the public, and the rest of the world of our predicament, in terms of media freedom.
Those indices are themselves influenced by our input. We make it a point to flaunt our woes, and dutifully brief the rest of the world of every real and purported attack. That is not a bad strategy, after all. As the incumbent regime is intolerant by design and the virtue of its personalities, it is always good to be on the safe side and have groups of mutual interest to look for help for any eventuality.

However, overplaying this doomsday melody is counter-productive and self-injurious.
Media freedom is relative. Those who have followed media practices in the Middle East or even Singapore should know how suffocating media laws there have been, whereas Sri Lanka does not have institutionalized laws that are heavily restrictive of that nature.  Nor do we have crippling liable laws, such as those in Singapore, which were meant to dissuade the disclosure of matters of public interest.
We, of course, have a Press Council, but despite the highly contentious nature of its appointment and powers it is vested with, in reality, it is a lame duck. That does not mean to suggest activism against the Press Council is obsolete.

Temperament of personalities
The real problem in Sri Lanka lies with the temperament of the personalities who are at the helm of the government, who have proved to be intolerant, small-minded and have a penchant for extra judicial means of dispute resolution. The media is a victim of their wrath. However, with all their evil and the heavy toll the press suffered during the recent years, media in Sri Lanka is still outspoken, activist, and well ahead of many of its counterparts in South East Asia and the Middle East.

Sri Lankan media has not cowed as it had been depicted. Any reader who would go through pages of morning newspapers would vouch for the fact that they are presented with a diverse collection of news and views.
However, the real problem in the Sri Lankan media begins after publishing the news. Angry defence officials, perhaps the most senior of them all, may call for the blood of the reporter and send in a white van.

It is the general lawlessness in the country, and not the law itself, that allows the powers-that-be to indulge in a media witch-hunt. It is those men, whose tenure has been perpetuated by the post-war triumphalism that pose the greatest threat to the media. In that sense, this columnist could not help but agree with RSF’s predators of the press freedom classification.