Media Freedom: alive and not so well is it?

FOURTH ESTATE, OR FIFTH COLUMN? In the good old days, it was said that
journalists could be bought for a snifter of bottled sunshine. Today, its
sunshine stories that too many scribes in the so-called free media milieu are
bottling for public consumption. While far more murder mysteries than is
healthy for a civil society vis--vis its editors and writers lie unsolved, a
conspiracy of the willing is being hatched for the further enforced willing
suspension of disbelief under administrations ostensibly championing the
maxim that the pen is mightier than the spoken word. At liberty for a brace of
years, and with the newfound independence of RTI behind it, the freedom of
the wild ass still rampages through social media and tributaries of the
mainstream perhaps prompting the powers that be to consider legislation to
gild the lily so heres fair warning: lets gird our loins for the coming grind for
no government (good, bad, or ugly) has the best interests of unbound facts and
unfettered commentary at heart, at bottom
 Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Friday, 22 September 2017

Today the only corpses in sight are those lining the bullpen critics and social
commentators who have fallen asleep at their desks, lulled by a democracy that
offers peace but pre-empts justice. Oscar Wilde, had he been around, might have
re-essayed his aphorism that in those days, newspapers were edited by
somebodies and read by everyone; today editorials are written by nobodies and
read by no one.

Media freedom is showing some life signs. Or so you will argue. To which I might
reply that the vitals are faint. And the pulse of penetrating insights and critical
engagement is rapidly fading.

The economic assassins of this milieu are focussing on fiscal, fiduciary, and
financial fiascos to the exclusion of social justice in the peace, national
reconciliation, and transitional justice spheres. The political pundits of the world
are missing in action, where once they called out the champions of Good
Governance when they erred on the side of caution or (dare I say it, even if they
will never essay it) corruption.

What is the truth? asked Pontius Pilate and would not wait for an answer.
Many journalists have struggled with this especially if they speak truth to power.
Or even simply the truth. May I supply two recent exemplars of this syndrome:
whereby even the best lack all conviction!

Example No. 1:
Writing for an anniversary issue of an erstwhile leading rag, an alumnus of a once
much-awaited newspaper wrote, inter alia: The Leaders survival also reflects the
darker side of the publishing-politics nexus, with its ownership having changed
hands many times, and its motives or objectives sometimes under a cloud. There
has been a sea-change from its in the Leader it must be true to something
rich and strange: its in the Leader it cant be true

This set the cat among the pigeons. The rag in question was neither willing nor
able to admit the truth about its once stellar but subsequently often chequered
career. It importuned the writer to amend his stance, to water down the octane
of the sentiments expressed. In the end, expediency prevailed.

Since courtesy among old friends and common sense in the interests of being
published at all prevailed, the eventual lamer version read: The survival of
editorial and advertising combines often reflects a darker side of the publishing-
politics nexus. That the ownership of certain media houses change hands many
times may bring its motives or objectives under a cloud. There might even be a
sea-change from its in the papers it must be true to something rich and
strange: its in the papers it cant be true

In an outcome not envisaged by the editors of the rag at that time, it

subsequently transpired at the commission to investigate the infamous bond
scam that the newspaper in question was shadow-owned by a minister who came
under a cloud.

That worthy now singularly absent from the public eye was not the first
politico to have had a vested interest in what was published in the Leaders pages.
Those powerful agendas associated with the newspaper under scrutiny have
ranged from presidential aspirants in the mid-1990s to ambitious prime ministers
even now. Today the rag is non est, struggling to retain its readership and/or
regain its credibility and past prestige.

I suspect you have xyz interjections to interpolate. You can interrupt me after Ive
finished (as the bishop said to the actress).

Example No. 2:
 Penning his regular piece for a widely-read business, political,
and financial journal, an eldritch writer fired this broadside. That the so-called
good governors of the coalition administration that assumed office in January
and then again August 2015 had made nepotistic appointments of State ministers
in strategic portfolios such as State defence. He named names and pointed
fingers. But to publish such a direct statement would contravene or compromise
the publication whose proprietors had close familial ties with the main party in
Government.

Perhaps more mindful of personal caution than pressing concerns, the editorial
board of the prestigious newspaper persuaded the eccentric essayist to tone his
tenor down to a more sombre timbre:

Be the public sector as it may, the Govt. ranks are not exempt from such blatant
favouritism. Or, to be fair by the politicos who feel that they are sometimes
compelled to make such appointments, these are pragmatic choices. For even
under Good Governance, the nobler type of politician around today could also
have fingers pointed at them for presenting their kith and kin with key Cabinet or
State portfolios. Such appointments to key and/or sensitive posts may be passed
off as being the best among the worst of the options available.
This, of course, begs the question: whose interests such options and
appointments serve? Because the relatively (no pun intended) young and/or
inexperienced people who are appointed to such key/sensitive posts are
sometimes simply scions of some influential family whose ambit spans empires,
republics, polities, and who are closely related to the powers that be. There are
skeletons in the closet of virtually every Administration since the 1972 Republican
Constitution as regards this form of nepotism.

One would not be far wrong to interpret such appointments to strategic and
sensitive ministries in the context of political and family ties One might even
admit the prevailing or perceived need to provide a bulwark for the party in
power against its unlikely coalition with its former opposition. Party stalwarts
might offer a sterling defence against charges of nepotism, citing the pragmatic
nature of such appointments, overlooking the primary criterion of suitability or
seniority. But the general public must be forgiven for seeing at least a smidgen of
family influence in the provenance of such appointments.

The fact and principle of the matter is that merely being a relative shouldnt give
anyone any clout with the powers that be. Allegedly nepotistic appointees may
not themselves seek or receive any preferential treatment by virtue of being a
part of a VVIP family. But if the rot that has been rife in the public sector is not to
ruin Governments reputation, Caesar must not only be above suspicion but be
seen to be above such suspicion!

That the earth has moved in 2015 is not in doubt. But could it be that the axis of
Sri Lankan politics has only shifted demonstrably: from one dynastic democracy
and culture of governance to another?

Reds and blues

Maybe one must be happy about there being small mercies. A sense of proportion
must prevail; for, after all:
 Comment is free today. Facts are sacred. And there seem to be no
sacred cows
Fear of ones life is a thing of the past Theres plenty of time and
space for dissent, engaging critically with the powers that be, etc.
Be that as it may, purists may quibble about such as these
Commentary has yet to effect the sea-change which democratic-
republicanism envisaged, the media championed, the people waited years
for and then gave up only to get back to biz as usual
Few media houses have managed to throw off the shackles of other
subtler forms of oppression which beset newspaper editorial desks (such
as commercial, familial, vested interests)
So did (definitely) the Lasanthas and (maybe) the Mels die in vain? Did the
disappearance of Ekneligoda, the assassination of Taraki, or the brutalisation of
Keith Noyahr achieve anything salutary for the state of the media or accomplish
any major gain in the national interest? Have the press barons who relished his
wit, wisdom, and integrity learned a lesson in political probity and standing up for
their yeomen after the killing of immortalised Richard de Zoysa?

Or is mainstream media so much a business often, even blatantly, a by-product

of some ambitious politicians vainglorious attempt to whitewash self and regime
that it can no longer be relied on to serve the nobler aspirations of journalism?

Is social media slowly but surely replacing print and electronic media as the safest
best, the surest way, the strongest means of speaking truth to power? (As usual,
many if not most of these questions will resonate in the average readers mind for
less than an iota of a news cycle about half a day, if not half an hour and then
be relegated to the dustbin of rhetoric.)

I am done now. So Ill close up shop. Before someone makes me

Perhaps youll permit me a Parthian shot before I bow out. If so, fish out pen or
pencil and paper:
CHIEF SUB EDIT
(Answers using a red pencil automatically pass. Blue pencils are pass. Candidates
who dont attempt to be too smart about it will be considered to have passed the
basic test of civil society being seen out and about having fun while the media
goes to hell in a handcart and not heard.)
A. Essays.
1. The Free Media is a myth define, explore, critically analyse with reference
to political ambition, publisher apathy, editorial empathy with big business, ad
nauseam. Take care to ignore the ticking sounds under your chair it may be just
a clock, since the Fourth Estate more than any branch of putative government has
been accused of alarmism. (Extra marks for ascertaining whether it is in fact an
alarm clock. Or whether the media are the Fourth Estate at all or simply a Fifth
Column of conspirators cobbled together by coalition and other governments to
keep those in power in and those out if it out.)
B. Short Answers.
1.Make a shortlist of civil administrations which have been free and fair by the
media. (Dont forget to remember Richard, et al.)

2. Now pick the best of them. (Dont remember to forget relative merits, and how
ancient families own old media while nouveau riche arrivistes are planning future
presidential campaigns where their blue-eyed parvenus can go to the top, viz.
Sirasa.)
C.MCQ.
1. Who killed, brutally beat, made to disappear all/some/other of the following?

a.Taraki

b.Keith

c.Prageeth

d.Lasantha
e.Do you know? Do you care?

2. Has good solid investigative journalism

a.Gone underground

b.Gone bonkers

c.Gone down under

d.Gone to pieces

3.Will social media overtake and replace media in one of many ways?

a.Yes

b.No

c.Yes and no

d.In the same way that video killed the

radio star
4. Who killed, brutally beat oh, wait thats a repeat so:
a.Give yourself full marks, anyway. (Go ahead, you deserve it.)

b.Give this Government a hard time for not giving that Government a harder time
over the egregious abuses of media and other societal freedoms. (Go ahead, they
deserve it. You deserve the governments you get.)

c.The journalists concerned deserved it. (No one deserves that, buddy.)

d.We the people (not the Fourth Estate nor even a Fifth Column but a sixth
segment of society lacking common leave alone a savvy sixth sense) failed the test
of being discerning about the just desserts of failing to recognise that media is
and has always been the plaything of politicians, bankers, wankers, et al. (Pardon
your French, this is not a Foul Language paper.)

5.What would you think of giving an F for civil societys idea of Media Freedom?

a.F, just as it says, or F+

b.Foul, just as it suggests

c.Fine, just as you feel

d.Fail, just as we

all deserve

There is only one thing worse than questions with no answers. And that is
answers with no meaning. Feel free to disagree with me and earn the F that we as
a civil society have earned.
(A senior journalist, the writer was once the Chief Sub Editor of The Sunday
Leader, 1994-8, and is ex-LMD, having been its Editor, 2004-8. He has made a
career out of asking questions, and not waiting for answers.)
Posted by Thavam