|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 22 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial |  |
| News Business Features Security
|
Please forward your comments to the
Editor, Sunday Observer. E-mail: [email protected] Snail mail : Sunday Observer, 35, D.R.Wijewardana Mawatha, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone : 94 11 2429239 / 2331181 Fax : 94 11 2429230 State media policy The very fact that the control of the State-owned mass media institutions and their editorial policy is now a subject of public debate is itself a positive sign. There was a time when, pre-occupied as they were with more basic urgent issues as mass scale 'disappearances', torture, mass detentions, mass killings and political assassinations in broad daylight and other massive violations of civic rights, people did not have the time nor the energy to raise the issue of the political control of State media institutions. It was the Chandrika Kumaratunga premiership in 1994 and subsequent presidency that really opened the way for a dynamic mass media thereby making history. In the next decade Sri Lankan mass media mushroomed into a major industry and a structure of social communication that has begun transcending some of the old styles of media operation that, on the one hand, contributed to ethnic enmity and mistrust and, on the other, was a simplistic divide between Governing party propaganda and a weak, privately owned critical news media. The communicational floodgates are open and Sri Lankans are now so used to a multiplicity of channels and publications that no one could ever successfully send them back to the dark ages of more controlled and limited media, especially the period of the Jayewardene and Premadasa regimes. This is why, caretaker Media Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar is confronted with the considerable challenge to ensure that the State media does not slip back to that awful past when it was merely the pawn of party commissars and hack writers and producers. There may be considerable truth in the argument that the bulk of the private media is editorially favouring the United National Party, thereby depriving the citizenry of adequate information about other political parties and limiting the space for a broad policy debate at a critical time of parliamentary election. But this seeming 'imbalance' cannot be corrected by using the State-owned media to promote any other political party, for the simple reason that the State media is publicly owned and not the property of any political party or personage. Thus, such manipulation is a betrayal of the public duty expected by those carrying out the editorial functions in those State media institutions. The editorial leadership and staff of all State media are accountable to the citizens and are obliged to keep all citizens informed about the life and concerns of all citizens. At a time of elections or similar decisive moments of national life (such as peace negotiations) the State media must provide space for the broadest possible range of public policy debate and expressions of interest. Whatever the heads of State media institutions may say, to use the State media to promote any one political party or group of parties at any given time is a violation of the obligation of State institutions to cater to the general public interest. After all there are so many other non-UNP political forces such as the LTTE, NSSP and the JHU that could also claim the same disadvantage and demand use of the State media for their purposes. True, an editorial policy of strict neutrality could then result in the imbalance of media coverage with the voters not provided with an adequate coverage of non-UNP political forces. But this then becomes a challenge for Sri Lankan society to resolve and not the opportunity for any one political force to take advantage of at the cost of others. This can only be resolved within the limitations of the socio-economic system and form of democracy prevailing. On the one hand, political parties wishing the attention of private sector media will have to, at least partially, meet the interests of the media ownerships as well as their audiences. On the other hand, there has to be a neutral, publicly accountable, State media that provides a voice to all the voiceless. This is a long term task. The publicly owned media and the citizenry cannot be made the victims of these flaws in Sri Lankan democracy. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
