|
|
|
| Sunday, 26 June 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Media watch Citizenry has the right to know the truth by Rohan Jayawardane It is best, in your most admirable column, to consider analytically the role of the (a) government (b) the free press, in a truly democratic society. Democracy itself guarantees equality of personal Rights (in all applications), the freedom of association without interference, and the norms of Law and Justice. If these factors "go missing" in collective applications in particular, it is the Free Press alone within its professional activity that can observe, criticise and bring matters to the notice of everybody for the purpose of effecting remedy! It is an indispensable role, for professionals only. On the other hand, if the Free Press was either (A) muzzled, or (b) competed with by the Government itself, then there would be no clarity at all in the eyes of the citizens because of the awesome power at the hands of governance and its machinery in dealing with the competitive Free Press. Therefore, what is governance, or the character of government? Does it function in a niche of its own? By dictionary definition, "government" means 'public administration' only. It implies the safeguarding of the rights and dues of the citizenry by acting in their behalf with comprehensive responsibility (only!). If there are perceived threats to the collective citizenry, but not the political party of any hue - then the reaction of government must also be conducted with responsibility and in accordance with the laws, and with moral perceptions (the laws are based upon that). On the other hand, all failures of any Government to abide by the rules of law or in the matter of personal fundamental rights issues must be criticised by the Free Press! It is their job, their profession. Otherwise, who would spotlight the victimising? How could this ever happen if the Government was in competition as a formidable rival institution within the realm of the "free press". Has it not been defined that governance is public administration? And that the role of the Press is that of 'watchdog' on behalf of the busy citizenry? Thereby, the notion of free expression dies in due course. On the other hand, if the Free Press sat inside the process of government, would it not be organisationally counter-productive and damaging? The issue is that there could be no equality of status allowed or guaranteed to all by a democratic set of rules. When there is confusion over the separate roles; with a resultant loss of clarity about every function. After the first breach into confused identities a rot sets in, and the sufferers are the citizenry who in due course even tend to believe in fictions as being "fact" without having capacity to verify in fullest terms. A society could thereby self destruct. ########## National Newspapers : Watchdog of the nation The national newspapers are quite rightly regarded as the watchday of the nation. Therefore it has adhere to the sacred law of journalism namely facts are sacred, comment is free. When a national newspaper is controlled by the government or by vested interests, there is always an increasing danger of manipulation and distortion of news. If this trend is not nipped in the bud, such a newspaper will certainly lose its credibility and readers will harbour serious doubts about its impartiality in transmitting news. As such, it is imperative that national newspapers are liberal in their attitudes and represent varying shades of opinion, ideas and ideals. In a democracy, its people have the cherished freedom of forming a government of their choice by electing representatives. When a national newspaper is owned by a powerful government, which is elected to office by peoples' inalienable mandate, it has to be, understandably, circumspect when opting to use it as a tool propagating its development programmes. Undoubtedly a government is duty-bound to inform the masses about its economic, social and political activities. However, the public too should have the liberty of engaging in constructive criticism through the pages of such an esteemed newspaper. The bottom line is a national newspaper owned by democratically elected government should exude an aura of transparency, accuracy and impartiality. It should never end up as a mouth-piece churning up hosannas and propaganda gimmicks and enthroning itself to a higher-pedestal as a semi-god. Finally, the readers' active participation in expressing a phalanx of views on crucial issues of national importance is a prerequisite in enhancing the stature of a national newspaper. It is a must, that readers should be amply rewarded for their valuable contributions, which will go a long way in encouraging them to articulate their views without bias or favour. Undoubtedly, such a move, would have a positive effect in increasing the circulation of the newspaper dramatically, which will auger well for the stabilization of the press freedom in our thrice-blessed country. by Ranjan Amarasinghe ############# Reporters Sans Frontiers financed by Washington The truth has finally come to light. Mr. Robert Menard, general secretary of RSF for the last 20 years, has confessed to receiving funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization dependent on the US state Department, whose principal role is to promote the White House agenda throughout the world. In effect, Mr. Menard has confessed: "In effect we receive money from the NED. And that does not cause any problem for us whatsoever." The NED was created by former US President Ronald Reagan in 1983, during a time when military violence took the place of traditional diplomacy in terms of resolving international issues. Thanks to its powerful capacity for financial penetration, the NED's goal is to weaken those governments that are opposed to Washington's hegemonic foreign policy. In Latin America, the two main targets are Cuba and Venezuela. For example, the NED financed and continues to finance the Venezuelan opposition, responsible for the coup d'etat against President Chavez in April of 2002. In 2004, 13 groups opposed to the Bolivarian government received $874,384 from the NED. During 2003, 15 factions opposed to the Venezuelan President benefited from NED subsidies totalling $1,046,323. At the same time, Reporters Sans Frontiers has regularly lashed out at Mr. Chavez Government and accused it of threatening freedom of the press. For example, RSF published a report criticising proposed laws for dealing with members of the media who are guilty of criminal activity, such as inciting armed rebellion or subversion. This new legislation is a response to the primary and criminal role played by members of the private media during the fascist coup of 2002 against the Venezuelan president, as well as their current outrages. Outrages that RSF abstains from denouncing. But RSF's enemy par excellence continues to be Cuba, Mr. Menard's repeated malice is almost obsessive, as shown by the new propaganda campaign against the island designed to damage tourism. It should not be forgotten that Bush'santi-Cuba plan allocates $5 million to NGO's engaged in activities seeking to dissuade tourists from travelling to Cuba, and which points to Reporters Sans Frontiers as an example to follow. Moreover, RSF admits to providing economic aid in Cuba to "families of the 30 incarcerated journalists so that they can face the loss of income caused by the arrest of their relatives". If the ideological rhetoric of that statement is removed, it reads that RSF remunerates the families of individuals arrested for receiving a wage from the Bush government and seriously threatening the integrity of the Cuban nation by collaborating with the economic sanctions. Given that Mr. Menard receives economic retribution from the United States government, it is the same as saying that Washington, beyond direct financing, also finances - via RSF - those persons in Cuba who do its bidding, which constitutes in and of itself a serious violation of Cuban law. According to RSF's balance sheet for 2004, "at least 53 information professionals lost their lives in the line of duty or for expressing their opinions". Iraq, is, according to this report, the most dangerous country for journalists, with 19 reporters killed. The US armed forces, which have occupied Iraq since 2003, hold the main responsibility for those murders, given that it controls the country. Now, RSF, far from accusing the US authorities, limits itself to echoing statements by officials in Washington, and describes the weapons fire that caused the deaths of several journalists as "accidental." However, Iraq is not a priority for Mr. Menard. The financing of RSF also poses important questions. How can an organisation that depends economically on the CANF, the CFAO, Hewlett-Packard, the Foundation of France, the Hachette Foundation, the EDF Foundation, the Caja de Depositos y Consignaciones, the Open Society Institute, the Real Network Foundation, Sanofi-Synthelabo (now Sanofi-Aventis), Atlas Publishers, the Colour Club, Giobenet and the Sur chain pretend to be independent? How can an organisation financed by the French state act with total impartiality? That is impossible, and RSF's positions in favour of the coup de'etat against President Aristide of Haiti clearly show it. How can a membership organisation that supposedly defends journalists be happy about the overthrow of a democratically elected president? RSF's 2003 budget reached 3,472,122 euros. According to annual accounts, 11% of that income comes from the state, 12% from patronage, 4% from dues and donations, 15% from the European Commission, 10% from punctual operations, and 48% from the organisation's publications. That last figure is surprising for its importance. The sum of 1,984,853 euros supposedly comes solely from the sale of calendars. The calendars costs 8 euros each, which is the same as saying that RSF manages to sell more than 248,106 calendars per year, or rather...680 calendars per day! That figure is way too high to be credible. (Courtesy: Granma International) by Salim Lamrani Excerpts taken from Rebelion ############ Significant rise in the reach of dailies: survey MUMBAI: The National Readership Survey 2005 has revealed a significant increase in the reach of the press (dailies and magazines) over the last three years with an addition of 21 million readers between 2002 and 2005. It has also found that the number of readers of newspapers and magazines in rural India is now almost equal to those in urban India. In one of the largest surveys of its kind in the world, the National Readership Studies Council (NRSC) on Wednesday released its results based on a sample size of over 261,212 house-to-house interviews spread over 536 districts in 24 States. The study covered 522 publications (221 dailies and 301 magazines) Despite the growth of the reach of satellite television-from 134 million individuals watching in an average week in 2002 to 190 millions individuals in 2005 - the NRS 2005 has recorded a significant growth in the reach of the print medium in the last three years-from 179 million to 200 million people and aged 15 years and above. However, while the reach of the press has fallen in urban India in the same period, from 48 per cent to 46 per cent, it has grown in rural India from 17 per cent to 19 per cent. As a result, of the total of 200 million readers in the country, 98 million are from rural India and 101 million from urban areas. Daily newspapers, the NRS 2005 finds, drive the growth in the press medium, with their reach rising in the last three years from 23 per cent to 24 per cent. In the same period, the reach of magazines has declined from 13 to 10 per cent. Growth in readership in rural areas In terms of readership, urban and rural, Hindi daily newspapers are ranked the highest with Dainik Jagran at number one with a readership of 21,123,000 and Dainik Bhaskar with 17,373,000 readers ranked number two. Of the dailies in the top 10, nine are in the regional languages-five in Hindi, one in Telugu, one in Tamil, one in Marathi and one in Bengali - and only one in English. These figures exclude the reach of Malayalam newspapers. According to the NRS 2005, one of the reason for the increase in the growth of readership of newspapers is increasing literacy as measured by the ability to read and understand any language. The study estimates that in these terms, literacy has risen from 62.5 per cent to 70.6 per cent in the last three years with the rise being higher in rural areas-from 55.6 per cent to 64.6 per cent - than in urban India where it has grown from 79.3 per cent to 84.5 per cent. This suggests, states the study, that there is scope for further growth in the print medium as there are still 314 million people who can read and understand any language but who do not read any publication. Apart from readership data, the survey also documents the reach of the radio, which has stagnated at 23 per cent of the population listening to any radio station in an average week. In urban areas, however, the audience for radio has grown because of the introduction of FM radio. On the other hand, in rural areas it has dropped in the last three years from 25 to 23 per cent today. The Hindu June 9, 2005. ######### A truly incredible media! President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in a speech delivered at the BMICH last week stated some home truths about the Sri Lankan media. She challenged the media personnel to publish her comments. Here, we accept the challenge and oblige her. We do so not because she is the Executive President or because we belong to the "state media". We do so in order that our dear readers could read and verify their veracity. She said the only freedom enjoyed by our media is the freedom to lie. Family members or close relatives of a certain politician own three-fourths of media establishments, both print and electronic. When that politician is in power it becomes 100 percent. Such concentration of media ownership by a politician is unique to Sri Lanka. Such monopoly ownership is not found anywhere else. Even in Italy the PM owns only a third of the media but that is also considered as unethical, she added. As an example of the news blackout in the media on political grounds she referred to violence in relation to the General Elections of 2004. Then, 93 persons were killed and several thousands assaulted. There was also large-scale destruction of property. There was not a single report of that violence published in any media. Even well documented evidence issued by the President's Office was not published, she stressed. These comments were made at a meeting held to award compensation to the first batch of victims of election related violence at the General Elections in 2004. A Presidential Commission of Inquiry had investigated 4758 complaints of which 195 were related to the General Elections of 2001. Of these the Commission had concluded investigations in relation to 1506 cases related to the General Elections of 2004. A sum of over Rs. 54 million was allocated as compensation to the victims. As the President emphasised it was only a symbolic token in appreciation of the sacrifices made by them for the preservation of democracy in the country. Certainly they deserved more. (JV) |
|
||||||||
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
