Movement are all involved in drawing up a plan for a Media Training Institute. It is tragic that the Sinhala medium newspapers have no opportunity for training at all.

We have absorbed largely school leavers. Only a few have their degrees. So what they get is in-house training. On-the-job training is vital for a media like this but, at some point, institutional training could give you the necessary finishing touches.   

I think we should have more refresher courses. That way we sharpen our skills and renew our knowledge. Hence, I believe that short-term refresher courses should be made available. 

We have received some Swedish funding with regard to the setting up of a Media Training institute. The government is likely to provide us with the premises. Besides that, we have to decide on our own agenda and create an institute that would serve our interests.   

I believe that preference would be given to the Sinhala medium journalists. They do not even have enough prescribed texts on journalism. However, there are enough books in the English language. I also think that English should be taught as a link language so that the Sinhala and Tamil medium journalists could access the reservoir of knowledge available as well. Of course it will take a long time, and this journey might not even come into fruition during our lifetime. But it is certainly a start from, which the future generations could actually benefit from.   

 

Do you envisage a special training course for beginners as well?   

Our proposal seeks to address both training for beginners and current practitioners. There also will be both short and long term courses. We have many financial constraints. I cannot say much more because we are still discussing the types of courses etc.; and final decisions are yet to be made. 

Owing to our financial constraints, we are compelled to restrict the numbers to between 30-40 persons. We hope to improve the courses and also increase the intake in the years to come.   

 

If we speak on the quality of reporting, how satisfied are you with local reporting on the war situation? The general understanding is that in the south, the military viewpoint is given precedence while in the north, only the LTTE and other Tamil militant or political groups express their views. In that backdrop, how satisfied are you with the reporting of the ongoing peace process?

I think this question affects the north in a completely different context. The LTTE more or less suppresses information from being disseminated and that extends to controlling information with regard to other Tamil political organizations or militant groups. In the south, it is more or less due to a lack of access to other sources. The other sources meaning the LTTE or other militant groups operating there. 

It would not be correct to criticize journalists from the north and the east to uphold absolute democratic practices and the tenets of journalism. It is not possible because it is largely a question of survival. But, I am not happy about the manner in which we report the war. They are more like running commentaries.   

 

But, some of the Sinhala newspapers too have been labeled chauvinistic and toeing the Sinhala hard-line. Isn’t this a very serious charge against mainstream print journalism in the south as well?   

I think this malady prevails not only in the north, but also in the south. There was a time when we were accused of the same thing. We disregard such criticism now because we do try to get the other side of the story as well. I think there is no such credibility crisis for the newspapers in the south. But then again, I think the northern papers should be excused for their excesses because we understand that there cannot be any media freedom when the sheer hand of militancy suppresses their voice.   

 

Some of the newspaper practitioners and media experts during this series of interviews expressed the view that the media itself was extremely guilty of whipping up communalism in its desire to increase newspaper sales. In your estimation, is it because the practitioners lack the wisdom and the prudence to understand and evaluate the enormity of the problem or is it that we largely treat it as an issue that does not directly involve us?   

I would not accept that. But I think the enormity was not realized perhaps at the early stages. This has also changed with time, and I believe we have grasped the situation rather accurately. The problem would arise only if a journalist individually tries to give a story a certain undertone. But an independent practitioner would not get trapped in such a situation.   

“We speak about being a democracy, of being independent but every six years, we elect a king. This powerful political entity enjoys tremendous decision-making power as an individual, with very little room for public questioning or scrutiny. I think it is time that we evaluated the role that has to be played by the executive of this country, and that should be refashioned to reflect the social requirements”.  – Victor Ivan, Editor, Ravaya 

 

The laws relating to criminal defamation, as we know, has been used against the media on many occasions to suppress journalists. Media Reforms certainly is a beneficial start in this new journey towards media reforms and the creation of a liberal media culture. What other salient steps are necessary, in your opinion, to make these developments more beneficial to the public?   

If I may give you the briefest possible response, let me say that we said no to criminal defamation not only because it was merely an overt attempt to frighten journalists but also because this concept is abhorred by the modern world as being archaic and undemocratic. 

In today’s context, the media has a great responsibility in informing the public. One of media’s cardinal duties is to inform and sometimes discuss on a daily basis, the performance of governments elected by the public. When you crush journalists by using the law as an instrument to curb and control, the public also invariably becomes frightened.   

It was only very recently that the Sri Lankan media agitated against the oppressive criminal defamation law and sought its abolition. The government has responded to our request to introduce an act to ensure the right to information. The bill will be presented in August. My contention is that it is a significant development to ensure transparency in all spheres, particularly in governance. 

The struggle for the liberalization of media should not be misunderstood as a struggle for media emancipation alone. In the US, following the attack on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, many things have changed. But even a foreigner could simply obtain any information from any government institution. With modernization being a world phenomenon, the Sri Lankan government has also been pushed towards laws and regulations that ensure transparency, and the Freedom of Information Act is being processed in such a backdrop.   

These archaic rules and regulations prevent the proper securitization of vital issues such as procurements, imports and areas relating to decision. When such an act is put in place, the lack of transparency in government activities could be effectively minimized. Not only the government, but also other public institutions would also be placed under the microscope.   

We also called for the repeal of the Press Council Law and to replace it with an effective Press Complaints Commission managed by journalists, publishers, owners, editors and institutions connected to the media. The government has consented. The modalities are now being worked out.   

We have a few more demands. The legislature allows the coverage of proceedings by media, which is a fundamental practice only. To strengthen our parliamentary democracy and to ensure scrutiny and transparency in governance, much has to be done. Most other democracies permit the coverage of committee meetings of Parliament. These committees are extremely necessary to ensure smooth governance and administration, particularly with regard to public finance. They should be open to the media. More important discussions are held and decisions taken at these committees than within the Parliament. We ignore this vital area. We believe that regular coverage of these committees would lead to efficient governance. This is a main request.   

At present, these committees are less than mere ‘talk-shops’. On most occasions, they do not even meet because there is no quorum. Members have little or no commitment to attend them and they are soon wound up, within an hour or so. It is indeed a sad state of affairs when things fall into a mere practice because it is traditionally expected to have these committees. If there were media participation, there would be some vibrancy, and certainly better attendance at least to avoid media criticism, which would lead to a beneficial situation for the public.   

When all these developments are taking place, the corresponding question would be the responsibility on the part of the media. When a liberal culture is created, it becomes our duty to demonstrate our responsibility and our social responsibility in enjoying such freedom. The question is whether we have the conceptual maturity to handle it?   

The problem is that the entire system of administration is flawed. The independence of this country was not one that we actually fought for, but one we received somewhat on a platter. As a result, we have replaced the system, but still cling to those approaches in governance and administration. We have borrowed the colonial concepts liberally. 

We speak about being a democracy, of being independent but every six years, we elect a king. This powerful political entity enjoys tremendous decision-making power as an individual, with very little room for public questioning or scrutiny. I think it is time that we evaluated the role that has to be played by the executive of this country, and that should be refashioned to reflect the social requirements.

Similarly, the legislature is equally unaware of its exact role in a democracy. For example, the Supreme Court does not know the duties of a Supreme Court. Is it merely a duty to adjudicate? It cannot be. The court should be an exemplary institution.   

The same theory applies to the media. There is a significant social responsibility attached to the media. The unfortunate feature of this society is that we have the modern technology, equipment and the necessary learning, but the people are not those who have been vibrant participants in an effort to reform to change and create a system designed by them for themselves.   

In India, the newspaper industry is extremely developed. An additional strength of the Indian media is that they have also participated in the freedom struggle and grown up along with their society. Just look at its vibrancy. This is the case in many other countries as well. But we have an alien kind of journalism that has fallen from the skies, with much colonial thinking enshrined within. We have little understanding of our own social requirements and less conceptual knowledge to create something of our own that would help serve our social demands better. This fact is reflected whenever we have issues of national importance or social significance.   

I think that the media should accept at least partial responsibility for having created the present predicament of this country, for failing to create awareness among the people about issues that affect the nation. They have failed to act as arbitrators, reformers and guides in a journey toward advancement. Instead, we have added to the disputes and divisions. For example, in countries such as India, journalists do not take sides when reporting on issues such as poverty, religion, ethnicity and communal harmony. Journalists the world over, make an attempt to write with a conscious mind about their civic duty.   

But for our misfortune, the Sinhala newspapers believe that the Sinhala readership requires to be catered to exclusively which could range from chauvinism to a refusal to acknowledge the need for a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict. Tamil newspapers on the other hand would try to please the LTTE. The English newspapers demonstrate less partiality because both communities are reading them, But these are attempts to please their particular readership than anything else.   

This is why I said that we require to overhaul the system. We journalists need it. Our judges require it, politicians need it, and the bureaucracy demands it. Then only can we identify our exact roles in this complex society. 

I always say that every citizen needs to understand that he is a stakeholder in this process of evolution. And the media needs to be more involved.

At a particular Presidential Election, the public turnout was abysmally low and when they realised who was leading the campaign, they voted in the second round to ensure that a candidate of their choice was elected. That’s what I identify as being real participant, stakeholders in a democracy. That is also the hallmark of a vibrant democracy.   

In contrast, I see a great vacuum in our society. We fear to express our ideas, to be open and honest. We fear spoiling our promotions, of becoming unpopular, whether it would affect a child’s future. Naturally then, such people are easily blackmailed, suppressed and silenced. Sadly, even our so-called intellectuals have these limitations. The name of the game is, steering clear of controversies. 

This is why I said that we should try to overhaul the system, not just attempt to liberalize the media. It would be a cosmetic exercise when other freedoms are not there. It is a question of deciding between whether we want to serve common purposes for the benefit of the country or just concentrate on survival as individuals.   

When we critically analyze the role of media, I think it is only fair to admit that our role has been not one of arbitrator or mediator, but one of dispute creator or abettor. Let me show you by way of example. The Sinhala language was made the only official language overnight due to political reasons. India too did much for the advancement of their language, and do not forget the fact that India has many languages and dialects unlike us. With such ethnic diversity, they still retained Hindi as their official language and ensured that English was also protected by their language policy as the international language of the country. 

English was the language of scholarly work, of universities, institutions of higher education. It was not that they loved the language of their colonial masters, but they saw a need to have a link language if they are to advance. They understood that they could not communicate with the world by limiting themselves to their own language. But our country took a reverse turn.   

A dubious referendum held in 1982 violated the democratic right of a nation to elect a government of its choice after six years, by popular vote. That was a daylight political robbery. But our newspapers never expressed progressive views on it, did not forecast negative results. They simply refused to comment, as it was the political will of the powers that be. 

Even the normal debates regarding a referendum were pushed aside. But it is an accepted fundamental principle even in a higher Court that media has the right to express their views on such matters of public importance and magnitude. The first principle is that if such a bill comes before Supreme Court for determination, it should be opposed through media. 

This never happened, but was just allowed to slip through. That demonstrated absolute apathy all our institutions including that of the media, the judiciary, newspapers, religious institutions have all acted sans a sense of responsibility. Aren’t we responsible for what happens to our country, as to what structures change?. Or is it that we are too happy to leave it for others?. That is why this country has fallen into this abysmal state of affairs. 

This is why I firmly believe that a dialogue on media freedom should not be confined to media alone, but should also lead to a broader discussion on other freedoms as well. Upon that depend our independence and the country’s future. It is only through such discussion that we could create a more democratic society. We need to create a framework that works for us.   

 

You mentioned that the media has failed to identify its distinct role as watchdogs of a society. Isn’t it also the excuse of successive governments whenever they wished to control the media to harp on irresponsibility and bring in regulation?   

Just look at the country’s chaotic situation. Who is to be blamed? Naturally, those who held power for the past fifty odd years. Let us first identify the negative impact the majority of these politicians had on this country before we move to discuss whether they should attempt to control media. 

Do they know what their duties and obligations are? Are they discharging them with responsibility? Then, it is understood that their intention is to suppress than anything other. Governments often use their power inequitably and unfairly to control the media.   

In my opinion, there are several cornerstones to democratic governance. The media is one, the judiciary another. The Auditor General is yet another while the Attorney General is another foundation. When you look at these foundations, you will then observe that they are not discharging their duties diligently. 

I do not think that politicians should be blamed for everything. Why did the media fail to constructively criticize them? Is it that only the politicians have responsibility? Isn’t society responsible as well? So where was the necessary criticism and public comment? 

Take the omnibus issue. It is a joke. From 1983, they have increased their fares. We never question whether they are running their businesses with responsibility or merely for profit. I also feel that successive governments have provided assistance to the masses in an imprudent manner. Every child does not require a white uniform. Some have more than enough to share with others. There are children who refuse to eat the free midday meals. What is needed is not merely to give something, but to ensure there is a proper identification of those who actually require aid and who do not require it. But this decision to provide all and sundry, satisfies society. They say how good this program is, but do not wear the white uniform, and do not eat the food provided. They do not understand the remitting wastage.   

 

You mentioned that the committee meetings of Parliament are very important and that the media should be allowed to cover their proceedings. What legislative changes do you deem necessary to strengthen this new framework we are looking at?   

I think the Privileges Act and the Standing Orders should be amended forthwith to facilitate that sort of scenario. It does not even require a 1/3 majority. 

It is an accepted thing today that all these committees should be open to media scrutiny, and this is the one phenomenon that has wide acceptance even in the developing world. I think only the defense meetings should be closed-door sessions to prevent state security from being compromised. Even the United Nations allows attendance at general meetings barring those of the Security Council. If most countries could move towards this policy of transparency, I see no reason as to why Sri Lanka cannot.   

Take for example, the duties of the Auditor General, which is to act as the person/institution in charge of public accounting. He issues an annual report on each public institution. These reports are discussed at Parliament committee level and it takes about an hour for legislators to discuss a massive document containing well over 400 pages. Most of the time, they have no understanding of what is contained. In Sri Lanka, these reports are among the least discussed and not even regarded significant. 

But not in other countries. In many countries, auditors reports are submitted to a special institution consisting of charted accountants before they are sent to a Parliament committee. There, the reports are carefully studied and short-term action recommended. Then, the legislators do not have to spend much time trying to understand reports of which they have no special knowledge. Such a process increases efficiency and yields better results.   

Our system is to discuss this at a parliamentary committee level, which I think is futile. They hardly go into the technical aspects of these reports. 

It is in this light that the admission of media personnel to cover these committee sessions would prove beneficial. We all know that what goes on right now is a farce. 

But there are technical difficulties still. This is why I think, first the freedom of Information Act should be implemented so that we recognize it as a right of the public to know the goings-on in this various committees. This would prevent many unfair transactions. Then there would be transparency and a better opportunity to question activities, recruitments etc., I think our society deserves to be led towards such a goal. Even awarding of tenders could be examined. This way, we will ensure transparent governance.   

I can show you the massive lacuna in practice, despite legislation. In 1988, a law was passed requiring all legislators to declare their assets and liabilities to the Secretary General and ministers and the Speaker to declare assets to the President annually. But these assets are not even being properly declared. 

If the public’s right to obtain information with regard to the assets and liabilities of their representatives were given legal recognition, at least then there would have been a degree of reciprocity, which would augur well. These are individuals maintained by public funds. The right of a citizen to know how these funds are spent in the maintenance of their representatives, in my opinion, deserves legal recognition. Such a development would drastically reduce the tendency to be corrupt and swindle public money. Unfortunately, our law is such that the President is above criticism and the immunity clause prevents him or her being challenged in a court of law. Is that a democratic set up in the first place?   

In my capacity as a journalist, I telephoned the Secretary General of Parliament in the early 90’s and requested for the assets declaration of about ten legislators. His response was: “Are you mad? How can they be given to you? They are carefully kept under lock and key”. He further told me to bring a court order upholding my right to have access to such information if he is to release the vital information. I laughed, not at him, but at the system that lacks transparency.   

Ultimately, I contacted Professor G. L. Peiris and told him to take cognizance of the manner in which the laws are enforced in Sri Lanka. I told him that not just I, as a journalist, but any man begging on the streets could request for the same information. Professor Peiris during the 1994 election campaign declared that the law would be amended which would request all elected and nominated legislators to declare their assets to the authorities and to the public. The Peoples Alliance came into power and I wrote to K. Balapatabendi, Secretary to the President seeking the President’s assets declaration along with a few of the key ministers. I did this for amusement actually. I also wrote that I was acting according to a formulated law and to charge me the fee, if any, for releasing such information. I received no reply. I have sent reminders at least five times, to no avail. I was once asked to fax a request immediately, and when I did, there was no reply to that either.   

But later, I requested a certain politician’s assets declaration from the Presidential Secretariat, and at that time, the particular politician has fallen out of grace with the PA leaders. I was sent the information within a week. The trend is to disclose such information if the particular member is out of their favor, but shield those who are loyal to them at any cost.

I have a few declarations, and upon studying them, realized them to be totally false. One minister, known for his luxury life-style has declared that he owns no motor vehicles. The assets declaration form itself has the printed warning that the suppression of information was punishable with a seven-year term of imprisonment.   

But, a policy of transparency could actually improve the situation. When these matters are publicly discussed, we might anger some politicians. Our attempt is not to provoke them, but to ensure that our representatives are acting with responsibility and that there is transparent governance.   

 

There is an ongoing debate as well as an effort to enhance media freedom in the country in a bid to move towards a more transparent society. Whilst recognizing the right to enhanced media freedom, don’t you also think that there exists a need to discipline the media, to make it more responsible? Don’t you think that freedom without responsibility could have a drastic and devastating effect?   

I agree. Freedom without responsibility is extremely futile. Media freedom becomes a reality only when the element of responsibility is upheld. Our struggle is to ensure that these elements responsibility and freedom – survive side by side. 

This is why we have made plans to set up a Media Training Institute. We inquired from the universities about their mass media courses, and I believe the training is full of theory and lacking practical experience. These graduates and diploma holders are mostly unsuitable for employment. 

Is there a single supplementary reader published in Sri Lanka on the subject of journalism? The lecturers are language experts rather than experts on the subject of journalism. It is a sorrowful state.   

About six years ago, UNESCO granted dollars 50,000 to a university for the publication of supplementary readers on journalism. These readers were not published. As a result, these lecturers teach language instead of journalism or mass media. They might know their language, but they have little or no knowledge on the subject of media. They certainly lack the conceptual knowledge required. Do they know how it evolved, a sound knowledge in current affairs, how the concepts are formed and developed in the world, what principles have global recognition etc.? 

All journalists, from editors to regional correspondents, should be given a thorough training. It does not mean institutional training, but a massive in-house training. We have begun discussing a certain agenda for media training. We should have better interaction with foreign media experts as well. In that way we can upgrade our industry to their levels with some effort.   

We are having various discussions on this subject right now. We might know the fundamental principles, but that is inadequate to move forward and beyond the fundamentals. 

We are also looking at the possibility of introducing self-regulation as a mode of self-correction. The Editors Guild and the Free Media Movement have worked collectively on this issue and together we are working on other issues that affect us. 

We intend selecting some supplementary readers and make them accessible to the public offering media diplomas is also fashionable these days, because there is a great demand for it. But they do no good to students who have a desire to enter the media. It only serves those who want to make a fast buck.   

 

Why do you say that there is a great demand for media related courses? What makes this industry that attractive?   

I think there is sense of adventure and glamour attached to it. As practitioners, we know how attractive that could be in the reverse form. The risks are tremendous. These courses in mass communications are like accessories to make individuals attractive. However, the standard of these courses is very low. As a result, these diploma holders cannot be employed.   

For example, one day a youth approached me for a job as a journalist. He said that he loved the subject. He said he was obtaining his diploma in journalism the following day. He has paid Rs8000 for it. He told me that there were about twenty in his class, and their plight would be the same. ]I was surprised to know that the lecturers were dramatists, musicians and writers. Journalism is a very serious subject, a technical one. 

I feel so sorry for these misguided youths who feel that they are on the right track because they have followed these courses.   

One day, a language professor asked me to take in 12 graduates from a particular university and said that the Asia Foundation has promised to hire them and pay a small allowance of Rs3000 for subsistence. 

He told me I could do the same. I asked him to send about ten people, to first check their knowledge. Eight were sent. I had prepared a simple questionnaire, such as, what are the channels that you listen to/watch? What are the newspapers and magazines that you read etc., All of them failed to obtain the minimum marks. So I had to turn them all down. But I decided to give them one more test. I told them to go out, like all my other reporters do, and then to compile a small article on any subject they like. [cite_start]I did not get a single composition.   

I told the particular professor who sent me these boys with high recommendations that they were thoroughly ill-equipped for the job. In response, he said that my decision was a disgrace to his institution. But these things have to be said. I said that I could not employ any one of them and added that it was not their fault, but the fault of their education, which did not harness their skills. It is actually a crime. 

It is an era of studying from others’ notes. There is no thinking, creativity or research. Studies are only certificate-oriented. There is no research and training attached to our education. This aspect is addressed only at the faculties of science and engineering, because that is essential. Naturally after obtaining a degree by spending four or five years in an institute of higher learning, they think that further training is not necessary, But the system of education here has failed to cater to job market requirements.   

The media, to most people, is also another avenue of earning a pittance. It is a struggle for survival and to secure a job. While, I believe that the glamour too attracts them, it is mostly the need for employment.   

 

The Press Council Law was introduced to control the print media. At the time of introducing legislation, this country only had a print media. During the past decade or so, electronic media has come to the forefront. There are no laws governing the electronic media though their licenses are issued and guidelines are provided under the SLRC Act. Do you think that the electronic media needs to be guided?   

Earlier, we only had the print media, hence the laws were formulated to govern them. Similarly, the public and some print media practitioners believe that, that is the only medium of communication to date. 

The time is right for us to go beyond these narrow confines. Sometimes, I feel that the electronic media is frightening with regard to their responsibility. Recently I saw a newsreader reading news with a mug of a brand product on his desk. The product is not a bad product. But why is it that we reduce the value of a news broadcast by promoting a product along with it? There are advertising slots in between the broadcast. But why sell the bulletin altogether? Some day, presenters will cast news with a bag of cement on their shoulders. The argument is that they are making a lot of money through this exercise. But is that enough? Don’t you have to create an ideal situation? Lead by example rather than be swallowed by market forces?  

These are humiliating examples. Humiliating, because we expect heads of institutions to know their civic responsibility. There are accepted advertising principles, and these are globally accepted. The reasoning is that the advertising slots should not finally disrupt the listener or viewer. Whether it is a commercially-run institution or not, these fundamentals are the same. They are so implemented to maintain a certain standard.   

I believe the advertising slots per hour should be something like twelve minutes, but it is the reverse form here in Sri Lankan on all television channels. Despite the high level of competition and the need to be commercially viable, there also is a need to go beyond the popular culture. There exists a need to enhance and improve the aspects of education and disseminate accurate information. It is a journey towards a better goal the creation of a more aware and learned, cultured and refined society. We need to improve public taste. Is that happening today?. Where are the debates that spark off intellectual discussion, programs that seek remedies to public questions?   

The electronic media is a new phenomenon to this country. So they should be supported. But look at the people who head these institutions? Where are the seasoned personnel, the pioneers? Don’t the young need to learn from the experienced? This factor affects the industry too. As a result, naturally, they have no understanding of the social responsibility attached.   

I have more to say about the irresponsible advertising patterns in media. Take “The Hindu” newspaper. They have advertisements too. But they even select the advertisements that go in their paper. Not everything is accommodated. I think there should be certain common, accepted principles with regard to selling space of newspapers and the visual medium both.