Watch the Jazeera report on YouTube
I was on Al Jazeera for like 5 seconds. I like the Jazeera, but for these Sri Lanka segments at least they tend to round up the usual suspects without too much balance. Frederica Jansz (of the Leader), Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu and Sanjana Hattotuwa of CPA, Amantha Perara of Internews and Perambara, and then, like, me. It’s fine, but I know all these people and they tend to come from one side of the issues. Perhaps the right side, but it’s not very interesting. This segment was on media freedom, and the questions they gave approached it from one particular angle. I think they should reframe the questions more openly and invite people from the other side.
People like Malinda Seneviratne, or perhaps (at a further extreme) Lackshman Hulugalle or others. I generally agree with the idea that media should be free, but I don’t think bemoaning the fact gets us too much closer to understanding or ameliorating the situ. That is, I’m less interested in aney pauw than aney how. It is entirely possible that the media was behaving contrary to national security, or that there are security concerns that require restricting media. I don’t believe this, but I think these are valid points. I don’t think the people on the ‘other side’ of this debate are irrational, and I think their voices should be heard.
Furthermore, this alliance of foreign media and local dissenters is dangerous and I think counter-productive. None of these internationals can bail us out of jail, and having them so blatantly on ‘our side’ makes the whole enterprise look foreign. This is an impression I try to avoid at all costs because I am very foreign. I don’t want freedom and constitutionality for those reasons, I just want a better life here. But the foreign association poops up the debate. It becomes personal more than substantive, and that’s a loss for everybody.
So, I think the Listening Post report above was biased and counterproductive. I think they basically contacted Paikiasothy, who referred Sanjana, who referred me. Which is fine, but it’s not really an accurate picture of what’s going on here. I don’t think it’s the point of this media to change stuff here, but I also think it’s counterproductive to that end as well. If they want to do a report like this I think they should engage a diversity of viewpoints, not the particular (probably minority) viewpoint that they agree with. Malinda recently criticized me hard in the state run Daily News but he called me before and I think we get along. He’s not very far to any extreme and I’m pretty sure he supports media freedom, but he is more on a different side. Giving people like him their five seconds may be a good place to start.
Hey Indi,
I certainly did not refer Al Jazeera to you, and never have. They certainly do not need me to be aware of and contact one of Sri Lanka’s best read bloggers. Having being featured with me in a previous Listening Post video, you know that they do not tell you beforehand who else is featured in the story. It may be that they only select the voice in the final edit, and get more interviews than they broadcast. That said, your post here does encourage me to ask AJ, the next time I am invited to give a soundbite, who else they are speaking to for the story.
The argument for greater plurality of voices in the media is well taken, but far better celebrated on, for example, Groundviews and more generally on the blogosphere as a whole, than in any State media. Dayan Jayatilleka, no pushover or puppet of NGOs and with markedly different ideas of and approaches to human rights than I, was invited to contribute and comment on Groundviews precisely because he was a representative of Government and for his difference of opinion. To his full credit, his submissions on Groundviews, and sustained engagement with interlocutors who didn’t mince their words remains to this day a treasure trove of exchanges during the height of war, and after it. But you know this. Your trenchant exchanges with Dayan at the height of war, stridently championing access for independent media to ascertain humanitarian conditions of those affected by its fallout, are useful to revisit even today. The outrageous bias of State media and its control by government, evident in the context of this election campaign alone, does not allow space for dissenting views. How this can be addressed is certainly a conversation we can engage in, through for example, encourage public service media and more citizens to create their own media.
You go on to speak of an alliance between international media and local dissenters. Were you also part of this alliance when you were featured last on the Listening Post with myself and Frederica Jansz? What is the nature and basis of this alliance? When did it come about and for what ends? Is this also part of the vast conspiracy hatched to revive the LTTE? Come on. Simplistic thinking such as this does not help support what is a larger argument, well taken, calling for greater balance in international, and more pressingly, domestic media. I specifically flag this problem of partisan bias in BOTH state and private media here –
– also broadcast on Al Jazeera.
You say “I don’t think the people on the ‘other side’ of this debate are irrational, and I think their voices should be heard.” I think that some people on the “other” side (meaning for me this Govt, and also the pro-LTTE diaspora media in particular) are in fact quite insane, and often rabidly so. Malinda, Dayan and others in government I am in touch with, read, engage and agree to disagree with are exceptions, but they are sadly few. A lot more have goon squads and see difference of opinion as something that needs remedial treatment through murder, abduction or hate speech. Again, you know this and writing on your own blog reflects it. Voices must be heard, yes. But not all voices must or can be given equal emphasis in any one media. If free media is an oxymoron at best, and your suggestion of more plurality of media is what we should aspire to, I guess we can start with unblocking Tamilnet.com?
Take care man,
Sanj
“Furthermore, this alliance of foreign media and local dissenters is dangerous and I think counter-productive.”
It is naive, bordering on the dangerous, to think that these things happen on their own.
Distabilizing an unfriendly country is easy. Carefully choose the right dissenters and give them a platform. Demoralization and disintegration will take care of itself. The locals will think they did it all by themselves.
It is no surprise that these dissenters are always led by an elite minority with an axe to grind. Their fate is not tightly bound to the country they reside in, so they can play as hard and loose as they want.
Formula never fails. Tested all over the world. Read cold war history, where many died for somebody else’s convictions.
“None of these internationals can bail us out of jail, and having them so blatantly on ‘our side’ makes the whole enterprise look foreign.”
How things *look* should be our last concern. There is a serious threat to democracy here.
Foreign interests are not really accountable to anyone. They come in all shapes and sizes. The public really have no way of keeping track of who and what these interested parties are.
These foreign interests can easily undermine our fragile democratic process. These people are betting on walking away whenever they want, so they don’t care about long term negative consequences to the country and its people.
Considering the disparities of the world this is a real danger. A Sri Lankan journalist might earn in a month what someone can spend on a single good meal in Europe/US. If someone had a burning desire to shape the world in a certain way, it is clear where the money will have its most purchasing power.
Foreign interventions, even with the best intentions, make things worse in the long run. See early 21-st century world history.
There is no doubt that some voices are selectively ignored by the foreign media, but it is hard to know which.
Indi said:
“I don’t think the people on the ‘other side’ of this debate are irrational, and I think their voices should be heard.”
Sanj said:
“I think that some people on the “other” side (meaning for me this Govt, and also the pro-LTTE diaspora media in particular) are in fact quite insane, and often rabidly so.”
Definition of “Other side” of the foreign media devide.
According to Indi:
————————-
People who don’t get invited to Al Jazeera or BBC on a regular basis.
According to Sanj:
————————–
1. people who passionately support the “Government”, (the outcome of a somewhat distorted democratic process, but still the only legitimate body that can speak for all the people)
2. People who passionately support a fanatic terrorist group, looking for revenge for its destruction and ways for its revival.
I am confused.
The truth of the matter is people who live outside the country rarely get to hear both side of the story. Only time we get to hear the other side of the story is when Palitha K, Mahinda S and Rajiv W comes on CNN or BBC for some other main media for a few minutes. Apart from that all we hear 24/7 is same old narrative that Sri Lanka is a barbaric country, it kills its minorities & journalists, and Sri Lankan don’t tolerate dissent views.
These anti-Sri Lanka propaganda is lead by MIA to hundreds of Tamil journalist who are embedded with major News papers and TV stations around the globe and supported by a few journalist who are hiding in the west. They all have one objective, that is to do their best to rip the image of Sri Lanka.
Interviews like these are not produce for local consumption but for international audience to show how terrible Sri Lanka is. By participating in these propaganda videos you guys are not doing any service to you own country. You may be thinking you are taking on Mahinda but the truth is world can’t separate Sri Lanka from this current government. They do not even know who Mahinda is, but the image you guys are helping to built is that Sri Lanka is a country full of violence and uncivilised societies.
I simply have one question for those who are screaming about terrible condition in Sri Lanka. Is Sri Lanka that bad as these international media portrait. Are innocent people getting killed on road every day, is it that difficult for minorities to go about doing their day to day stuff, aren’t there any TV channel or media that are not pro-government. Is Sri Lanka today worst than Iran???
Well said.
I understand what you’re saying, but this is the image I’m trying to dispel. These people all have a sincere affection for Sri Lanka and work to make it better.
I think Sri Lanka is great, I think our democracy functions, and I think that Mahinda Rajapaksa and his government have admirable qualities and have done some good work. I personally want a change, but I think Sri Lanka will make it either way. I too get offended when people make Sri Lanka out to be a basket case, because it’s not. I think we do pretty well.
We also have a lot of work to do, some of it very urgent and severe. None of this is to tear down Sri Lanka but to constructively build it up, for the betterment of all the people here, even if it causes the government to lose a bit of face. It’s hard to get that across in a soundbite, but that middle ground is what I try to communicate.
Appreciate your sincerity !
Second that sentiment. This blogpost is absolutely breathtaking in its candor from someone with Indi’s background.
However, independence of spirit is a luxury most of us don’t have. Not all the time.
Most of us sell our loyalty to the highest bidder without even knowing it. We then keep on acting as if that never happenned.
The world then becomes full of ‘friendes’ and ‘enemies’ and we then love them and hate them with all our passion.
You have to be very brave, very foolish, or, very courageous to speak your mind.
Particularly when all your friends, enemies, and frienemies want you to act, talk, and look in a certain way.
Way to go Indi. Be the original you are.