No politician can escape the watchful eyes of the media. Media is a blessing as it is a curse as far as politicians are concerned. It helps and it detracts. This is a reality that all politicians have to learn to live with. Media can make and they can break.
In a country where the media industry is heavily politicized
with prominent media outfits openly backing either politicians or parties
scathing attacks are not uncommon. There
are of course times when political preference notwithstanding the recipient
deserves the criticism, just as others deserve praise. For the most part, however, politics colors
reportage and comment, stories are tweaked to varnish blemish or obtain scar;
media and ethics don’t always go together.
There’s fair and unfair in all this, but in recent times no
politician has been as unfairly attacked by the media as has been Karu
Jayasuriya. We are not talking about the
occasional cartoon and caustic satirical piece; we are talking about a full
scale mud-slinging campaign carried out by well-known media houses. Perhaps this is why when Parliament debated
the budgetary allocations for the Media Ministry, Karu Jayasuriya opted to
speak on media ethics.
Now in politics there are no permanent friends. Even media institutions that wade into the
political fray are known to shift loyalty, backing now one and now
another. Saints become devils, darlings
turn into horrors. Through it all, few
would disagree, Karu has shown a kind of equanimity that is very rare in his
tribe. This is why Anura Priyadharshana
Yapa, one of the more gentlemanly of the MPs in the Government ranks, did
himself no favors when he read Karu’s observations on media ethics as an attack
on media freedom. Yapa is intelligent
enough to know the difference and is no Mervin Silva; he need not have done
himself the disservice of warranting comparison.
The truth is that Karu Jayasuriya has always defended media
freedom. He has stood up for the rights
of journalists. He has objected to
intimidation. Indeed he has defended the very institutions and media
personalities who for parochial political reasons spare no pains to sling mud
at him. When one considers that these
very same institutions and journalists not too long ago were virtually falling
over themselves to portray Karu as the country’s savior, one can obtain a sense
of the politics of loyalty in both country and the media.
Interestingly there is very little substance in these
attacks. Creative use of headline, turn
of phrase and even downright falsehoods have been used to ridicule (‘criticize’
is a word that would amount to unwarranted glorification) Karu Jayasuriya. The entire campaign has given new meaning to
the term ‘below the belt’.
Karu clearly stated, ‘I am open to criticism and I welcome
it!’ At no point in his political life
has Karu shown any fear of criticism. He
has on the rare occasion taken issue with something that was written about him
but has always focused on the relevant facts and has always assured that he has
no issue with comment. Indeed ‘Facts are
sacred, comment free’ is something Karu seems to respect far more than those
who swear by that line do. The attacks
on Karu, on the other hand, have nothing to do with facts, sacred or otherwise,
and certainly do not add up to ‘commentary’.
Malice, invective, irresponsibility, despicable are some of the words
that come to mind if one were to describe what’s being hurled at Karu.
What is more disturbing about all this is the fact that
Karu’s detractors paint themselves as championing the cause of the
Opposition. Forget Karu. He’s just one
individual. Let’s talk about the
Government and the Opposition. There are
many reasons to criticize the Government.
One could focus on specific individuals, specific incidents, specific
policies or even overall ideological thrust.
A good case can be made for ‘change’.
Let’s go with that. Let’s add
that if politics is a reality then media houses will not be impervious to the
political. Let’s assume that they have a
role in criticizing and a role in building opposition.
The problem with these opposition-builders is that those who
they attempt to resurrect or beatify are inevitably scarred by the processes of
resurrection and beatification, including the ‘necessary’ element to vilifying
potential challengers. What does all the
invective and vilification say about the named and unnamed ‘saints’ in this
matter, those individuals and cabals that are being directly or indirectly promoted?
What does it say about Sajith Premadasa?
On the flip side, what does Sajith have to say about all
this? Is he thinking, ‘Karu is a threat
and if he’s getting a bit of stick it’s good for me and therefore I shall be
silent’? It is perfectly legitimate for
anyone to object to anyone else. Sajith does not have to hold a brief for
Karu. On the other hand, if it’s about
ethics, a different culture of engagement, a better political practice, then
can Sajith breathe silent hurrahs for the media outfits and journalists who
seem to have abandoned all else in the rush to evict Karu Jayasuriya from the
political equation?
Can Sajith Premadasa remain silent and expect not to be
judged on his ideas of media ethics? Can the Government remain silent? Can anyone, really?
msenevira@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment