The vilification of Karu Jayasuriya

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

Read more

Draft Guidelines for Media Ethics

These are days of ‘ethics’ or rather days where ethics are questioned and recommended.  President Mahinda Rajapaksa observed that there are those who come up with guidelines for ethical behavior in professional matters and that they themselves can violate these edicts with impunity.  He pointed out that politicians can and do infringe but at the risk of punishment. 

Now it is clear that not all those who indulge in unethical (and even illegal behavior) are punished, either by the voters or in terms of the law.  This is not because voters are themselves indulgent.  Most often they don’t have the choice, for they have to pick from among the unethical and unlawful.  As for those who flout the law, there are those who are apprehended and those who get away, the latter usually being endowed with bucks and power, the ultimate insulators against due punishment. 

The President also passed the ethics ball back to the media, challenging the fraternity to revisit their own guidelines, amend where necessary or even abandon if deemed unnecessary or impractical. 

This Sunday is Poson Poya.  That’s an added incentive to seek succor in the word of the Buddha and the pathway to emancipation therein, namely the Arya Ashtangika Marga or the Noble Eightfold Path:  right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.  Of these, the first two are in the realm of ‘wisdom’, the last three refer to ‘mental development’.  Right speech, right action and right livelihood come under ‘ethical conduct’.  It would be useful then to discuss these in order to shed light on the seemingly vexed question of ethics, media ethics included. 

Right Speech
This is the first principle of ethical conduct.  Media is about words.  And of course silences. Both can make and break, save lives and put them at risk, start wars or make peace.  The Buddha elaborates thus: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. In short it is recommended that truth be spoken, spoken in friendly, warm and gentle manner and silence be kept when word does not add to conversation and debate.

Right Action

This is the second ethical principle, right action, considers bodily action as form of expression.  In essence the recommendation is to desist from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and to abstain from sexual misconduct. The terms of ‘activation’ of the principle, it is thus recommended that one be kind and compassionate, honest, respectful of others’ belongings and that one keeps sexual relationships harmless to others. Plagiarism apart, the rest of the guidelines can be taken in metaphoric manner reflection upon which can enhance the ethical character of one’s work.

Right Livelihood

This essentially means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way, i.e. legally and without harm to others.  Dealing in weapons, dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), and selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs are not recommended. Again we could use these as metaphors to guide professional conduct.

In general, it would appear that reflection on the possible consequences of a given act, including the act of writing, in terms of the above three frames of reference, the exercise of caution always, the deference to wisdom and compassion, makes for ethical practice.  

One could write a thesis on journalistic ethics or a ‘comprehensive’ set of guidelines, but it can be argued that it would all boil down to the above. 

Mr. President, I humbly offer that I can do no better than Siddhartha Gauthama, the Compassionate One, the All-Knowing One, the Samma Sambuddha, no less.  I can only strive to abide.  How about you and your Government?  

Read more

Media is spin but it need not be

One of the most inspiring slogans I’ve encountered is the tagline used by ‘Indymedia’, i.e. the Independent Media Centre, which was established by various independent and alternative media organizations and activists in 1999 for the purpose of providing grassroots coverage of protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle.  It was a simple proposition: ‘Be the media’.  The suggestion was that we don’t need to have things described for us; we can and should exercise our minds to obtain information, assess veracity and engage in dissemination ourselves. 

The internet helps, certainly, but one should not be complacent for the forces of infomanipulation, to coin a word, are not unaware of the potential of the internet to subvert their machinations.  Search engines are not innocent; those who wish to misinform deliberately craft websites to structure what might appear to be ‘random’ searches so that particular opinions get formed.  Thus one needs to search intelligently and consistently look for alternative renderings and analyses in order to obtain a better understanding of events, incidents, personalities and processes.  For the most part, however, the version of the mainstream media wins the day.    For the most part, we are not the media.  For the most part, media is spin. 

Take the coverage of the so-called Arab Spring for example.  The mainstream media went berserk, as it did when George W Bush illegally invaded Iraq.  The ‘enemy’ was clearly identified, suitably tagged (brutal, dictator, tyrant, despot, etc. were frequently used words), and the largely uninformed consumer of mis-truth were egged on to purchase uncritically the mainstream version of things.  Now consider the fact that the protests in Libya at the beginning of the ‘Libyan Spring’ were nothing compared to the magnitude of protests sweeping the Western world as I write with thousands upon thousands mimicking the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement in countless cities, and hundreds upon hundreds being beaten, arrested and tortured.  Consider also that NATO moved into Libya to enforce a No-Fly-Zone in order to protect civilians from alleged attacks by President Gaddafi’s Air Force whereas  the same media institutions that saluted this move is tongue-tied when it gets to demanding a similar security devise for Afghan and Pakistani civilians who are being regularly bombed by US Air Force drone attacks.  Spin is selective, clearly. 

Then we get the Australian network ABC, taking a leaf out of BBC and Channel 4, shamelessly showcasing the lies mouthed by ex-terrorists without bothering to check credentials or reliability of claim.  We also have someone called Paul Cleary, writing for ‘The Australian’ claiming that ‘Tamils are still enslaved in northern Sri Lanka’, citing a Tamil National Alliance MP (E. Saravanapavan).  Cleary could have done a background check on the MP and his party and their servility to the LTTE and consequent grief at the vanquishing of that terrorist organization.  He could have done a compare-and-contrast about how Sri Lanka handled the issue of displaced civilians vis-à-vis the conditions of IDP fallout from US-led attacks on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention the rescuing of some 300,000 civilians held hostage by the LTTE, resettlement of more than 98% of them and the rehabilitation and reintegration of thousands of ex-terrorists.   

Cleary paints a bleak picture which would give the impression that there are hundreds of thousands languishing in refugee camps while those who are not are being totally neglected by the government.  Saravanapavan is mischievous enough to tell only a fraction of the story.   He claims that 800,000 Tamils are living as ‘slaves’.  The man clearly needs to check the dictionary meaning of the word ‘slave’ and ask himself if his party was not slave to the LTTE and was not in fact de-slaved by the Sri Lankan Government when the slave-master was liquidated.  Cleary could have gone back to the basics of writing a news story.  He didn’t.  He spun or let himself be instrument of spin.  Deplorable.

The Northern Province, contrary to Cleary’s claim was never ‘controlled by the Tamils’. The Tamils were controlled by a terrorist outfit and parts of that province was controlled at gun-point.  The impression created is that there was some kind of benign Tamil ruler operating in the Northern Province, for he claims that the area is ‘now run like a military dictatorship’.  Spin, clearly.

Cleary was interviewing a foreigner and has the out of saying ‘I was quoting him’.  ABC, on the other hand, knew what it was about.  Meens Krishnamoorthy, appropriately frilled for camera by ABC, was a member of a terrorist outfit and someone who underwent weapons training.  Her associates include international criminals who raised funds for terrorists, facilitated arms-procurement and acted as spokespersons for terrorists, the pin-up boy being a rogue who goes about dressed as a Catholic priest, ‘Father’ Emmanuel. 

Meena Krishnamoorthi, like many other Tamil Australian citizens who were or are members of either the Tamil Youth Organization and/or Australian Tamil Congress, were members of a non-Australian armed group. Therefore, over and above the fact that credibility of statement is severely compromised by the fact, they have violated the Australian Constitution, especially Crimes Act No 13 of 1978 which covers ‘Foreign Incursions and Recruitment’.  ABC and all other media institutions that purchased ABC Spin are guilty of aiding and abetting all those who have transgressed.   

Is ABC naïve, ignorant, incompetent and moronic? I think not.  ABC, like Channel 4 and BBC, like Al Jazeera and all the mainstream networks in the USA and Europe know very well what they are doing.  They are spinning as though their lives depend on it.  In fact their lives do depend on it, sadly. 

So, does spin always work, always win the day for the spinners and their masters and mistresses?  Not always.  The continent of Africa didn’t buy the spin on Muammar Gaddafi.  The entire world didn’t buy the spin on Iraq.  Not purchasing didn’t alter the course of history as blueprinted by the USA and her allies of course, but it seems that spin is losing its potency.  Slowly. 

What spin cannot purchase has to be obtained by fire-power.  This is what we are seeing all over the world.  On the other hand, when 99% of the people rise up against the 1% who keep them down, spin can’t do much and bullets can’t do all. 

The most formidable bulwark against spin and bullet, in the final instance, is the truth and collectives determined to weed out the lie.  It is good to be the media.  It is imperative that we be the media.  Everywhere.  Here in Sri Lanka too. 

[Courtesy, 'The Nation', October 30, 2011] 

Read more