rapa
12-26-2007, 01:45 PM
If the Friday of last week, December 14, will go down as a day of great significance for the Government, due to the resounding victory in the Third Reading of Budget 2008, it is also a date that will be remembered for the shame it brought on much of the media and journalism in Sri Lanka.
For, the success of the Government in parliament came in the wake of many media houses misleading the public about the imminent defeat of the Government in the Third Reading.
The media in a democracy, even in one that is as flawed as we find in Sri Lanka, has as its main role that of informing the public of the day-to-day developments in government and politics.
To report on crises in government is the stuff of good journalism; and a key test of a good media institution or the quality of journalism lies in how well this responsibility by the public is discharged.
On Friday, December 14, 2007 there were several media houses, both in the print and electronic media, which failed this test very badly.
It is a failure made even worse by the fact that they had refused to learn anything from a similar failure just two weeks ago, when the Government won the Second Reading of the Budget 2008, with a comfortable 16 votes.
Good political journalism requires a capacity to understand the workings of politics and politicians. This involves the ability to correctly analyse what lies behind the slogans of political leaders and parties and the undercurrents of politics.
The journalists and sections of the media that wrongly foretold the defeat of Government in the Second Reading may have been na‹ve in their reading of the balance of forces in parliament on that occasion.
But, it certainly smacked more of knavery than naivet‚ when the same people and institutions came with even more definite forecasts of a defeat for the Government in the Third Reading of the Budget.
Family heirloom
What was evident in the headlines that told of a "Photo finish" vote and a cliff-hanger result; the prophesies of would be long-jumpers to the Opposition benches, and the persistent doubts that were raised about the role of the JVP in this vote, was not any interest in keeping the public informed of the real situation vis-…-vis the possible voting in parliament. Instead, it was a crude display of the political affiliation of the media houses concerned and their journalists who were happy to sing from the song sheet of the UNP.
It was a shame that the Sri Lankan media, with its good record of covering important crises and developments in politics in the past, gave such a miserable performance on this occasion, purely because of the media manipulation that was on, in place of honest reportage of events.
The so-called crises over the Budget votes were entirely those of media creation. The numbers that crossed over to the opposition were nowhere near what the media prophesied. It was only Wijedasa Rajapaksha in the Second Reading, followed by Rauff Hakeem with three fellow acolytes, and the ever pitiable Anura Bandaranaike at the Third Reading.
This was hardly the stuff of high drama that the media was trumpeting about. Anura Bandaranaike was particularly pitiable because he said when voting "aye" at the Second Reading that he was doing so because of the party that was founded by his parents.
Obviously, he had forgotten his parents when the Third Reading came round. It is time to understand that even the progeny of the founders of political parties will have to face up to reality that a political party can never be a family heirloom.
Political folly
To any discerning observer of the political scene in Sri Lanka, the result of both these votes on the Budget would have been clear from the time the debate began. Whatever was said by the propaganda mill of the UNP and its limited allies, there was never any danger of the Budget being defeated in the Second Reading.
The maximum mileage the UNP got was in the cross-over of National List MP Wijedasa Rajapaksha, who represents no one in parliament.
In the event, even he did not vote against the Budget. With the numbers the government had in its fold, it was clear that even a "nay" vote by the JVP would not block passage of the Second Reading, as it did happen.
Given this fact, it would have been obvious to anyone who had a modicum of understanding of today's politics, to have known that for the survivors in politics who make up the vast majority of elected MPs today, it would be have been the height of political folly to have rushed into a general election at this stage.
And, that is exactly what happened in the Second Reading vote.
This thinking is not based on any political soothsaying or light foretelling. It is because of the hard reality that no one in today's parliament, possibly other than Ranil Wickremesinghe, would want an election at this time.
Given the lack of interest in an election among the public, and the results we have seen of the peculiar system of proportional representation we have, it is evident that an election just now will not guarantee any party the number of seats it now has in parliament.
This applies equally to the SLFP, UNP and JVP as well as the smaller parties. Which means that, other than the leaders of each party, no other member in any party can be sure of re-election in a snap election.
This is a reality that is known by any analyst of the political scene in Sri Lanka just now, but was obviously lost on the sections of the media that were carried away by its own propaganda about the imminent defeat of the Budget in the Second Reading.
Countdown
The folly of the media was worse confounded when it began the countdown to the Third Reading. One saw a complete lack of understanding of political reality when sections of the media rooting for the defeat of the Government failed to take a cue from the JVP's line on the votes of the Ministry of Defence at the Committee Stage.
There was hardly a cause to believe that the JVP, which is strongly supportive of the current military action against the terrorism of the LTTE, would throw a spanner in the works of military operations by defeating the Budget.
Regrettably, although such understanding was there among the public, it was not evident in the media that made it their mission to mislead the public into believing that a defeat of the Government was imminent.
The huge majority the Government obtained in the Third Reading, with the JVP abstaining at voting time, gave the lie to the colossal canard of the green-dyed media.
In the event, what happened will remain a monumental example of the failure of key sections of the Sri Lankan media, due to their unashamed political affiliations, to live up to their responsibility to keep society well informed of the actual developments in the world of politics, as it impacts of the lives of the people. To these media institutions, the run up to the Third Reading was an occasion to unleash a political frenzy, wholly unrelated to the actualities of the situation.
By midday of December 14, one FM radio station, well known for its affiliations with the UNP, had already announced that Ranil Wickremesinghe would be sworn in as Prime Minister that evening. He was the new Superstar on the rise.
Far from a proper reporting of politics and the alignment of forces in parliament, a biased media was looking at the Third Reading of the Budget as an opportunity for propaganda hype for the UNP, in complete denial of the real play of forces in parliament.
Media freedom
The behaviour of the media in relation to the voting on Budget 2008 raises many questions about Media Freedom in the country.
The undisguised propagandising against the Government that sections of the media engaged in, brings into question the credibility of the media, and leads to much scepticism among the public about the real purpose of Media Freedom in the country.
Such open disregard for the ethics of the media, and the role and function of the media in a democracy, plays into hands of forces that may be eager to impose increase restrictions on Media Freedom, with the possibility of gaining the sympathy of the public for the restrictions that may be imposed.
For, a public that finds the media constantly engaged in misleading it on important matters of politics and governance, or trivialising key issues of public concern, is more likely to feel that increased restrictions on such media can be justified from the overall public interest.
The large percentage of people, who supported certain restrictive measures on the media in a recent BBC survey on public attitudes Media Freedom, is an indicator of how public opinion can move against the media, even in functioning democracies.
Commendable tradition
If large sections of the private media failed in its duty of correctly informing the public on the developments on the Budget vote, and became the manipulators of politics rather than its reporters and analysts, they also departed from a commendable tradition of media competence and capability on the covering of major political crises and developments in Sri Lanka.
To recall from memory, the media had some of its finest hours in covering genuine political crises and developments such as the Kelaniya Conference of the UNP in February 1956, when JR Jayewardene succeeded in getting the party to adopt a resolution to make Sinhala the only official language; replacing the earlier policy of Swabasha, in a move to pre-empt Bandaranaike's Sinhala Only campaign that was gathering steam.
There was the excellent coverage of the SLFP's crisis sessions at Kurunegala in March 1959, which saw the beginning of the break up of the MEP Government, with Philip Gunewardena's VLSSP leaving the Bandaranaike Government in May 1959, taking the MEP to the Opposition.
Although the plot was hatched in secret at Lake House, the media at the time did a commendable job of reporting the crisis that was emerging in the Government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, which saw it come crashing down on December 13, 1964, when 13 members led by CP de Silva voted against the Speech from the Throne, bringing about the first major cross-over debacle in the country.
As much as the media did a great job of covering the forming of the United Left Front (ULF) which brought together the LSSP, CP and VLSSP in 1964, it did even better in covering the break up of the ULF, after many rounds of secret talks among the left leaders of the day; leading up to the decision of the LSSP Congress to enter into coalition with the SLFP on June 7 that year, and the forming the SLFP- LSSP coalition a week after that.
All of these, like the JVP-controlled "Government on Probation" of Chandrika Kumaratunga in 2001, and the cross-over of SB Dissanayake and others later that year, which led to the dissolution of parliament and the General Election in December 2001, were all major political crises and developments, which saw the media play its proper role of keeping the public informed, albeit with the various colourings based on political preferences.
The contrast with the role of the media in Budget 2008, was the absence of a real crisis, and the attempt by sections of the media to present a crisis of their own imagination to the public, in an attempt to take the country into a world of make-believe where the government would be defeated, leading to a general election.
As events were to prove, this was all a part of the fancy of Ranil Wickremesinghe and those in the UNP who view politics with glasses having his favourite tint. Far from the Government being defeated, what happened was that Ranil Wickremesinghe had to face yet another defeat in his long list of defeats.
It is now evident that the great non-events of the votes on the Second and Third Readings of the Budget were in fact systematic manipulations of sections of the media, by forces that are determined to see the collapse of a government that has been elected by the people, in a situation where there is no desire for a general election either among the people, or the majority of their elected representatives.
It is regrettable that the entire pseudo-drama of Budget 2008 has shown many sections of the media in a very poor light, vis-a-vis their role and function in a democracy. It has also raised many a question about the meaning of Media Freedom that will require serious study by those who see its necessity for the functioning of a democracy.
For, the success of the Government in parliament came in the wake of many media houses misleading the public about the imminent defeat of the Government in the Third Reading.
The media in a democracy, even in one that is as flawed as we find in Sri Lanka, has as its main role that of informing the public of the day-to-day developments in government and politics.
To report on crises in government is the stuff of good journalism; and a key test of a good media institution or the quality of journalism lies in how well this responsibility by the public is discharged.
On Friday, December 14, 2007 there were several media houses, both in the print and electronic media, which failed this test very badly.
It is a failure made even worse by the fact that they had refused to learn anything from a similar failure just two weeks ago, when the Government won the Second Reading of the Budget 2008, with a comfortable 16 votes.
Good political journalism requires a capacity to understand the workings of politics and politicians. This involves the ability to correctly analyse what lies behind the slogans of political leaders and parties and the undercurrents of politics.
The journalists and sections of the media that wrongly foretold the defeat of Government in the Second Reading may have been na‹ve in their reading of the balance of forces in parliament on that occasion.
But, it certainly smacked more of knavery than naivet‚ when the same people and institutions came with even more definite forecasts of a defeat for the Government in the Third Reading of the Budget.
Family heirloom
What was evident in the headlines that told of a "Photo finish" vote and a cliff-hanger result; the prophesies of would be long-jumpers to the Opposition benches, and the persistent doubts that were raised about the role of the JVP in this vote, was not any interest in keeping the public informed of the real situation vis-…-vis the possible voting in parliament. Instead, it was a crude display of the political affiliation of the media houses concerned and their journalists who were happy to sing from the song sheet of the UNP.
It was a shame that the Sri Lankan media, with its good record of covering important crises and developments in politics in the past, gave such a miserable performance on this occasion, purely because of the media manipulation that was on, in place of honest reportage of events.
The so-called crises over the Budget votes were entirely those of media creation. The numbers that crossed over to the opposition were nowhere near what the media prophesied. It was only Wijedasa Rajapaksha in the Second Reading, followed by Rauff Hakeem with three fellow acolytes, and the ever pitiable Anura Bandaranaike at the Third Reading.
This was hardly the stuff of high drama that the media was trumpeting about. Anura Bandaranaike was particularly pitiable because he said when voting "aye" at the Second Reading that he was doing so because of the party that was founded by his parents.
Obviously, he had forgotten his parents when the Third Reading came round. It is time to understand that even the progeny of the founders of political parties will have to face up to reality that a political party can never be a family heirloom.
Political folly
To any discerning observer of the political scene in Sri Lanka, the result of both these votes on the Budget would have been clear from the time the debate began. Whatever was said by the propaganda mill of the UNP and its limited allies, there was never any danger of the Budget being defeated in the Second Reading.
The maximum mileage the UNP got was in the cross-over of National List MP Wijedasa Rajapaksha, who represents no one in parliament.
In the event, even he did not vote against the Budget. With the numbers the government had in its fold, it was clear that even a "nay" vote by the JVP would not block passage of the Second Reading, as it did happen.
Given this fact, it would have been obvious to anyone who had a modicum of understanding of today's politics, to have known that for the survivors in politics who make up the vast majority of elected MPs today, it would be have been the height of political folly to have rushed into a general election at this stage.
And, that is exactly what happened in the Second Reading vote.
This thinking is not based on any political soothsaying or light foretelling. It is because of the hard reality that no one in today's parliament, possibly other than Ranil Wickremesinghe, would want an election at this time.
Given the lack of interest in an election among the public, and the results we have seen of the peculiar system of proportional representation we have, it is evident that an election just now will not guarantee any party the number of seats it now has in parliament.
This applies equally to the SLFP, UNP and JVP as well as the smaller parties. Which means that, other than the leaders of each party, no other member in any party can be sure of re-election in a snap election.
This is a reality that is known by any analyst of the political scene in Sri Lanka just now, but was obviously lost on the sections of the media that were carried away by its own propaganda about the imminent defeat of the Budget in the Second Reading.
Countdown
The folly of the media was worse confounded when it began the countdown to the Third Reading. One saw a complete lack of understanding of political reality when sections of the media rooting for the defeat of the Government failed to take a cue from the JVP's line on the votes of the Ministry of Defence at the Committee Stage.
There was hardly a cause to believe that the JVP, which is strongly supportive of the current military action against the terrorism of the LTTE, would throw a spanner in the works of military operations by defeating the Budget.
Regrettably, although such understanding was there among the public, it was not evident in the media that made it their mission to mislead the public into believing that a defeat of the Government was imminent.
The huge majority the Government obtained in the Third Reading, with the JVP abstaining at voting time, gave the lie to the colossal canard of the green-dyed media.
In the event, what happened will remain a monumental example of the failure of key sections of the Sri Lankan media, due to their unashamed political affiliations, to live up to their responsibility to keep society well informed of the actual developments in the world of politics, as it impacts of the lives of the people. To these media institutions, the run up to the Third Reading was an occasion to unleash a political frenzy, wholly unrelated to the actualities of the situation.
By midday of December 14, one FM radio station, well known for its affiliations with the UNP, had already announced that Ranil Wickremesinghe would be sworn in as Prime Minister that evening. He was the new Superstar on the rise.
Far from a proper reporting of politics and the alignment of forces in parliament, a biased media was looking at the Third Reading of the Budget as an opportunity for propaganda hype for the UNP, in complete denial of the real play of forces in parliament.
Media freedom
The behaviour of the media in relation to the voting on Budget 2008 raises many questions about Media Freedom in the country.
The undisguised propagandising against the Government that sections of the media engaged in, brings into question the credibility of the media, and leads to much scepticism among the public about the real purpose of Media Freedom in the country.
Such open disregard for the ethics of the media, and the role and function of the media in a democracy, plays into hands of forces that may be eager to impose increase restrictions on Media Freedom, with the possibility of gaining the sympathy of the public for the restrictions that may be imposed.
For, a public that finds the media constantly engaged in misleading it on important matters of politics and governance, or trivialising key issues of public concern, is more likely to feel that increased restrictions on such media can be justified from the overall public interest.
The large percentage of people, who supported certain restrictive measures on the media in a recent BBC survey on public attitudes Media Freedom, is an indicator of how public opinion can move against the media, even in functioning democracies.
Commendable tradition
If large sections of the private media failed in its duty of correctly informing the public on the developments on the Budget vote, and became the manipulators of politics rather than its reporters and analysts, they also departed from a commendable tradition of media competence and capability on the covering of major political crises and developments in Sri Lanka.
To recall from memory, the media had some of its finest hours in covering genuine political crises and developments such as the Kelaniya Conference of the UNP in February 1956, when JR Jayewardene succeeded in getting the party to adopt a resolution to make Sinhala the only official language; replacing the earlier policy of Swabasha, in a move to pre-empt Bandaranaike's Sinhala Only campaign that was gathering steam.
There was the excellent coverage of the SLFP's crisis sessions at Kurunegala in March 1959, which saw the beginning of the break up of the MEP Government, with Philip Gunewardena's VLSSP leaving the Bandaranaike Government in May 1959, taking the MEP to the Opposition.
Although the plot was hatched in secret at Lake House, the media at the time did a commendable job of reporting the crisis that was emerging in the Government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, which saw it come crashing down on December 13, 1964, when 13 members led by CP de Silva voted against the Speech from the Throne, bringing about the first major cross-over debacle in the country.
As much as the media did a great job of covering the forming of the United Left Front (ULF) which brought together the LSSP, CP and VLSSP in 1964, it did even better in covering the break up of the ULF, after many rounds of secret talks among the left leaders of the day; leading up to the decision of the LSSP Congress to enter into coalition with the SLFP on June 7 that year, and the forming the SLFP- LSSP coalition a week after that.
All of these, like the JVP-controlled "Government on Probation" of Chandrika Kumaratunga in 2001, and the cross-over of SB Dissanayake and others later that year, which led to the dissolution of parliament and the General Election in December 2001, were all major political crises and developments, which saw the media play its proper role of keeping the public informed, albeit with the various colourings based on political preferences.
The contrast with the role of the media in Budget 2008, was the absence of a real crisis, and the attempt by sections of the media to present a crisis of their own imagination to the public, in an attempt to take the country into a world of make-believe where the government would be defeated, leading to a general election.
As events were to prove, this was all a part of the fancy of Ranil Wickremesinghe and those in the UNP who view politics with glasses having his favourite tint. Far from the Government being defeated, what happened was that Ranil Wickremesinghe had to face yet another defeat in his long list of defeats.
It is now evident that the great non-events of the votes on the Second and Third Readings of the Budget were in fact systematic manipulations of sections of the media, by forces that are determined to see the collapse of a government that has been elected by the people, in a situation where there is no desire for a general election either among the people, or the majority of their elected representatives.
It is regrettable that the entire pseudo-drama of Budget 2008 has shown many sections of the media in a very poor light, vis-a-vis their role and function in a democracy. It has also raised many a question about the meaning of Media Freedom that will require serious study by those who see its necessity for the functioning of a democracy.