The pretense of professionalism – the flipside of media freedom in Sri Lanka
In calling the media “feral beasts” caught in a vicious cycle of unravelling standards Tony Blair, in his last days of office, may have captured the approach to journalism by some of the media institutions in Sri Lanka. While a recent article to Groundviews points to the abject degeneracy of State media in Sri Lanka today, it’s also private media that shares the blame for shoddy reporting. Through a case that flags a clear example of the degeneracy of professional journalism, we question whether the strident calls for media freedom in Sri Lanka neglect with the same vigour to hold media institutions accountable to local and international standards and ethics of professional journalism. Importantly, this case also calls to question the efficacy of the Press Complaints Commission. The PCC is an institutional mechanism that few in Sri Lanka know about and if this case is anything to go by displays a depressingly somnambulant approach to the protection of the rights of the readers.
A question to the Government and the LTTE by Nishan de Mel was published on Groundviews on 13th June 2007. The following is from an email Nishan sent Groundviews yesterday:
“I sent an opinion article to be published to The Island newspaper on the June 13th 2007. It was published 3 days later on June 16th. However, much of my text had been deleted and whole sentences and paragraphs that I did not write had been added by the editor, thus drastically changing the content and tone of what I wrote. Approximately 70% of my original text had been deleted and replaced.
The Editor’s action has resulted in attributing to me falsely things that I did not write. I wrote to the editor on June 16th and asked for an explanation and remedy, but so far, two weeks since, I have not received any response. If the editor wanted to express his opinion then he should use the editorial NOT re-write my article and publish his views under my name.”
Time line of events:
June 13: My article was sent by email to groundviews.org and to The Island Newspaper.
June 13: Groundviews publishes my article in the original form.
June 16: The Island publishes my article in a form that is drastically changed from the original.
June 16: I write by email complaining to the Editor of the Island and ask for remedy.
June 19: I write by email to the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka and ask if they can entertain this sort of complaint.
June 30: No reply yet from the editor of the Island, nor the Press Complaints Commission.
Since the Island’s website requires a subscription to access, we’ve attached the Nishan’s article as it appeared in the newspaper on 16th June 2007. The original article is available here. An analysis of the changes made by the Editor of the Island (also sent in by Nishan to Groundviews) demonstrates the incredible degree to which the published letter differs from the original.
Nishan also sent in the following:
1. Email with article submission of original article to Editor of the Island on 13th June 2007.pdf (that makes it clear that Nishan only gives permission for the title of the original article to be changed.)
2. Email to Editor of Island complaining about changes to article sent on 16th June 2007. Nishan wrote this immediately after reading the article as published in The Island. To date, Nishan has not received any reply to this email.
3. Email to Press Complaints Commission on sent on 19th June 2007.pdf. Nishan has not received a reply from the PCCSL to date.
This case raises several interesting points. Clearly, Nishan’s diligence is documenting the facts of this case points clearly to an outrageous dereliction of media responsibility and professional ethics by a leading English daily in Sri Lanka. It is also a telling indication of the inherent hypocrisy of ascribing to a set of professional ethics and values as enumerated in the Code of Professional Practice (Code of Ethics) of The Editors Guild of Sri Lanka yet in spirit and practice, tossing it aside with total impunity.
On the other hand, while the PCC’s regulations are available on the web along with details on how a complaint should be made, one would expect and indeed demand a far more proactive and energetic approach by an institutional mechanism that was set up to protect the rights of readers. The case statistics of the PCC speak volumes of its effectiveness – a mere 267 cases over two years (2003 – 2004) and a 112 cases in 2005. The website does not record statistics for 2006 or 2007, and we are not surprised.
Nishan’s case is a sombre study on the flip side of media freedom in Sri Lanka. While attention is concentrated on the growing challenges to free media – and rightly so given the growing repression and censorship – less attention is paid to the unprofessional conduct of media that in their careless abandon of the rights of readers and contributors exacerbates significant problems facing the development of professional media in Sri Lanka. Not all readers and citizens are as technology literate and diligent in documenting their grievance as Nishan. Many readers and citizens would simply give up far earlier, especially when the response of institutions and mechanisms set up to protect their rights seem to be as lackadaisical as the media institutions themselves. The point is simply that until media fully ascribes to, in spirit and practice, established codes of professional conduct, they are in no position to agitate for greater media freedom.
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Why oh why do you so called sri lankan media pundits keep comparing our imature and fragile democracy with socialist tendancies with that of another countries highly mature democracy such as the UK. If you must compare it then do so with China or North Korea since their “democracies” are closer in reality to that of Sri Lanka….
[Editors note: Your last sentence was deleted - kindly note the submission guidelines for comments. Thank you.]
Dear Sanjana,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The fact is that,we have not received a complaint from Nishan de Mel.
What he needs to do is to send us a copy of the original article, the published version, and his statement of facts, along with our complaints form which is available on the web. http://www.pccsl.lk
He could either fax or mail the documents, or send it to us by email. There are times that the pccsl common email seems to play up. If he plans to email the complaint, please ask him to send it my email address.
Thanks and best.
Kshama
Kshama Ranawana
Complaints Officer
Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka
65/5, Ward Place
Colombo 7
Phone: 5353635, Fax 5335500
email: kshama@pccsl.lk
Web: http://www.pccsl.lk
“There are times that the pccsl common email seems to play up. If he plans to email the complaint, please ask him to send it my email address.”
-Kshama Ranawana
Sorry but that sounds more like a response from a govt. institution rather than a “protector of readers’ rights”..
Well if there is a known problem with your common email, I suggest you get it fixed. Its like having a 911 no. that ‘sometimes’ doesn’t work – doesn’t really help anybody, does it?
As Kshama Ranawana should have seen, the groundviews article has given a link to a copy of the email that I sent to the PCC. I used the email link from the PCC website. To be precise, I went to “http://pccsl.lk/contactus.htm” clicked on the email link which reads “pccsl@pccsl.lk”. This has been coded in a way that it generates an email to “info@pccsl.lk” and that is the address to which my email went, as directed by the PCC website. All this remains exactly as I describe even now at the time of writing this comment.
Melvin Ally’s comments above are very apt in this case.
We might have thought the problem of their faulty email to be excusable, if this was the first instance in which it had `played up’. But Kshama’s comment indicates that the PCC has chosen to keep on their website an email address which THEY KNOW IS FAULTY. I think the readers of this space would appreciate hearing from Kshama, asap, that they have posted on the website an email such as Kshama’s which they know to be working.
And I am waiting to see what the PCC does about what, on the face of it, seems an instance of disgraceful conduct by The Island. It smacks of not so much a lack of professionalism as deliberate mala fides.
Of course, this type of thing is nothing new among newspapers in Sri Lanka, some of which have in several instances in the past demonstrated that they are either unwilling or incapable of seprating their politics with professional and ethical obligations.
This is the type of complaint that ought to have been dealt with with the utmost despatch. The PCC’s behaviour erodes public confidence in itself and the regime of self-regulation.
All in all, a most regrettable affair that is a damning indictment on Sri Lankan media.
Text of email sent to Editor of The Island on 1st July 2007:
Dear Sir,
I wish to bring to your attention an article titled The pretense of professionalism – the flipside of media freedom in Sri Lanka (http://www.groundviews.org/2007/07/01/the-pretense-of-professionalism-the-flipside-of-media-freedom-in-sri-lanka/) regarding an article submitted by Nishan de Mel published in The Island on 16th June 2007.
The facts of the case as they are presented in the article strongly suggest a gross and indefensible misuse of Editorial freedom. I would welcome your response that can be sent in via email to me or entered on the website directly.
Best,
Sanjana Hattotuwa
The Island of 5 July 2007 reproduces Nishan’s article in full with the following note from the Editor:
The article as it appears on the Island’s website can be accessed as a PDF here.
Excellent stuff all round. Good work groundviews!