To justify the action in denying entry to Rae, pro-establishment journalists and other apologists have tried to portray him as a supporter of the LTTE without an iota of evidence. The standards of integrity of some journalists with a political agenda have been exposed in the Groundviews web blog, A senior journalist writing a political column in another Sunday newspaper tries to make out that Rae was an LTTE supporter and refers to the following sentence in his biographical details allegedly published in the online Wikipedia encyclopedia: “(Rae) is known as a supporter of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), and has supported openly for a separate State for the Tamils in Sri Lanka by dividing the island into two” But Groundviews’ investigation has revealed that Bob Rae’s profile was first entered to Wikipedia on 23 June 2003. This particular sentence (in line with the defence establishment’s reasons for refusal of entry) first appeared on Rae’s profile on Wikipedia on 11th June and was up there for less than 12 hours. The edit with this controversial sentence was made by an anonymous contributor at 6.31 hrs on 11 June and by 17.12hrs, it had been taken out.

Is it merely a curious coincidence that the journalist has ignored Rae profile that has appeared in Wikipedia for seven years and chosen to quote a sentence that was inserted by an anonymous contributor and which was up for less than 12 hours? Surely, senior journalists need not be reminded of Scott’s well known dictum for journalists: ‘Comment is free but facts are sacred’. And journalists who publish ‘news’ received from tainted sources do so at the peril of their journalistic integrity.”

Taken from The IDPs need to be treated just like other citizens, published in The Island, 20 June 2009

If you have any concerns about the content here, given your prolific and verbose comments, I’m surprised you were silent about it without querying respective authors?

As for standards, if you looked around the site you may have encountered this. It appears that Migara / Sinha’s myopia is sadly contagious.

I have a lot of concern with majority of the “journalistic” articles published here with no references at all. Though I see it is getting better now, slightly. If you promote this blog as journalistic type then please the codes of ethics and standards that applies to journalism applies to this blog too. But we don’t even see a Wiki reference in most of the articles! Some articles, you just have to wonder how it got through an editor.

I’m not trying to say this blog is bad, all I’m saying is all of you’re paddling in the same boat. Trying to find moral high ground is just ……. Please don’t censor this. Thanks.

The ST Editor’s comments are amusing indeed. I have more readers –> my stuff is always better –> I am not subject to criticism from people with less readers. Then replace “readers” with “awards” and repeat. As he says, the “proof” exists because “people vote with their wallets”.

This argument might hold if journalism isn’t also a business, if people aren’t creatures of habit, and if the target audience only subscribes to one newspaper. I read all of the SL papers, myself. But I read them online, of course — a fool and his money are soon parted.

SL journalism has already witnessed a sharp decline in quality that compounds the more obvious threat to Southern journalists (which has been happening to Tamil journalists for quite some years before, but as Lasantha alluded to, then they were through eliminating Tamils and came for him). But I think the elephant in the room for many is that this issue of SL journalism stems from the deterioration of all institutions in SL. The impunity afforded, the wrecked institutions ignored are the allowances that were given to the govt. by the SL populace when they voted the Pres.’s administration in and supported the Final War policies. We have to own this situation, too, to own our faults before we can reclaim our agency and correct those faults, if we are to effect lasting change.

Some of our journalists (Sinha, Gamini, et.al.) are racists at heart and yet they are desperate for the acceptance of those who are not…

Funny how they (Politicians & Journalists) sell their souls from opposite ends of the divide and yet they are so much alike.

My response to the post on Voices in Exile you point to, still awaiting moderation, was as follows:

Hi,

Thanks for this super follow up. I stand corrected on the issue of using Wikipedia as a source in Sunday articles. The two excellent AJR articles I point to in the piece on Groundviews clearly note the potential and pitfalls of using Wikipedia in particular and web based sources in general.

The examples you point to above are very revealing! I’m happy to engage in conversation on how best online sources can be referenced, or whether they can be at all. The point I was trying to make is that whereas Groundviews, for example, points to Wikipedia references through the Apture plugin and direct hyperlinks, at no point has an allegation as serious as the one made against Rae by the Sunday Times being based on a Wikipedia article alone.

When bad journalism marries contentious web sources, the result is a product that through ignorance or malevolence misdirects and misinforms the public. While on the one hand this is a strong case for strengthening media literacy, it is also a strong case to urgently develop capacities of senior journalists and Editors to more fruitfully leverage the web and Internet in support of independent and professional reporting.

We all use it, even Groundviews. Actually, so do The Island, the Sunday Observer, and The Sunday Leader. But you know, I’m actually glad that they cite their sources. This shows that they have some journalistic integrity, if that’s any consolation. I mean, it could be worse. In fact, all of these traditional print Sri Lankan newspapers use Wikipedia and cite it as a source when they do. How odd! Now there is a story worth investigating…

I don’t know why this whole discussion has become a back-and-forth between Sanjana and Sunday Times supporters, only. It’s now endemic of all Sri Lankan journalism. According to the website, even award-winning Iqbal Athas used it. I’m sure Wikipedia is just the most obvious manifestation of a more fundamental issue here.

So….. we’re all in this together. What do we say?

But despite his ranting about being the best (what a monkey praising his own tail) Sunday Times cannot even get ahead of the classified-packed Sunday Observer. The only reason the Sunday Times has some kind of circulation now even though those figures are below that of Sunday Observer, is that the Times without being able to beat them, decided to join them and beat the Observer with a classified hit-ad section. So many of my friends put away the Sunday Times when they buy it, and after committing the main section to the waste paper basket they keep the hit-ad section all week.

The Sunday Times has certainly not won more excellence in journalism awards than the other papers and the opposite of that is true. Almost all other English language newspapers have won more awards than the Sunday Times. Take last year for instance when the ‘Nation’ won a good deal of awards, before that paper went under due to external pressures, and the Sunday Times won none. It has been the case in previous years with the ‘Leader’ winning most of the awards, and the Sunday Times winning some sporadically.

Sinha Migara Ratnatunge of the Sunday times is a journalistic fossil. He started the Excellence in Journalism awards thinking that his Sunday Times would win all the awards. He is now quite obviously irrelevant in journalism be it in cyberspace or print, and that’s a fair guess why he is so defensive. Poor Migara, for journalism has progressed far beyond his feudal one-dimensional vision of it.

Last but not least, Sinha Migara Rant-natunge should be hauled before the SL Press Complaints Commission not about Wikipedia but about all the false assertions he makes here with regard to circulation and with regard to awards Sunday Times never won, fibs that can be authoritatively debunked with even the most rudimentary of research.

Frederica (and I never use my second name)

How pedestrian but utterly expected of you to refer to the recently reactivated Press Council, staffed now by media geriatrics of your ilk, as a mechanism to protect your out-moded and outrageously unprofessional notion of journalism. For the record, since its obvious you don’t know, what you suggest in terms of holding citizen journalism on par with professional journalists is already part of the 2008 Colombo Declaration on Media Freedom and Social Responsibility. In oral and written submissions over 2008, I impressed upon the Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI), of which you are part of, to recognise that blogging – globally and locally – was increasingly indistinguishable from content produced by mainstream media and, as such, needed to be afforded the same recognition and protection as traditional journalism. This parity of status I felt was necessary to encourage traditional journalists to work with and using new media as well as provide an incentive for some bloggers and new media producers strengthen the professionalism of their output.

Sections 10.3 notes of the 2008 Colombo Declaration notes,

“One of the most significant developments in the last ten years has been the growth of the Internet, which has resulted in the democratization of media and encouraged the emergence of non professional journalists in the form of bloggers etc. We acknowledge the contribution of bloggers towards the promotion of free speech and democratic media. We also recognize that bloggers are as susceptible to controls by the state, misuse of their work as traditional print and broadcast media. We take this opportunity to commit our support to responsible bloggers and other new media practitioners, and hope to work with them in solidarity towards establishing a convergent media which is strong and independent.”

In a similar vein, Section 10.4 notes,

“We specifically call on the government to recognize the internet as an important space for deliberative democracy, and extend to it, all such policies as would enhance the space of free speech on the Internet, and to avoid all policies of banning, blocking, or censoring websites without reasonable grounds. There is now a convergence between the traditional print media and the internet, with a number of newspapers being accessed through the internet, and we would strongly urge that all the privileges and protections sought in this declaration be extended to the web editions of newspapers.”

All of that you point to in your last missive is precisely that which the ST indulges in repeatedly, with scant accountability. That this site managed to get you to respond in the manner that you have demonstrated the power of citizen journalism – this is now public record that you cannot erase, wish away or choose to hide. As the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) noted in a statement dealing with the suspect quality of journalism in newspapers published by Wijeya Newspapers Ltd,

… the best way to deal with false and unfair reporting is to present the case to the public ourselves. Thanks to the communication revolution that has taken place in the world people no longer have to wait on newspaper owners, sometimes referred to as ‘magnates’, to get their ideas published. Much of the suppression of opinion in the country has gone through such absolute control of the media by a few persons. However, in this age of the World Wide Web there are avenues to present a case to the public without having to depend on newspaper owners.

At a time the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka is dysfunctional at best, you can rest assured that Groundviews, bloggers and plenty of other sensible people who know more about the web than you do will hold you accountable for your reporting.

Deal with it.

I think its hilarious that Sinha has been outed so easily… worse that he clumsily digs himself into a rat hole with the “they vote with their wallets and hearts for this best-selling Sunday newspaper” comment. hmm… I wonder what Lakehouse circulations figures are like?

That said, Sinha is entitled to be chauvinist and we don’t have to buy his paper, or drink with him at the club if we don’t want to… just as he doesn’t have to defend himself at Groundviews… be we do and he does too. Makes it all worthwhile…

There’s a qualitative difference, or at least there should be, between a political column on Sunday and a gossip column. A gossip column is precisely that, and most Sunday newspaper carry their own flavour. I’ll give you that most ‘political columns’ published today are no more than gossip thinly veiled and ill written to boot.

A political column, such as that which is critiqued by me, needs in my book to base its analysis on hard evidence. Any columnist is free to air his opinion, but if the sources that opinion is based on are as vacuous as a hasty edit on Wikipedia, the resulting product is worse than gossip and more obnoxious.

Sanjana

The issue is about your columnist’s marked ignorance of how to source web content that led to the indefensible, and to be honest, quite hilarious misuse of Wikipedia. As has been pointed out in the comments, not just is this a source that any respected University discourage undergrads to quote in their work, this is in violation of the Editors Guild Code of Ethics, which last time I checked you were part of? Clearly the excitement of discovering Wikipedia for the first time (it’s been around for a while you know) by your political ‘columnist’ must be checked in the future with saner counsel, more befitting all that you say your newspaper is.

Just to note that the Sri Lanka College of Journalism (SLCJ) will use this article as an example of how not to use online source. Even pathetic media dinosaurs who hold back the progress of journalism in Sri Lanka clearly have their uses.

“Migara said, June 17, 2009 @ 8:27 am . . . “