To give you an example
Remember when the SL government
claimed there was ‘zero civilian causalities’? This was widely reported
in the media. Would you say every journalist who reported this was
claiming that there was ‘zero civilian causalities’ or would you say
they were ‘making the claim quoting sources’?

And you seem to be in a hurry to make me ‘religious’ now David 🙂
For the record, I don’t have any beliefs regarding the accuracy of this version of events.

They could well be 100% correct – Or not. I think the tendency to jump to conclusions when faced with insufficient information is one of the biggest problems with the human mind. And I try my best to avoid it. That is my ‘religion’ if you like 🙂

My position is we do not yet have enough information to come to a conclusion on this. So don’t assume I have any religious position with regards to any version of the story please. 🙂

But the point I am making here is different.

All I am saying is it is just not logical to claim ‘DBS claims xyz ‘ at this point. Simply because

1) He states clearly that this is the ‘official narrative’ according to the police and defence sources

2) He acknowledges that there are different narratives

3) He promises that “the counter narrative will be dealt with extensively in a forthcoming article”

4) He avoids saying anything that would indicate which version seems more likely to be true in his opinion

So in short DBS is effectively saying ‘Police and defence sources say XYZ happened . But there is another version of the events”

And you say ‘DBS claims xyz’ Is this really a fare thing to say?

When you try to back your position by arguing DBS wrote this version first. therefore he thinks this is true you are getting into very shaky ground. You are the one trying to ‘read his mind’ when you do this. Not me. I just wanted to give you some counter examples to show you that the ‘mind reading game’ can be played both ways and is not reliable. I made this clear that this is all pure speculation by beginning each of my counter examples with ‘May be’

For the record, I agree that the ‘official version’ could well be true. Is it possible that a crazy former tiger decided to restart the ‘struggle for liberation’ ? of course it is!

On the other hand is the SL government capable of staging something? Of course it is ! And does the SL government have any reason to spread such a false story?’ of course! Elections, (The war is such a great vote magnet isn’t it) and the need to justify the huge military presence in the North especially when questions are being asked in Geneva.

So all I am saying is we need to stay balanced in these things. Without rushing to conclusions. DBS could write an article tomorrow saying ‘yes the official version is true’. But until then he hasn’t made that claim.

yes, one can speculate on what DBSJ might be planning, or try to read his mind, but it’s better to analyze what he has actually written. to reiterate, he has indeed made the claim by quoting a source, because when a journalist quotes a source without any alternate sources, he is in fact making a claim and staking his name to it. i think that is beyond reasonable argument.

your only possible alternate argument is that DBSJ is saying nothing whatsoever, because quoting a source means nothing. then, the question will be, is DBSJ reporting nothing that he gives credence to. from a journalistic point of view, this cannot be. you may negate his current claim by speculating on what he might possibly say on an unspecified future date, but that isn’t really an argument.

as i said before, you may choose to believe otherwise and, of course, belief, like religion, requires no argument. and usually has none.

“if a journalist publishes a story, he is giving it credence”
Yes I agree. But you as a reader should pay attention to what the story is. Sometimes the story is “XYZ happened”
At some other times the story is “The version according to Sri Lankan government is XYZ ”
Now the journalist does NOT claim “XYZ happened”. He only claims “SL goverment says XYZ happens” Isn’t it simple?

You can always go beyond what the journalist says and speculate along the lines of

‘Since he is writing this version first, He is giving it priority. And since he is giving it priority he must be thinking this has a good chance of being true.’

You could be right there. Or may be DBS decided the second version needs a little more work to finalize so he wants to write it later.

Similarly. You could say ‘If he really thinks this version is false he would have said so’
Again you could be right .. or not
May be he wants to wait until he has given both version before giving is verdict. Or may be he himself is unsure about it so wants to remain neutral without giving any verdict until he gets more information.

You argue “it is now roughly two weeks since DBSJ made the claim and promised to
publish the alternate narratives, but so far these haven’t been
forthcoming, ”

But does that really help you claim that “DBS claims bla bla bla”?

May be he was busy with something else.

You and I can sit and argue about this kind of speculation all day. But that is not going to take you anywhere close to your original claim that ‘DBS claims bla bla bla’

it is now roughly two weeks since DBSJ made the claim and promised to publish the alternate narratives, but so far these haven’t been forthcoming, and adds doubt to whether they ever will.

if a journalist publishes a story, he is giving it credence with his byline. he may say, “look, there are other versions of this and i will tell you about them later,” but the fact that he is giving this version priority adds to its credibility. if a journalist — especially DBSJ — had doubts about the version he was publishing, he wouldn’t publish it or, if he did, he would unambiguously say that it wasn’t credible but was being published because it was the only available one. publishing one version while stating that there are other unpublished versions is definitely giving credence to the published version, and therefore it is correct to say he claims it. if you prefer to believe otherwise, you are welcome to your opinion, of course, but your argument is incorrect.

The idea of the JVP was against the corrupted government and it’s inequity and suppression which was overwhelmed the society at that time . Also They did not necessarily appear for the ethnicity . But the way they execute was controversial .the LTTE was based on the ethnicity and to separate the country which except the Tamils every body else against ,this is the different of both. I do not believe necessarily just because of Tamils that they only have grievances to address in Sri Lanka . But this is my view and you have sole right to express your view which I do not undermine .

Remember he did say “… the counter narrative will be dealt with extensively in a forthcoming article” If he really believes one version to be to be true he would have said so. He didn’t. We can always speculate about if DBS gives equal credence to both versions or if he feels one version seems more likely to be true than the other in his openion. Only DBS can answer that question. But that is a far cry from saying “DBS claims that the TID policeman was shot and injured by a subversive in the house of this “middle-aged activist..” He does not! He says clearly that he was stating what he calls the “‘official narrative”. We all know how good official narratives are right? That point I was making is we just can’t say ‘DBS claims’ just because he says ‘Here is the official narrative from the Police and defense people’ Isn’t it obvious?

The JVP wanted to control the entire country while the LTTE wanted to control part of the country. If that’s what you mean?

Somawansa Amerasinghe publicly admitted to killing a whopping 6000 persons in the late eighties alone.

i did read it in full, but the fact that DBSJ only relates one version of events in his article is significant isn’t it? if he gave all versions equal credence, wouldn’t he have set all these versions out?

Not so fast David, DBS does NOT ‘claim’ that . Looks like you haven’t read it in full. Here is what DBS says at the end
“This then is the version of events according to Police sources and informed sources affiliated to the defence establishment. There is however a counter narrative to this official narrative. There have been also other related events subsequent to the shooting incident at Tharmapuram and the detention of Mrs. Jeyakumari Balendra. These events and the counter narrative will be dealt with extensively in a forthcoming article.”