By Janaka Perera
Trial by media seems to have become the rule rather than the exception in Sri Lankan journalism these days.
There is no question that the press in a democratic society has the right to criticize governments, individuals or organizations on political, social or economic issues or terrorist-related activities. But do the media have the right to make one-sided, unsubstantiated charges of corruption, embezzlement or sexual misconduct against a clearly identified individual, giving that person no chance to defend himself?
Self-regulation on such matters appears to have totally failed as far as some newspapers here are concerned. This issue has again come to the limelight in the wake of a formal complaint lodged by the German Dharmadutha Society (GDS) this month with the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka against the Lakbima news. The complaint follows a news story, by Ashwin Hemmathagama that appeared in the paper's business page (FEB) on April 6, attacking by name the caretaker of a Sri Lankan-managed Buddhist Temple in Europe.
The news report makes it quite clear that the Hemmathagama has not taken any trouble to speak to the persons against whom unsubstantiated charges of embezzlement of temple funds and maladministration have been made by anonymous individuals. How can a journalist with a sense of responsibility do such unbalanced reporting? It is a basic principle in good journalism that a scribe does not publish the name of a person linked to alleged corruption, embezzlement or acts of vice unless he / she is charged in courts with such an offence.
The content of the complaint to the PCCSL illustrates the widespread nature of a problem with some journalists who are either ignorant or do not seem to be aware of the provisions of the Code of Practice of the Editors' Guild of Sri Lanka. That there should be a balanced reporting - that both sides should be heard - is seldom or never adhered to.
Ethical standards in journalism continue to fall rapidly in Sri Lanka in several areas. This is a cause of concern among independent observers – unlike in the pre-1980 era where cub reporters and young sub-editors were given rigorous on-the-job training in media ethics. But now this does not seem to be happening. The quality of supervision and accountability are diminishing by the day.
Needless to say that in today's highly politicized and /or commercialized mass media fair reporting and public interest are much less important than serving dubious agendas. It also leads to the question why a report on a Buddhist temple was carried in the business section of a newspaper. It is like writing on religion on the sports page or writing on health in the arts page.
After Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar's assassination, one English language newspaper reported an alleged dispute between his widow and children of a previous marriage. What importance did this story have for the pubic at large? It only exposed the editor's insensitivity and his lack of concern for journalistic ethics. It also raises the question how much of news that is reported today is really worth knowing.
Muckraking and mudslinging that have little do with the public interest, are part of this game. A couple of years ago, an English language weekly ran a story referring to Parliamentarian and former JVP Publicity Secretary Wimal Weerawansa's caste background and to a relative of his who was supposedly suffering from an incurable disease.
Matters have been made worse in theLakbima news case by the paper's failure to publish an apology as recommended by the PCCSL. Instead the paper on May 18 carried a watered-down "clarification" where the reporter says that he did it in the "public interest" and that he has documents to prove his original story. A journalist may have documents linked to a case of alleged corruption just as much as a police investigator may have such evidence. But neither of them have absolutely any right to sit in judgment on a suspect or an accused person. Only a court of law can decide it. This is a basic lesson in journalism.
The publication of this story coming out of the blues raises legitimate questions on whether Hemmathagama has a personal agenda or he is doing it at the bidding of others with their own self serving agendas and money to boot. In such a context Hemmathagama's disclaimer that he has no personal axe to grind sounds hollow.
The whole incident has brought disrepute not only upon the writer but also on Lakbima news,and in turn exposes both to a legal suit for defamation and substantial damages for causing pain of mind and loss to the reputation of those identified in the report.
In publishing this story Lakbima news has clearly violated Section 2 (2.1) of the Code of Ethics of the Editors Guild adopted by the Press Complaints Commission on Accurate Reporting, which says "The media must take all reasonable care to report news and pictures accurately and without distortion."
Moreover the GDS is neither a pubic institution nor a business establishment having shareholders but a non – profit voluntary organization where the founders have themselves contributed substantial funds from their own personal wealth towards the realization of the objectives of the Society. This aspect too has been totally ignored in both the original story and the subsequent clarification.
Over four decades ago, among the first lessons taught to a reporter covering an issue having legal implications, were (a) try as far as possible to get the views of both sides (b) if the matter is a very sensitive one or is of a criminal nature not to identify the suspect by name or any other means (c) never cite his name even if he is arrested in connection with an offence, unless and until he is produced in courts and (d) if it is unavoidable that the name has to be published before he is charged in courts it should be written in such a way to say that the person in question is "helping the police in their investigations."
In those days these rules were violated only by those publishing scurrilous pamphlets and political party newspapers. But today the malady has spread to the so-called national press. It seems that only the Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror and the Island are trying their best to adhere to ethical standards in journalism.
No one in his right mind advocates press censorship. But if journalists try to become arbitrators and fail to observe rules of accurate reporting and fair play on issues having legal implications, that will be their undoing. The public may well demand that the Government set up independent institutions to monitor and discipline the Press, because of dissatisfaction with the current self – regulatory mechanisms. The right of every citizen to defend himself / herself against unproven charges is as important as a journalist's right to do investigative reporting.
- Asian Tribune -
Comments
Post new comment