Channel 4 and Humanitarian Reportage
This is a translation of a Sinhala media monitoring column authored by CPA (download the original here).
A prominent feature that we come across in Media Monitoring throughout the recent times is that the media reportage on humanitarian issues encountered by the civilians caught up in the war was restricted to the information provided by the governmental authorities. It was very rarely that something was published without that restriction. What was mostly revealed through the information provided by the authorities was either transportation of essential commodities or the harrassments that the civilians are facing under the LTTE. It was only the Tamil media which reported on the loss of lives injuries, dearth of food and medicine and many other grievances that the people are suffering, in addition to such information provided. For this they were depending on the sources such as website reports, foreign media reports and the statements of local and international institutions and individuals etc. Even that reportage subsided for a short period due to the influences made recently on the Tamil media. But now it has recovered from that situation. Even though the international community has made a statement on the humanitarian issues affecting the people displaced in the war zone, rather than reporting the original news that include the statement, what mostly happened was reporting the replies to and attacks on the statement. Therefore it was a noticeable trend in the Sinhala and English print and electronic media to report secondary news without the initial news.
Recently there was an incident that exposed the issue of humanitarian news reportage in Sri Lanka, to the International. That involved the deportation of three journalists from the Channel 4 Television of Britain due to their reporting the situation in the IDP camps. They have been taken in to custody on 09th May, Saturday and it was revealed by media that they were deported at dawn on 10th Sunday. Sinhala newspapers carried 13 reports of this news and its background during the period between 11th and 17th May, coming under the Media Monitoring of this time. They include one editorial and a cartoon as well. The content of one such article is an explanation that a matter that was revealed due to those reports is in fact not so. Channel 4 journalists are making a few exposures through one of their reports. The matters such as women living in the camps are subjected to harassments by the security sections, the dead bodies are lying for days in the same places, there is a dearth of water and food etc seem to be the main points revealed in the reports. The aforesaid report includes a statement by the Chief Justice Sarath Silva for confirming that the security sections are engaging in sexual harassments. Another Sunday newspaper ( Ravaya ) has carried an interview with the Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama where an idea is expressed on the Channel 4 incident. There it has been mentioned that “they had discussed with him as well, but telecasted a programme which was videoed through another person and they had to go because they broadcasted, as a responsible institution(sic), something which he didn’t do”.
The other Sunday paper that reported this issue (Rivira) attempted to state through one of their articles that the international community got divided on the Tiger problem and disagreements have arisen between Sri Lanka and the Western media to the extent of deporting Channel 4 journalists. The three of the Sinhala news papers that reported the incident on 11th May (Lankadeepa, Divaina and Dinamina ) shows through their headlines themselves that they are approving the statements of the government authorities. One newspaper(Lankadeepa) that carried the headline “False information has been published. British team of journalists deported” has mentioned the above points as wrong information in the report. It is reported that they have obtained this information by sending cameras stealthily in to the camps. In the way it is reported one can build up an argumentation that goes beyond Monitoring. That is, haven’t they obtained information even though by sending cameras stealthily? The other two newspapers also have the same tendency in them. While in one report ( Divaina ) it is mentioned that the Channel 4 has been sent by the Tigers it further reports that the Tiger Disinformer ??? in the No-fire Zone, Laurence Christy, has given these false video tapes and they have been distributed throughout the world by the TRO chief in London. The newspaper of the government media ( Dinamina ) further has stated that these journalists who came in the days when the British foreign Minister is coming here has submitted these reports which were subjected to the investigations of the Criminal Investigation Department and there those journalists have accepted the falsity of the reports. They have been deported by canceling Visas in such a way that they will not be able to come again to the country. This newspaper also carries another article which includes protesting views of various individuals under the heading “Media that feeds the Tigers are under protest “, without directly mentioning this incident. Two newspapers (Dinamina and Lankadeepa ) have carried a communiqué issued by Galle District Media Association expressing their happiness of the deportation of the journalists even though the Sinhala newspapers did not carry the communiqué issued by the Five Media Organizations.
However those who were deported are the Asian reporter of Channel 4, Nick Patton Wolsh, Producer Bessie Do and the Cameraman Mat Jasper. Tamil media reportage on this matter is vastly different from that of Sinhala media. Adjectives such as “- published false reports”, “– reported news harmful to Sri Lanka” etc are not present in their headings. What they mention is that three British journalists were deported from Sri Lanka. One newspaper ( Sudar Oli ) describes in their report that they were deported because they reported the real situation in the camps. They are using a statement of Nick Patton as a source for that. Nick Patton says that the Defense Secretary who got angry over his reportage told him to say anything about Sri Lanka while in his own country and not here. Another report in that paper says that Nick Patton has said that Mr. Luxman Hulugalle has stated in a press conference that he (Nick) has accepted at the inquiries that a false reporting was done by him. It is reported that Nick Patton has rejected that statement. Although the reason for the deportation of the journalist has been included using the Controller of Immigration and Emigration, Mr. Luxman Hulugalle and Police Media Spokesman etc, they don’t do a reportage that imply that they themselves are in agreement with such views. The government media paper (Thinakaran) is similar to the Sinhala media. Among the Tamil newspapers that published 13 reports within the relevant period, one newspaper has published the communiqué issued by the Five Media Organizations condemning the incident. However they are on one hand using all the methods that can be employed in humanitarian news reporting by publishing reports such as a statement made by Nick Patton, after going back, questioning whether the IDP camps in Sri Lanka are suitable for people to live, a questioning the UN by the Innercity website etc. On the other hand implies that they are on a stance that would not agree with the deportation of the journalists.
Four English papers have published six reports based on this incident. It seems that one out of them (Daily mirror) has published three reports in an angle similar to that of Tamil media. The adjective “Publishing false reports” is not used by them. In addition to the reasoning of the government in relation to the deportation, it has references to the media expertise of the Channel 4 reporter Nick Patton and the awards won by him etc. It is only that paper which has published the communiqué issued by the Five Media Organizations, in addition to one Tamil paper. Even though the tendency that was visible commonly in English newspapers as well, was reporting the views of the government, not reporting anything at all, or being parallel to the government view and even if when reporting on the journalists who were subjected to deportation due to their reporting such news they report the government view, they do not confirm that the attitude of the paper also is the same. In one newspaper (Sunday Leader) column article it is stated that what the Channel 4 has done is exposing the hidden reality. There it is directly stated that the space for the media for reporting the truth has been blocked.
During the period that was monitored the incident was reported only in the National Rupawahini, Independent Television (ITN), and Derana TV. They have confirmed the government attitude in the same way the Sinhala media did and Derana goes even beyond that and has presented their own view and protest against the journalists. The National Rupavahini news includes an idea expressed by the Foreign Minister. Even the heading expresses that the Foreign Minister states that “Sri Lanka will never hesitate to act against any organization that caters to the needs of a terrorist organization”. There it is said that the Channel 4 institute has included a publicity of the LTTE in to their own organization, they published a story, which was not recorded by them and not filmed by their cameramen, throughout the world. Media responsibility is equally important as the media freedom is in a democratic country. His statement that any democratic country, whether Sri Lanka or America, cannot approve the manipulation of freedom when there is no responsibility, is a good point for argumentation rather than an observation. Here, from what angle the media freedom and democracy are interpreted, can be the subject of contemplation.
There are seven Radio reports. Among them “Sirasa”, “Shakthi” and “Yes FM” have presented the government statement. What is there in a news report of Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation is another allegation that reminds this specific incident as well. That is also reported through the statements made by public authorities at a press conference. Saying that some of the foreign media are presenting false reports on the situation in Sri Lanka it has added, as an example, a statement made by Dr. Shanmugarajah. In another news in the “Sirasa” radio, it is reported that six foreigners have been deported within this year. The source is the Controller of Immigration and Emigration. There it is stated that three out of them are these journalists and also it has given a telephone number for informing about the suspicious foreigners. This tendency in relation to the foreigners may be applicable to anybody who may be inquisitive about these incidents. There it has the potential of developing in to a very bad tendency that can gravely violate the Freedom of expression. The time when we will have to decide, how can the tendencies of media reporting be adapted according to this situation, may not perhaps be that far.
