Govt. involvement in media regulation risky

The Editors’ Guild of Sri Lanka (TEGOSL) withdrew recently from a committee appointed by the Ministry of Mass Media to draft a National Media Policy, citing contradictory statements from ministry officials and a lack of clarity surrounding the initiative.

“The Guild has withdrawn its participation in the committee’s deliberations following contradictory statements being made by officials of the Ministry, leading to a lack of clarity,” TEGOSL Secretary Mohanlal Piyadasa said in a press release adding that despite the withdrawal, the Guild is willing to engage in discussions about an alternative to the Sri Lanka Press Council.

On Tuesday, Minister of Mass Media Nalinda Jayatissa told Parliament that a national media policy will come into effect within three months. “The policy will be formulated by media stakeholders themselves, while the Government will only play a facilitator’s role,” he said.

Anywhere in the world trying to regulate the media is dicey. National policies for the media are outdated and irrelevant in today’s world where traditional media has been overtaken by digital media platforms which are impossible to regulate. The only countries where national policies work are those under autocratic/military/one-party rule. In democracies the media has to have the freedom to work without shackles.

Already the Government has drawn flak for the manner in which the Right to Information (RTI) law is being undermined. A recent request for the information of those employed by the President’s Media Division (PMD) was rejected by the President’s Office. Similarly other RTI applications have drawn blanks hence raising questions on how much the Government is interested in strengthening such laws instead of weakening them.

In many Government institutions, Information officers seem to have disappeared, hardly replying to queries. This is one area the Government must look at strengthening and ensuring that the public receive a prompt and accurate response when a query is raised.

A majority of ministers in the Government are also mostly incognito when approached by journalists except for the Media Minister who appears at the weekly press briefing, as he is assigned to do. Cabinet press briefings have been in practice for decades and in the past, in addition to the official spokesman, other ministers too attend the briefing, especially when a subject matter that comes under their purview is in the news.

Some ministers/deputy ministers who enjoy the limelight make sure that the cameras follow them to bus stops and train stations or to hospitals or wherever they are engaged in a public relations exercise and then give a ‘voice cut’ to appear on the news. But they hardly ever face tough questioning. Some of those who gave lengthy interviews to the media prior to taking power have all but become uncontactable.

In a vibrant democracy, politicians should make themselves available to answer questions even when they are uncomfortable. In politics the so-called honeymoon period disappears in the blink of an eye and hence there are always more unsavoury matters that must be addressed than rosy ones. 

The United States is a thriving democracy so making any comparison is lame but if you take it as an example, not a day goes by without the US President taking questions from the media. Sri Lankan presidents, once elected, become God Kings that they think they should be above any form of media scrutiny and hence like talking from podiums or in the boardroom.

With a national media policy in the making, it will be important, not only for journalists but also civil society to be vigilant. However good the intentions may be, such a policy could easily be a Trojan horse, with hidden dangers.