The media scene in Sri Lanka is very vibrant at the moment, with a range of options for the citizens to choose from. Newspapers have been printed here since the 19th century and the newspaper you are reading now is itself closing in on its centenary. Radio too is nearing that mark. Even the ‘latest’ entrant to the media landscape in the country, television, has been in our living rooms since 1978. In fact, the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC) will turn 40 next month.
The media’s role is to inform, educate and entertain. While the electronic media offers a fleeting glimpse of news as it happens (“breaking news”), it is up to the newspapers to analyse the day’s events, 24 hours later, in-depth. Nevertheless, there has been a subtle shift away from the purely informational role played by the media to focus more on ‘soft’ issues (lifestyle, gossip) to keep the viewers and readers in thrall. While this is not a bad trend in itself, it has also led to a situation where the news itself is sensationalised or embellished to attract the reader, listener or viewer.
One reason for this trend is the intense competition among the media outlets. This is even more pronounced in the electronic media, where there is a discernible race to become the ‘first’ with breaking news. The truth is sometimes a casualty in this race. By the time the false narrative is corrected, if at all, the falsehoods have had a flying start. No attempts are usually made to verify the claims contained in these news snippets and the viewer gets a wrong impression, which he or she thinks is the correct one. In any case, with viewers and listeners getting bombarded with news 24/7, it is difficult for anyone to guess the truth.
Social media
As it is, the media landscape is littered with hundreds of options but there is another new player in town. The Internet and its sibling (or is it offspring?) the social media. All the traditional media houses, including the publisher of this newspaper, maintain a presence on the Web. Most young people do not read the traditional printed newspapers any more. But they do read the newspapers on the Web, on their tablet or smartphone. While one might be inclined to describe this as a good trend, the time spent on newspapers is likely to be a fraction of their screen time. The rest is most likely to be devoted to social media, especially the likes of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Viber, YouTube and Twitter.
The problem with social media is that it is literally free for all. Anyone armed with a smartphone can instantly become a ‘journalist’ or an ‘analyst’ and post anything that comes to his or her mind. Such posts are shared instantly worldwide, sometimes by millions of people. A lot of misinformation and lies are spread this way. The reluctance among many Sri Lankan youth to get the booster dose of the Covid vaccine can be blamed squarely on the misinformation and myths spread on social media. There are also “news” items on social media that masquerade as the real thing. We will discuss such “fake news” in a future column.
The biggest danger and harm caused by the social media and the mainstream media that sometimes try to ape the former, is the total disregard for ethics. Literally anything goes for and in these posts and news items. Journalists (and indeed all others who publish news items of any kind for public consumption) are supposed to be bound by a code of ethics. Sometimes this may be a written Code of Ethics, but mostly it is an unwritten code that compels the compiler of news to take certain ethical decisions into consideration.
Journalistic ethics
Suicide reporting is a case in point. Most TV stations and many newspapers (especially in the vernacular press, but the English ones are not entirely guilt-free) carry gory details of suicide cases, giving the method of suicide and also carry pictures of the victim(s) where they can clearly be identified. This is a strict no-no in terms of journalistic ethics. Yes, suicides can be reported in a minimally intrusive manner and always with contact details of suicide prevention centres. In a recent survey, it was found that only two English newspapers out of all electronic and print media outlets had complied with these unwritten conventions in reporting suicide cases. The rest were guilty as charged.
In another incident, TV visuals showed a man who had robbed a supermarket taking his own life (the more preferred term for suicide in most Western media) before a crowd of onlookers who had confronted him at Wattala . The entire episode was shown from start to finish, until he fell down near a drain on the road. This perhaps broke all known codes of media ethics. To add insult to injury, most newspapers, except one or two, published the picture of the body the next day. It has also become customary to publish details and photographs of young children who are sexually abused and/or murdered. Although there is a convention that their names should not be published, that too was breached in the case of a girl who worked as a domestic aide in a mansion in Colombo 7 and who later died of burn injuries. Only a few newspapers refrained from publishing her name and picture.
The media also has the habit of being the Judge, Jury and Executioner in some cases. They tend to report without knowing the full facts of a particular incident, which could sometimes lead to violations of ethics. It is common to see reports on someone jumping from a building and committing suicide, but what if that person was pushed to death by someone else? Sometimes it is better to wait till the full facts of the case are disclosed. As C.P. Scott, Editor of the Manchester Guardian wrote in 1921, “comment is free but facts are sacred”. All journalists and media houses must live by, and up to, this axiom.