Regulating the media, the dream of every governing party

The question to be asked is, do we really need an all-new national media policy?

In parliament yesterday, out of the blue, so to speak, the Minister of Mass Media, Nalinda Jayatissa, announced that within a period of three months, a national media policy will be brought into effect. He added the policy will be formulated by media stakeholders themselves, while the government will only play a facilitator’s role.   

Is he referring to the July 2024, draft published by the Ministry, which has not been discussed either officially or unofficially by any of the stakeholders?  

The minister probably means well. But how does he imagine that such a grave issue could be seriously discussed by all stakeholders–including media houses, journalists, readers themselves, social media content writers, political parties et. al. and be put into a tangible form and written into the law book by government’s legal draftsman in a matter of three months.    It is generally accepted that the media promotes the aims of pluralism, trust and accountability. One that fosters democratic rights, and social justice. Our country’s Constitution makes specific reference to the National Media Policy of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Key aspects include neutrality and impartiality in reporting, particularly during elections and ensuring accurate, balanced, and impartial information dissemination.   

The Constitution, however, does not mention social media and the responsibility of this ‘new’, nor does it make mention of limits on privacy, etc.    In the past, too different governments at different times attempted to control the media. It is not surprising that there are fears the government may use this new policy to control media freedom.   

This does not mean we believe Minister Jayatissa through his sudden announcement of a national media policy, is planning to control the media. Far from it, we simply mention it to rekindle memories of past leaders who though paying tribute to a free press did all in their means to chain the media.  

For instance, our first Executive President, J.R. Jayewardene, made attempts to control the media using legislation that limited press freedom. He implemented policies that allowed the government to regulate and censor media content, particularly during times of perceived national crisis. Jayawardene also initiated impeachment proceedings against then-Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon for criticising him.  

The action stemmed from a speech Samarakoon gave that was critical of Jayewardene. The impeachment process involved a Parliamentary Select Committee, chaired by Ranasinghe Premadasa, which investigated the allegations. Ultimately, the impeachment was aborted, and Samarakoon retired from his post with dignity.  He however left for Australia soon after. President R. Premadasa faced accusations of suppressing dissent and controlling the media. His government was accused of targeting critical journalists and newspapers through various means. He was also accused of suppression of political opposition and other forms of dissent.

President Kumaratunga originally enjoyed an excellent relationship with the press. But good relations took a tumble and deteriorated badly over reports that her administration was moving toward reviving the archaic Official Secrets Act of 1953, which would have criminalised reporting on cabinet-level discussions, among other restrictions. A number of journalists were physically attacked and arrested during her regime.   

President Mahinda Rajapaksa and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa were known to phone media houses and threaten particular editors and the chairman of newspaper groups for publishing articles critical of them and their families. A number of journalists were attacked/killed during their presidency. In the north, they closed down a number of media centres.   The need for a media policy in Sri Lanka has been called for by various stakeholders, including media associations, civil society organisations, and international bodies like the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). The discussion around media policy, including the Right to Information, has been ongoing since 1994.   

The RTI Act (RTI) in Sri Lanka was approved by Parliament on June 23, 2016. Unfortunately, not all governments have been very forthcoming even when the Right to Information Act has been invoked. Even the present administration despite calling for a national media policy to be formulated within the next three months has not helped put the same into action.  Government for example refuses to make public the recent Memorandums of Understandings signed with our ‘big brother India’. Even though the RTI Act has been raised government refuses to divulge the information.  

The question to be asked is, do we really need an all-new national media policy? Could not new regulations be incorporated into the existing legislation rather than hurrying through an all-new policy, which can possibly inadvertently curtail media freedom and media platforms?