At least one political party and many people have alleged or expressed suspicion that the popular news program “Sirasa News First” supports the LTTE terrorists.
Is there any truth in this?
An allegation as serious as this must be based on fact, not on mere suspicion.
There are several ways of investigating this ‘suspicion’.
One, very unwise way of investigation would be to question the News First editing team and the people they take orders from.
This approach is very unwise because this would be interpreted as a serious violation of media freedom.
There is a simpler and more effective approach, which does not violate media freedom yet would get the job done. I will describe this approach in part 2 of this topic, hopefully, tomorrow. But first, let me try to describe the context of this issue.
Sirasa TV is arguably the most popular TV channel in Sri Lanka.
And they, as a media channel, is, very good.
Good in the sense that they are very talented in what they do- not in the sense of moral goodness.
They are pioneers in the field and hence the most copied; they have an excellent team, and their brand marketing is superb.
They have captured the ladies with the likes of “Maha Gedara” and “Praveena”. They have captured the youth with programs such as “Sirasa Super Star”. To top it off they have a strong line-up of many other very popular programs, in Sinhala, English, and Tamil.
They are an indispensable part of the Sri Lankan people’s “infotainment mindscape”.
Without them Sri Lankan media would be very different.
Enter Sirasa News First.
Definitely a phenomenon to behold!
The news casters are excellent, presentation great, and the script like a finely edited drama.
And they do not lie, period.
In fact they are more truthful than the news programs of state controlled media.
Over the years, they have built a good reputation as an excellent news program.
What then is the problem?
The problem is that although they do not lie, unfortunately they do not tell the whole truth either.
News is a story, it is all in how you tell it.
They tell it well, in such a way that it aligns with some as yet undisclosed agenda of their own.
It is done so subtly and so artfully that without realizing it, the viewers’ thinking is gradually adjusted to whatever shape they want it to take.
This might look like speculation.
It is.
I will discuss how this speculation can be verified or negated in part 2 of this topic.
Of course the state media is and has been feeding the general population with what the government of the day wants them to see and hear.
But everybody already knows this and they always take the reporting of state media with a grain of salt.
But Sirasa TV is not state controlled. It is supposed to be independent.
If it does in fact, have a sinister pro-terrorist agenda- who is holding the strings?
If the President Mahinda Rajapakse holds the strings of Rupahavini and ITN, who is holding the strings of Sirasa News First?
I do not know about you, but I am seriously worried.
Lakbima Blog 
February 6, 2008 at 9:31 am
No one media house is completely free of bias. No listner or viewer is, for that matter either.
The idea behind a free media policy is that all aspects of a story will be explored and the population can see what alternative views exist and draw their own conclusions from the information available.
I dont watch television so I have no experience to relate here but I do look at the Sunday newspapers.
For example I have found the Leader newspaper to be full of speculation half truths and prone to exaggeration so I pay little heed to it, although i might glance at it occasionally to see what they have to say. The Nation and the Sunday Times are worth reading, and I will read them both carefully to see what each has to say. I may glance through the Sunday Island or Sunday Observer as well.
February 7, 2008 at 9:11 am
>> No one media house is completely free of bias. No listner or viewer is, for that matter either.
True. I agree.
>> The idea behind a free media policy is that all aspects of a story will be explored
>> and the population can see what alternative views exist and
>> draw their own conclusions from the information available.
True. I agree.
But “all aspects of a story should be explored”!
News First doesn’t do that.
Example 1: (there are literally hundreds)
Monaragala civilian bus bombing. Father of a slain child (she was alive after the claymore bomb but was shot down by the terrorists who opened fire on the survivors) expressed his sorrow and then he asked the President to continue with the fight against terrorism and finish the terrorists once and for all.
News first didn’t broadcast that request, only the carnage so that the watching public will get as scared as possible.
Example 2:
Fort railway bombing. Mother of another slain child said there is no use in living for her anymore, children are not supposed to die before their parents, she said. It was heart rendering, difficult to watch without your heart crying out with that mother.
News first showed that.
Then the mother said, “do not stop the fight against the terrorists who do these heinous crimes”. She said it so strongly and passionately, that it was simply an example of the resilience and determination of the normal Sri Lankans.
News first didn’t show that!
In short they do not “explore all aspects of a story” but tells the story so that the terrorist don’t come out as the villains (it is getting increasingly difficult for them to make the terrorists look like heroes).
So News First selectively present biased and partial evidence and manipulate the viewer’s “draw their own conclusions” phase.
If News First was secretly supporting the UNP and furthering the UNP’s goals in the guise of media freedom, it would not be so bad. After all Rupavahini and ITN are biased towards the government.
But a careful observation of the bias in News First reporting will reveal that they are actually not supporting the UNP at all.
I myself believed that News First supports the UNP, especially during the 2004 presidential elections, when they unreservedly supported Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe’s presidential campaign.
But not so, UNP for them, is just a means to an end.
It is a bigger goal they have, and much powerful a master they serve.
My fear is that their goal could be the aligning of the opinion of the southern population in line with the goals of Ealam.
Does “a free media policy” also cover open or covert support for terrorism?
Under the umbrella of “media freedom” would CNN and BBC be allowed to broadcast live messages of Osama Bin Laden?
>> … I have found the Leader newspaper to be full of speculation
>> half truths and prone to exaggeration so I
>> pay little heed to it,
>> although i might glance at it occasionally
>> to see what they have to say.
Imagine the style of Sunday Leader, toned down, disguised in a professional style, presented through a richer and more powerful medium.
That’s News First.
TV is the most powerful medium of all,
In capable hands TV has the capacity for direct psychological manipulation of people.
The News First crew is certainly capable- the very best, actually.
If they were openly anti-government, sensation seeking kind of media like the Sunday Leader, then people would be weary of them (like you are of Sunday Leader).
But News First knows better.
They do not do much by the way of speculation. They never lie.
They occasionally tell the truth a little bit crookedly, so that people come to the wrong conclusions.
A very smart and politically correct way of lying.
February 7, 2008 at 9:13 am
[…] Read part 1 of this post […]
February 8, 2008 at 3:35 pm
When I say all aspects, What I mean is that one needs to watch more than one channel to get all aspects – see my comparison with the newspapers above.
No one channel will tell you everything, but if there are many channels around, different aspects will be explored. Get it?
February 8, 2008 at 9:07 pm
>> one needs to watch more than one channel to get all aspects
Got it.
>> if there are many channels around,
>> different aspects will be explored.
Got that too. 🙂
However, the issue I was trying to raise in this series of posts is not that.
It is about:
“a particular group of news programs (News First) highlighting ‘only’ the aspects of a story that is beneficial either directly or indirectly to the LTTE terrorists.”
As you point out, it is possible for the viewers to refer to news programs in other channels to get a more balanced picture.
If News First was biased towards the UNP or some party other than the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization, then there absolutely is no problem.
On the other hand, if they are biased towards the LTTE terrorists, then that is one hell of a big problem!
Or do you think, it is alright?
Do you think that it is ok for a private media channel to support and glorify a terrorist organization?
February 9, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I dont watch television, except sometimes in passing when i happen to be eating, so I cannot comment on the specifics of your charge against News First.
What I have spoken of are the GENERAL principles or ideas behind a free media.
“Do you think that it is ok for a private media channel to support and glorify a terrorist organization?”
Not an easy question, I can only look at it from the broader angle of the general principles of a free media.
If they do support a terrorist organisation, does it matter? If the truth is available, and people can access it, does it matter what one Television station does? As the saying goes you can fool some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
February 10, 2008 at 12:02 pm
You may find these articles interesting.
In the 1980’s the BBC was castigated by Margaret Thatcher for broadcasting interviews with the IRA, which at the time was carrying out terrorist attacks in the UK.
More recently an Islamic scholar was interviewed on UK television station Channel he felt the London Tube bombings could be justified – read about the stories here (you can search for more details once you get the summary from here):
http://sambrook.typepad.com/sacredfacts/2007/08/oxygen-of-publi.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,9061,1669087,00.html#article_continue
February 10, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Thanks for the links.
August 26, 2011 at 11:58 am
wireless thermometer reviews…
Sirasa News First a promoter of terrorism? (Part 1) « Lakbima Blog…