The free media: but no such beast

ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREECH: In the old days, the maxim among defenders of the Fourth Estate was: “We shall defend to the death your right to be wrong!” Today with the trifecta of politico, publisher and pressman contesting the same space for accuracy and completeness, ‘publish and be damned’ has been rendered a hollow rallying cry for a generation of journalists (to say nothing of their respective readerships) who would rather be entertained than educated, informed than edified, titillated than taught. So in such a milieu, the free media remain a chimerical monster more amenable to myth and legend – ground realities often dictating that owners and operators collaborate in enterprises planked by not so much principle as pragmatism – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

I think we liberals are quite a bit mistaken about the so-called free media. Or at least are naïve or idealistic about it. We value the honesty, integrity and outspokenness of the Fourth Estate. Up to the very heart-stopping gut-wrenching moment when a journalist, an editor, or a writer turns the big guns’ tattoo or spotlight’s glare on our own little bullpen, sacred cows or bond scam-driven bear markets. I like better the truthfulness of the traditional press baron who proudly and disdainfully says: “When I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you!”

As a readership, we make two equal and opposite errors. On one hand, we tend to believe almost everything we hear in the media as gospel truth. On the other, we tend to dismiss almost everything as tainted propaganda. The naïve and sentimental still trust the printed word as much as mother’s milk or their own wristwatches. The cynical and sceptical abhor it like political platform watchwords or old wives’ tales in adulthood. Machiavellian politicos as much as pragmatic media magnates looking to sell their papers are equally pleased to see us fall off the saddle on either side of these extreme horses.

This is part of the reason why I feel a recent ‘special educational session’ by the CEO and Director of the Ethical Journalism Network would have done better, really, to steer his pony in the middle of our murky pond. A ‘veteran who has a wealth of experience and accolades in the field of journalism’ via a 40-year stint, he was out of his depth in trying to teach his audience – senior press people as much as new media tyros – how to suck on the egg of sustainable journalism. 

Sorry, Chris Elliott; there’s no gainsaying that the highfaluting principles you no doubt espoused in a long and illustrious career – and propounded to an audience partly breathless with anticipation and partly politely yawning after an anticlimax – are true. But in a badly muddied field, ‘What is the truth?’ as Pontius Pilate (probably the first editor: “What I have written stays written”) pontificated two millennia ago. And “there’s a sucker born every minute.” – P. T. Barnum. Sorry, ‘good to know the truth.’

Don’t get me wrong. I’m as interested in hot button topics such as self-regulation of the media, shaping and sharpening media law, fact-checking as one safeguard against fake news, etc. As much as arcane subjects like freedom of the press under democratic-republicans who delight in being vilified so they can boast that the beast of media freedom exists. Or the cold hard truth about who killed Lasantha? What happened to Prageeth? Where is Keith now? Sorry, old hat – perhaps; however, always a new issue. Until or unless the powers that be grow a pair even at this late stage in their effete administration. But I draw the line at being told to “do my job” and that all will be well. If wishes were winged horses, I’d look lot less like a spavined charger out to pasture. 

Now while lawyers are usually briefed never to put a question to which they don’t know the answer in advance, investigative reporters are generally primed to pose the issue precisely because everyone’s as much in the dark as they are. In hindsight, “I am a journalist – I know nothing” (G. K. Chesterton) turns out to be a good place to start but a sad hole to end up in. So let me take a leaf out of that great philosopher’s copybook and ask some questions of my own. This is what’s on my mind since that not so seminal workshop – ‘Let’s Get Serious about Ethical Journalism’ – earlier this week…

• Why was it necessary to invite an albeit distinguished British practitioner to address a Sri Lankan audience on ‘ethical journalism’? (I know at least two stalwart natives – Nalaka Gunawardene and Nishan de Mel – who could have done a sterling job of this, sustainability in media matters being their bailiwick).
• Was it sufficient to so tenuously link the seminar – a 45-minute speech followed by one, just one! question – with the ostensible launch of “Sri Lanka’s newest Ethical News reporting platforms”? (It was evident only by the multimedia presentation at the start which showcased the two papers. Or ostensible in the first edition of the newspaper being left out at a soiree that followed.)
• Do we need convincing about the ethicality of a new press house – with old hands in media and marketing ostensibly on one side of the political divide (I use the term artificially, being fully aware that ‘bipartisan politics’ is a beast of the past); and younger go-getters or rising stars (evidently, once professional backers of a cleaner leaner greener party) now turned ‘pro’ in every sense? 
• Is it possible to persuade the people, practitioners as much as readers, that perhaps this ‘ethical news-reporting platform’ will be a creature with a difference? Or will it be as chimerical as its many predecessors in the littered field of the island’s media history and be relegated to the dustbin of contemporaneity, or to wrap fish?)

Again, don’t misunderstand me. I’m sufficiently independent as a journalist, editor, writer, who’s been around the block to admit that there is no such thing as the free media. Bizarre, says Dharisha! We all have our vested interests – be they political, philosophical, plutocratic. Or simply personal. But my question – one, just one! – is ‘Why can’t we nail our colours to the mast? And be hanged by our own petards? Not parade our false patina of exalted freedom or thin veneer of hallowed liberty until we’re exposed as fakes, shams, or worse?” (Okay, that’s three Qs. But take the point.)

Which reminds me that bursting the bubble of blessed sanctity and sanctimoniousness is perhaps best essayed in the form of a laugh. Irony is lost, and satire and parody played straight in readers’ strained brains – I patronise you not! Thus, my own adaptation from BBC’s ‘Yes Minister’ of the state of play in matters media magnate-ish in Sri Lanka today:

“The Daily News is read by people who think they run the country. The Sunday Island is read by people who think they ought to run the country. The Sunday Observer is read by the people who actually do run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Daily Financial Times is read by people who own the country. The Colombo Telegraph is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Colombo Gazette is read by people who think it is. The Sunday Leader used to be read by people who didn’t care who ran the country as long as it was them…”

Feel free to substitute ‘runs’ for ‘reads’ above. Fun times.

But seriously, folks! And significantly for all of us undiscerning consumers of news and fake news and facetious satire as much as straight farce in one smörgåsbord of a media goulash? It’s time to ask the tougher questions of both the Fourth Estate and the faceless nameless folks who know that while true power may lie in anonymity, to get there requires a Trojan horse media house in place in the first place. Good morning to readers (to say nought of those responsible for their consumptive material) who just woke up – grow up! Good to know the truth, even if it kills you; as far too many complicit editors and critically engaged cartoonists have found out the hard way!  

(Journalist | Editor-at-large of LMD | Writer #SpeakingTruthToPower)