some tears are less newsworthy

A note on media representat ion of conf l ict in Sr i Lanka

Some tears are less newsworthy



A publication of the National Movement Against Terrorism

This and other tears were shed for loved ones slaughtered in cold blood by the LTTE when its

cadres pounced on villagers in Gomarankadawala while they were harvesting paddy. This tear,

this gaze is no less poignant than any other provoked by the determination to push forward

political agenda using violence. No tears need to be shed this way but in terms of media ethics it is

imperative that no tear goes unnoticed, that no tear is conferred with the unhappy tag 'under

privileged'.

Pix courtesy Anuruddha Lokuhapuarachchi

There is more than one side to a story and this we all know. We also know that journalists are

not endowed with that elusive thing called perfect neutrality. While we hear the dictum 'facts are

sacred, comment free' often enough, the need to sell news often pushes the journalist to coat

fact with comment or brush it with colour and tone, however slight, and thereby influencing the

intended reader to react and absorb in particular ways. The better reporter, however, is

persuaded to obtain not just all the main versions but portray them with appropriate weight.

With regard to the conflict in Sri Lanka such reportage has largely been the exception.

The National Movement Against Terrorism (NMAT) is by no means 'neutral' in how it views the

conflict. We have our views, our understanding and our preferred utopia. We do not demand that

everyone, least of all journalists, subscribe to it. We respect the right to disagree and hold that

where there is no democracy, no freedom of speech, no respect for human rights, no right to

dissent, there can be no peace. If the path to peace is as or more important as is the objective or

destination, we take the position that to the extent that de-escalation of military engagement is

important, democratization too is a veritable non-negotiable.

It is here that there is a fundamental difference between the Government of Sri Lanka and the

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). No government is perfect and the Government of Sri

Lanka is certainly not. On the other hand, governments can be democratically thrown out, they

can be criticized, and moreover the aggrieved citizen can take recourse in the judicial system.

Even in the imperfection that the citizens of this country inhabit, there is a general perception

that governments cannot get away with anything and everything. Not so in the case of the LTTE.

Having conferred upon itself the titles 'liberator' and 'sole-representative of Tamil aspirations',

having access to a well stocked armoury and operating in a community that is unarmed and

incapacitated in many, many ways, the LTTE can and does operate as a law unto itself. In places

where they are in control, the question mark has been erased from all discourse. Dissent is not

tolerated. Violation of human rights goes without a word of protest for one word askance is all

that it takes for the ultimate punishment to be meted out.

Introduction

This, one can argue, is just another opinion and for those who doubt we recommend a

thorough study of the conflict as well as the LTTE and not a cursory glance at the literature or

news reports or statements issued by the LTTE and its front organizations.

We take the position that the situation in Sri Lanka and especially the portrayal of incident and

comment is lacking in honesty of reportage and rigorous cross-checking of claims, not to

mention that the stories are often wrapped in emotive material that in the long run serves only

to obscure the picture.

This document, then, has been designed to alert you to some of these issues. As we said at the

onset we are not politically neutral but we believe there is good journalism and bad journalism

even in this world where objectivity is a myth or at best something that is sought but never

found. We believe that a lie has been circulated and circulated often enough to make the

uninformed or less-informed reader believe it is true. There is a ground-reality, however, that

does not lie. Yes, it is not immediately obvious or amenable to immediate capture, but in the

end it endures. Cover up helps purchase time and sometimes time is what is needed to destroy

communities and landscapes.

The NMAT appeals for responsible journalism and appeals to the sense of goodness in the

journalist in the name of all those who have for one reason or another lost their voices during

the long years of this conflict. The NMAT insists that one tear is no less tragic than another,

one life no less precious than another, and that where these things are glossed over humanity

suffers many deaths.

In this you will find some very recent commentary on the portrayal of the conflict in the

international media as well as a critique of those who claim to espouse the cause of a free

media and feign neutrality.

We invite you to read all this with suspicion and come to your own conclusions but we are

hopeful that in the very least you will resolve to read and voice opinion in a more informed and

responsible manner afterwards.

Preamble

The title of this booklet, 'Some tears are less

newsworthy' is of course a bit cynical. It is true,

though. It all depends where it happened, when it

happened, how it happened etc. There is nothing

to say that all tears should be captured and

reported to the world. On the other hand, isn't it

also true that certain newsworthy tears often go

unnoticed or, even if noticed, unreported? We

believe this is true of the violent conflict that has

engulfed Sri Lanka for over two decades now.

The entire world loves a rebel for there is

something romantic and heroic about someone

who challenges the status quo. The entire world

loves a rebel, but it would not be inappropriate to

add the caveat, 'as long as that rebel is doing his

rebelling in some other country, in some far away

place where one will not feel the impact in any

way'.



Velupillai Prabhakaran is a rebel. He fights for a

cause or at least claims to. He speaks of historical

injustices suffered by Tamil people and argues that

the only way to correct these wrongs is to carve out

a separate state from the island of Sri Lanka. We do

not dispute his right to read history in any way he

wants. Prabhakaran can perceive injustice and

dream up the utopia of his choice, we do not deny

him that. Whether he can substantiate his claims

and whether his utopia is tenable is another matter.

But all this is secondary. What is important is that

he calls himself a rebel and is portrayed as one for

the most part.

When does a rebel cease to be a rebel?

Do rebels remain rebels all their lives? Does not the

substantive practices adopt by a self-proclaimed

rebel sometimes bring that label into question?

Under what circumstances does a rebel cease to be

a rebel? And should that happen is it not the

05 - Some tears are less newsworthy

responsibility of the media to notice the

transformation and report it? Time passes, things

change. If Prabhakaran could legitimately wear the

badge called 'rebel' then, does he still deserve it?

Where a man who claims to be fighting for the

Tamil people himself brutally kills Tamils who do

not see eye-to-eye with him, where he refuses to let

the people decide for themselves what they want

and what they do not want, where 'The Cause'

demands that villagers are hacked to death, that the

lives of innocent civilians be claimed in bomb

explosions, that certain areas should be ethnically

cleansed of other communities, where children are

recruited for combat purposes, thereby pulling the

rug under the feet of the future of the community,

can one really argue, 'Rebel then, rebel now!'?

These are questions which require sober reflection.

We have concluded that the term 'Tamil aspirations'

has been hijacked by Prabhakaran. It has become an

easy alibi for actions that do not sit well with the

high ideals associated with the term 'rebel'. The

reasons for conflict may or may not have changed,

but when the self-proclaimed freedom fighter

himself, by thought, word and action, does things

that clearly imposes limits on freedom not to

mention perpetrate horrendous crimes against

humanity, he concedes whatever moral high ground

he may have enjoyed at the outset. This does not

mean of course that the reasons for the conflict no

longer exist, they very well may. However it means

that such issues demand a different forum of

engagement, a different form of dialogue and

probably different players as well.

You may believe that Prabhakaran is still a rebel.

You have every right to think so. We are only

inviting you to a sober consideration of the facts.

Don't believe us. Take a look around the territories

of hurt, the landscapes of war and ask yourself,

'Can all this be blamed on the Government or the

Sinhala people? Does not he who would fight at the

drop of a hat bring upon these places the inevitable

horrors of war, death, destruction, dismemberment

and dislocation? Does he not know that the

moment he provokes war, he invites the decimation

of the people whose interests he claims to

represent, especially when the “enemy” is described

as an inhuman chauvinist? '

Child soldiers: war is their designated future

Some tears are less newsworthy - 06

Let the stories tell the story

“More than 65,000 people on both sides have been

killed since the Tamil Tigers began fighting in 1983

to create a separate state for Sri Lanka's 3.2

million Tamils, alleging discrimination by the

country's 14 million Sinhalese.”

This is the current 'end note' of almost all news

stories on the conflict posted on CNN, BBC,

Reuters, AP, AFP etc. A few years ago 'Tamils' was

followed by 'the majority of whom are Hindus' and

“Sinhalese' with 'the majority of whom are

Buddhists'.

The above 'end note' is not incorrect except that

not all Tamils actually live in the areas marked for

the 'separate state' longed for by the LTTE. It is

nevertheless incomplete. For example, the

following is edited out, so to speak, of the caption:

'Most Sinhalese and significant sections of the

Tamils allege that the LTTE is a terrorist

organization which has by its actions lost all

legitimacy to represent anyone'. The assumption

that is expressed in the above caption is that the

LTTE is seen as a legitimate entity by Tamils who

without exception subscribe to its agenda. Read

this again and again, day after day, for many years,

and what do you get? We leave the conclusion to

you.

'Fear stalks Tamil port of peace'

This is the title of a story filed by one Soutik Biswas

of BBC, reporting on incidents that took place in

Trincomalee. Consider the choice of words. Two

One day an elderly elephant heard a strange noise

and he summoned his two sons. "Go look what's

on!" he said. The two calves went whence the

noise had come and found two hunters wending

their way through. They ran back to their father

panting. "Papa," one calf said with the other

agreeing, "forty hunters are coming!" The

elephant family ran for dear life.

Now the question: Why did the calf say there were

forty hunters, whereas there were, in fact, only

two of them?

Well, we don't want to keep you guessing. The

answer is: The calf was a liar! Then why on earth

did the other one repeat that lie? Well, it was very

weak in arithmetic.

Replace the first calf with LTTE propagandists and

the other with the foreign press, and then you

have a better picture of the international media

coverage of the air strikes on LTTE targets in

Sampur the other day. The LTTE said 40,000

people were fleeing and some of the Colombo

Call girls and call boys of

Fourth Estate

This is the editorial of The Island of April 29, 2006. It is in NMAT's opinion a sober reflection on the complicity of certain sections of the media and media personnel, local and foreign, in the LTTE's propaganda project. It calls to question the ethic of impartiality that journalists are supposed to be guided by in reportage.


based foreign journalists swallowed the lie, hook

line and sinker. They lost no time in

disseminating the Goebbelsian lie across the

globe. What they didn't realise was that Sampur

has only a population of 16,000!

Let it be added immediately that our sympathy is

with those civilians who were harmed and

displaced for no fault of theirs, regardless of their

numbers. War is hell as we have been saying

repeatedly in these columns and it must be

avoided. That's why the LTTE, which is all out to

thrust war on the state, must be stopped in its

tracks.

In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster, when the

entire world rushed to our help, BBC had the

audacity to interview an LTTE sympathiser who

said when the killer waves came pummelling

everything on their way, he had first thought the

SLAF aircraft were bombing his area. "You know

they usually bomb churches and schools," he said

to a seemingly dumb interviewer of BBC, which

boasts of Hard Talk. All what a discerning listener

gathered was that BBC couldn't find someone, for

an interview, who knew waves from bombers.

We don't fault BBC as a whole for broadcasting

such mistruths, half-truths, untruths and

diabolical lies. It is like setting a bus on fire

because of an errant driver who runs over a

pedestrian. We blame its correspondents and

programme directors who are behaving in a

manner suggestive of hubris and chutzpah and

wonder why such irresponsible swashbucklers are

allowed to cover matters that are sensitive and

have the potential to set a conflict-torn country

things are implied. First that Trincomalee is a city

that is exclusively inhabited by Tamils. Not true.

The majority are in fact Sinhala people. Secondly

that the Tamils are peaceful and by implication the

Sinhalese are not.

The truth is that 'LTTE' and 'Tamils' are not

synonyms and each community is as peaceful as

the other but like all communities can be provoked

to acts of violence and indeed racial violence. In

this case the LTTE exploded a bomb in the

Trincomalee market which is dominated by Sinhala

traders. The Sinhalese reacted. It is alleged that the

Army and Police looked on. If they did, they were

absolutely wrong and action should be taken. In

fact proceedings have been initiated in this regard.

There is a difference between situations where

crime goes punished and situations where criminal

activity is engaged in as right and with impunity.

The former is the case of the Government and the

latter that of the LTTE.

In any event, can we claim that Biswas was

innocent, that Biswas was not trying to discolour

the picture in some way? NMAT believes we cannot.

'Thousands of people have fled their homes in

north-eastern Sri Lanka as the military launched

fresh air strikes on Tamil Tiger targets. About

40,000 people were moving north to seek safety in

the jungle, local officials told a BBC correspondent.'

The said BBC correspondent clearly did not

question the validity of the statement nor thought

is important to question the credentials of the

source. The correspondent did not say who this


on fire. And those worthies are trying to teach

responsible journalism to their Sri Lankan

counterparts. We would rather learn honesty

from a fraud or chastity from a whore than

journalism from them.

Some of those potentates are actively engaged in

politics and functioning as propagandists of

some political leaders in this country. Unless the

leaders of their choice come to power, they vilify

the successful others and paint Sri Lanka raven

black. There are, of course, true professionals

among themand we raise our editorial hat to

those ladies and gentlemen who have done their

profession proud!but the sordid operations of

some among them have tarnished their image as

well. All it takes to spoil a pot of milk is a little

bit of cow dung! (Etymologically speaking, the

word 'dung' has a Celtic origin!)

Those know-alls in the garb of foreign

correspondents peddling not-so-hidden agendas

are no better than carrion crows trailing hyenas

in the bush looking for carcasses and corpses.

They are blind to anything positive about the

country where they work. They have mistaken

their mission here for heightening the conflict by

lionising Tigers. BBC once produced a

documentary on Black Tigers and the only

purpose it served was to project those mind-

erased killing machines as heroes. But it didn't

show the faces of even Sinn Fein leaders until

they mellowed their stance. A CNN

correspondent once tried to 'balance' a story on

child combatants saying that both the LTTE and

the government recruited child soldiers!

'official' was, whether it was a civil servant or an

LTTE representative. It was later revealed that there

were only 16,000 persons living in the said area

and that only 5000 had fled. It was later revealed

also that the LTTE had requested all Tamil people

to leave their homes and live in and around LTTE

camps.

The logic of the air strike is of course open to

question. That 5000 people were forced out of

their homes is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that many

are responsible for, not just the Government of Sri

Lanka. The LTTE had killed over 70 members of

the armed forces in a period of three weeks and

had just attempted to assassinate the Army

Commander. Even a rank outsider would conclude

that the LTTE has to share at least something of

the blame.

On the other hand, this is by no means an exercise

in apportioning blame. It is a comment on

horrendous reporting. The correspondent cannot

take refuge in deadline excuses. Bad reporting

makes all reports and all reporters suspect. There

are standard that need to be maintained. And, in

the case of conflict reporting, one incorrect report

can generate unanticipated tragedies because the

human being, being a human being, is a creature

whose reason is often swayed by his or her

emotion.

Who is an extremist?

Many of the aforementioned news services are

fond of adjectives. Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of

Sri Lanka, was dubbed a 'hardliner' and a 'hawk'


One may wonder whether the brand of journalism

that some foreign correspondents practise is an

extension of the foreign policy of their respective

countries. For example, the international terror

network of the LTTE is coordinated by a British

citizen from LondonAnton Balasingham is his

name. The British government does sweet little or

nothing about his operations and permits even

celebrations of terrorist events on the British soil,

where the outfit is (nominally?) banned. During

the tsunami disaster the British Navy took an

LTTE leader to one of its warships off the eastern

coast! Later the British claimed they didn't know

he was an LTTE leader. Poor British intelligence!

BBC appears to be following the same policy

towards the LTTE, which is on a campaign to

divide a Commonwealth nation.

The World Press Freedom Day is being

commemorated in Colombo on a grand scale.

The press must have unbridled freedom the

world over and no stone should be left unturned

in our efforts to achieve that noble goal. But

freedom sans responsibility, like power without

control, means disaster. Hence the need for

holding the journalistic call girls (and call

boys)irrespective of the colour of their skinat bay

without letting them bring the noble profession

of journalism to the same level as the oldest

profession in the world. The sooner it is done,

the better it is for the genuine practitioners.

With rancour and malice towards none.

during the run up to last year's presidential

election. Some went even further, calling him a

Sinhala Extremist, a chauvinist, and pinning an

anti-peace tag to his name. His main ally, the

People's Liberation Front, better known by its

Sinhala acronym, JVP, is consistently described as a

Sinhala extremist party. So too the lesser ally,

Jathika Hela Urumaya (all of whose members in

parliament are Buddhist monks).

The 'hard' line they have taken has been one of

treating the LTTE and the Tamil people as

distinctly separate entities. They have not said no

to negotiations with the LTTE but have taken the

position that terrorism should be called terrorism.

They have rejected a federal solution to the conflict

and have offered valid reasons for their position

which they claim they are prepared to substantiate

and defend. In the end theirs is another position,

as or more valid than any other. They have

articulated these positions democratically and not

at gun point.

Now let us suppose that these individuals and

parties are actually anti-peace, actually racist,

chauvinist etc. By the same token, what are the

appropriate adjectives for the LTTE? One man's

terrorist, we know, is another's freedom fighter,

but surely a foreign correspondence has enough

intelligence to describe what he or she sees in

terms that are understood?


The impartiality of political

commentators

Most news agencies seek to add colour to their

stories by obtaining a comment from an expert or

experts. In the case of Sri Lanka, the most quoted

are Jehan Perera (National Peace Council),

Pakaiasothy Saravanamuttu (Centre for Policy

Alternatives), Jayadeva Uyangoda (Social Scientists'

Association) and Kumar Rupesinghe (Foundation

for Co-exsitence). All these individuals roughly fall

into a thin section of the spectrum of political

views on the conflict, a section that is more or less

sympathetic to the LTTE to the extent that they

gloss over LTTE atrocities and try to confer the

LTTE parity of status vis a vis the Government of Sri

Lanka. Interestingly they equate peace to a federal

arrangement but very rarely do they utter the terms

'democracy', 'pluralism' or 'human rights'. They are

largely silent on the issue of child soldiers.

We doubt whether reporters always obtain the real

weight of the views of such people, something that

can only be assessed subsequent to investigating

their stake in the issue. They are invested in the

relevant politics in particular ways for very tangible

reasons. And yet, the NMAT encourages and even

insists that reporters seek the opinion of the above

mentioned people for they do represent a certain

class of perceptions albeit a slim one. However, in

the interest of obtaining a proper perspective on

the range of views, should they not elicit the views

of others who are equally qualified (by virtue of

both certification and intimate knowledge of the

issues)?

We have seen how reporters are quick to grab

statements issued by the LTTE and treat them as

though they are articles of faith. We have no

objection for everyone should have the right to

articulate. The question is, why don't these very

same reporters obtain the view from the other side

as well? Isn't 'balanced reporting' a virtue any more?

The tears and anguish of mother who lost their children to forced

conscription probably make a good story. That story has only

been scantily sketched so far.


There is an organization in Sri Lanka called the Free

Media Movement (FMM). The FMM was launched in

the run up to the 1994 elections, mainly to support

what was then viewed as the progressive forces led

by Chandrika Kumaratunga. After the election the

membership of the FMM declined to the point that

today it has only a handful of card carrying

members if you will. The reason, some have

pointed out, is that the FMM has evolved into an

outfit that grossly misrepresents the conflict in the

North and East, being patently partial towards the

LTTE going to the extent of whitewashing its many

and various atrocities.

The FMM is quick to denounce any untoward act

perpetrated by the Government and to take issue

with any statement that is deemed to be detrimental

to media freedom and communal harmony. Its chief

spokesperson, Sunanda Deshapriya, one can argue,

is not a journalist in any sense of the word for he is

The Free Media Movement

a propagandist which is not the same thing. This is

what is evident in the occasional columns he pens

for Sinhala newspapers.

The FMM and indeed everyone should denounce

any act that steps out of the legal framework. By

the same token, should not the FMM rise above the

conflict and not use double standards? An atrocity

is an atrocity whoever perpetrates it. A murder is a

murder. Terrorism is terrorism. One human life is

and its discontents

Dharmaratnam Sivaram and Relangi Selvarajah:

one life less worth than the other?


as precious as any other human life.

All this is perhaps best illustrated in the different ways

in which the FMM responded to two killings, that of

Dharmaratnam Sivaram, the editor of the pro-LTTE

website tamilnet.com and widely read political

columnist, and that of Relangi Selvarajah, a freelance

radio and television presenter who has been at times

critical of the LTTE.

Sivaram was abducted by unknown gunmen and

killed on April 28, 2005. This is what the FMM had

to say.

"The Free Media Movement expresses shock and

sorrow at the abduction and murder of journalist

Dharmaratnam Sivaram and views this murder as a

violation of broad democratic rights and of media

freedom.

The FMM expresses appreciation for his role as a

journalist not on the basis of the views that he held

but on the basis of the dynamism and diversity that

he brought to Sri Lankan media.

The despicable manner of his abduction and murder

point to the fact that his murderers and the political

environment in which they operate are based on

anti-democratic principles which allow a struggle to

be carried on, not in the realm of ideas but in the

realm of murder and mayhem. The assassination of

not only media persons but of ordinary civilians who

hold opinions that differ from your own has become

a common practice in the Sri Lankan political arena

over the past twenty years and grows like a cancer

that overshadows our present."

This statement was issued on April 30, 2005, i.e.

one day after Sivaram's body was found. Deshapriya

Doubtless the so-called Co-Chairs who were to

meet in Oslo on Friday would have issued their

customary statement by the time this column

appears.

Those acquainted with previous statements by the

Co-Chairs and other international groups and

organisations purportedly interested in bringing

peace to Sri Lanka would not be surprised if this

“Gang of Four” urged the government and the

LTTE to desist from further violence, to show

restraint and return to the negotiating table as the

two sides promised in February.

It would be tragic for the country if it, they would

say and it is of course true. One could expect the

mixture to be as before, unless they have this

time plucked up enough courage in the face of

mindless violence not to fall prey to the

Suicide bombings and

the world outside

This article, which appeared in the

Sunday Times of April 30, 2006,

comments on the issue of media (mis)

representation and double-standards

when reporting on the LTTE and the

Security Forces of the Government of

Sri Lanka. The article follows the

aborted attempt to assassinate Sri

Lanka's Army Commander, Sarath

Fonseka. NMAT highlights certain

sections for the purpose of alerting the

reader to salient aspects of the matter.


in his columns and comments given to the media

did not hesitate to point his finger at the

Government. The FMM organized a demonstration

condemning the murder. Subsequently when it was

found out that the murder had been committed by

a rival Tamil group, the FMM did not think it

necessary to apologize for its irresponsible

conjectures.

Now let us look at how the FMM responded to the

murder of Relangi Sivarajah. Relangi was killed on

August 12, 2005, along with her husband, at their

home. It took the FMM seven days to issue a

statement regarding these murders. It took the

FMM almost two weeks to organize a

demonstration that spoke of the killings and even

here the case of Relangi was little more than a foot

note in the overall thrust of the event, the alleged

assaulting of a Tamil journalist at a political rally.

But what did the FMM say?

'Free Media Movement strongly condemns the

killing of Journalist Relangi Selvarajah and her

husband Selvarajah by unknown gunmen on 12th

Friday, August 2005. They were both shot dead at

approximately 1.00pm at Bambalapitiya, Colombo.

Journalist Relangi Selvarajah was a full time

journalist at the Sri Lanka Broadcasting

Cooperation (sic) (SLBC) a few years ago and was

working as a part time TV presenter at the Sri

Lanka Rupavahini Cooperation (sic) (SLRC) at the

time of her killing. This killing too has the

trademark of the ongoing killing spree of rival

Tamil armed groups. FMM condemns this murder

on the grounds of right to life and journalist's

blandishments and argumentative gobbledegook

of Oslo trying desperately to save their

diplomatic midwifery from ending up as another

political abortion.

Naturally one cannot speak for Mr Velupillai

Prabhakaran though it is not difficult to read his

mind on his immediate and long objectives.

One would also not be far off the mark

concluding that the vast majority of Sri Lankans

want a peaceful solution to this seemingly

intractable problem so that they may live their

lives without fear of being blown up or

constricted by threats of violence.The recent

local government elections in Sri Lanka saw the

more virulently 'nationalistic' political parties

suffering ignominious defeats and the people of

the South supporting peace negotiations with

the LTTE.

The South -- and that includes Sinhala, Tamil,

Muslim and other smaller ethnic groups --

mandated President Mahinda Rajapaksa to

negotiate a peaceful solution that would meet

the aspirations of the different communities

without sacrificing the country's sovereignty and

territorial integrity.

Had the people thought differently they would

have clearly backed the JVP and the JHU and any

other chauvinistic party calling for a much

tougher politico-military approach to the LTTE.

Yet the international community, if one might

use that rather loose term, has failed to grasp

the significance of this political development

and has not ascribed to the people in the south

the merit they deserve.


rights. Although FMM does not point the finger at

any group for this killing, it notes that both of them

are said to have close connections with anti LTTE

(Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) former militant

group PLOTE. FMM as on previous occasion

earnestly requests armed Tamil groups and

movements to engage in peaceful means to sort out

their differences and not to make journalists a

target of their battles. At the same time FMM urges

the Government to initiate speedy inquiry into the

above killings.'

Note that there was no 'shock' and 'sorrow'

expressed here. Here is it about 'differences

between armed Tamil groups and movements'. In

the case of Sivaram, the FMM observes that 'his

murderers and the political environment in which

they operate are based on anti-democratic

principles which allow a struggle to be carried on,

not in the realm of ideas but in the realm of murder

and mayhem'. Do the murderers of Relangi operate

in a different political environment? Is the point not

worthy of reiteration? Is the life of one person

worth more than another? What is the politics

pertaining to what one might call relative

immediacy? A member of the FMM is reported to

have said that no one can tell if Relangi's murder

was politically motivated by way of explaining the

delay in issuing a statement. Surely the same

argument could have been applied to Sivaram as

well?

Sadly this has been the signature of the Free Media

Movement all along. The name is pregnant with so

much potential, but its practise has been so

suspect that it has served to give a bad name to

'free media' in the broader sense.

At the same time those guilty of orchestrating

the violence we have seen since the election of

Mahinda Rajapaksa last November and the

serious escalations thereafter have gone largely

unpunished except for the pro-forma verbal

condemnations that emanate from these

worthies now and then.

This despite the fact that some of the major

western countries that have an interest in

steering Sri Lanka towards peace have

themselves been the victims of suicide

bombings and other terrorist attacks.

So where is the European Union that some seven

months ago was threatening the LTTE with

sanctions if it did not refrain from violence? Why

this inaction in the face of grave provocations

that actually is a slap to the collective face of the

EU?

Besides the US, the victim of the 9/11 attacks,

Britain and Spain suffered from terrorist

bombings in recent years. Other EU nations such

as France and Germany have also been

subjected to various forms of terrorism over the

years.

They have acted tough and some are doing so

even now as new anti-terrorism laws come into

operation. Yet they expect others to act with

restraint and absorb the blows of terrorism

(even when civilians and non-combatants are

killed or maimed) instead of trying to eliminate

or minimise the threat of such terrorism.

How many of these voices that call for restraint

from the Sri Lanka government and the armed


On April 23, 2006, around 4.50 pm, LTTE terrorists

kidnapped and killed six Sinhala farmers. The

attack took place in Kallanpattuwa,

Gomarankadawala in the district of Trincomalee.

The farmers were working in their paddy fields

when they were taken and shot. Four of them are

students of the Gomarankadawala Maha Vidyalaya,

forces that have been the victims of a war of

attrition conducted by those who

simultaneously plead their commitment to

peace, were raised in rage and outrage when

western nations invaded Iraq? And it was not

even the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks?

Did we hear Norway, the self-proclaimed

architect of peace, unequivocally condemn the

US and Britain for launching the invasion that

has today turned virtually into a civil war in

which innocents are being slaughtered daily?

Why is Sri Lanka being treated differently when

its people are equally victims of terrorism as

those of western countries? Are Sri Lankan lives

cheaper or expendable while western lives are

sacrosanct and must be safeguarded even if it

means invading countries that have proved to

be involved in the attacks?

Why has the situation facing the elected

governments of Sri Lanka which is far more

democratic than some other nations favoured

by the west, not been fully appreciated by the

outside world even at a time when terrorism is

being roundly condemned?

The reasons are to be found both within and

without the country. A systemic failure in our

communication policy that blows hot and cold

and handled by persons who seem to be more

interested in designations and the perks of

office than bringing coherence and

professionalism into it.

It is also to be found among oft-quoted NGO-

wallahs who thrive on monetary handouts from

Of tears,

seen and unseen, reported and neglected


Eranda Sandaruwan Rupasinghe was 17, Lalith

Kumara Dissanayake 16, Aruna Shantha 19 and

Ajith Kumara 19. They were all students.

Wasantha Kumara (29) was a farmer and Chaminda

Prashantha Bandara (27) a Home Guard. According

to eye witnesses the attackers were young men

whose ages ranged from 16-18.

This attack on civilians was not a one-off affair.

The LTTE has launched hundreds of such attacks

donors in Norway, Sweden, Britain, the USA to

mention some and sing when the big brothers

abroad wave the baton or distribute their

favourite hymn sheets.

Consider this last paragraph from a news report

from The Times of London the day following last

week's suicide bomb attack. “Jehan Perera, the

head of the National Peace Council think-tank,

said that both the Tiger attack and the

government response were acts of war.”

I don't know if and where this Perera chap

studied international law but he finds guilty not

only the aggressor but the state that defends its

interests, territory, nationals and property

against a perpetrator that still claims to adhere

to the ceasefire it signed.

If Jehan Perera's comment is the view of this

think-tank (apparently funded by Norway), then

obviously it needs to start thinking again.

The foreign media are not much different when it

comes to distortion and not seeing the larger

picture.

Last Wednesday the BBC website carried a story

about civilians fleeing from air strikes and

quoting its Colombo Correspondent Dumeetha

Lutra whose reporting I have had occasion to

comment on before. What is interesting is the

remark carried separately from the main story

under the headline “Have Your Say.”

It quotes somebody named Ajantha Rajasinghe of

Colombo who says: “No one here believes it is a

suicide attack as the headquarters is heavily

Consider this last paragraph from a news report

from The Times of London the day following last

week's suicide bomb attack. “Jehan Perera, the

head of the National Peace Council think-tank,

said that both the Tiger attack and the

government response were acts of war.”

I don't know if and where this Perera chap

studied international law but he finds guilty not

only the aggressor but the state that defends its

interests, territory, nationals and property

against a perpetrator that still claims to adhere

to the ceasefire it signed.

If Jehan Perera's comment is the view of this

think-tank (apparently funded by Norway), then

obviously it needs to start thinking again.

Last Wednesday the BBC website carried a story

about civilians fleeing from air strikes and

quoting its Colombo Correspondent Dumeetha

Lutra whose reporting I have had occasion to

comment on before. What is interesting is the

remark carried separately from the main story

under the headline “Have Your Say.”

It quotes somebody named Ajantha Rajasinghe of

Colombo who says: “No one here believes it is a

suicide attack as the headquarters is heavily

No one should be transformed in to a nondescript

number, but certain killings do that to some people.

Some murders are privileged, some poverty-stricken.


on civilian targets and murdered in cold blood

thousands. This is not the place to enumerate.

What is important to understand is that this was a

deliberate attack on civilians. In this sense it is

qualitatively different from an air strike that

focuses on a military target and in the process

kills civilians. On the other hand, neither is less

of a tragedy, especially for the victims and their

loved ones.

There have been instances where the Sri Lankan

armed forces have either reacting to an LTTE

attack or for some other reason attacked civilians.

These attacks are juicily gobbled up by the media

and splashed around the world. This is good

because such 'exposure' is a good deterrent.

The question is, how did the world miss the

massacre at Gomarankadawala? What happened

to those correspondents, local and foreign, who

were waxing eloquent about the unrest in

Trincomalee following the LTTE exploding a

bomb in the market place? Where did the poetry

they are capable of hide? The massacre at

Gomarankadawala merited no more than a couple

of lines. The relevant correspondents apparently

did not interview the survivors or the families of

the victims. If they did visit the site, few thought

it necessary to take photographs of tear stained

faces.

A resident from Gomarankadawala could ask, as

Shylock did in Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice',

'if you prick us, do we not bleed'? One could ask,

as we do, 'are some tears less newsworthy than

guarded and all are searched even if they are

pregnant.” Does this chap actually exist? How he

concluded that nobody believed in the suicide

bomber attack surely beggars belief. If the BBC

took the trouble to highlight such unmitigated

nonsense, then obviously it thought that view

was worth carrying. So why did its Colombo

Correspondent not follow up this obviously

interesting angle?

It did not as far as I know and so this doubt,

once cast, was left hanging dangerously in the

air. That is not all. On air Lutra spoke about the

bombing and shelling of LTTE bases and

immediately afterwards referred to killing of

some farmers. She did not mention they were

Sinhala farmers killed by the Tigers, thus leaving

the impression that they were victims of military

shelling.

On Wednesday night BBC World television invited

me to its studios at 1.30 or so in the morning. I

could not go due to an injury. The BBC was

interested in the civilians fleeing their homes.

What it did not seem to know, possibly because

it had never been reported by its correspondent

that for several weeks pro-LTTE organisations

had been urging civilians to seek “protection” in

LTTE areas.

The LTTE is increasingly exposing Tamil civilians

in the hope that when war comes it could use

possible civilian casualties for its own

international propaganda. The world seems

unable to see the ploy.

guarded and all are searched even if they are

pregnant.” Does this chap actually exist? How he

concluded that nobody believed in the suicide

bomber attack surely beggars belief. If the BBC

took the trouble to highlight such unmitigated

nonsense, then obviously it thought that view

was worth carrying. So why did its Colombo

Correspondent not follow up this obviously

interesting angle?

Lutra spoke about the

bombing and shelling of LTTE bases and

immediately afterwards referred to killing of

some farmers. She did not mention they were

Sinhala farmers killed by the Tigers, thus leaving

the impression that they were victims of military

shelling.

The BBC was

interested in the civilians fleeing their homes.

What it did not seem to know, possibly because

it had never been reported by its correspondent

that for several weeks pro-LTTE organisations

had been urging civilians to seek “protection” in

LTTE areas.


others?' One could ask, 'is not the propensity to

privilege some stories, some versions, indicative of

identifiable political loyalty?'

What kind of message does the media give such

victims? We can think of one: 'you people don't

count'. What would the media then say should some

of those people decide that to be counted one has

to give back as good as one gets? Any number of

scenarios is possible.

There is a disconcerting thought that refuses to be

footnoted: where similar incidents are taken to

merit differential coverage, the relevant media

personnel are deemed to have been unpardonably

lax in professional duty. And, in situations such as

this, such errors do not help, but instead add to the

confusion and willingly or unwillingly have the

potential to provoke unnecessary tragedy.

This is the signature photograph of the aftermath of any attack.

Some are picked up, some not. This was not


There is a difference between balance and slant.

There is always a privileging that takes place,

consciously or unconsciously. This is natural.

However there is nothing to say that the media cannot

get better, cannot attempt to piece together a fuller

picture of event, explanation and version.

There is a point beyond which atrocity cannot be

explained away. There are acts which cannot be

described in any other way other than 'terrorist'. The

device called colouring, so important to market a

story, cannot be differentially applied to similar

situations. It is unethical to introduce the emotive in

one instance and insist on the bland in the other when

two events have the same signature of tragedy

inscribed on them.

The media has a role to play, an important role in fact.

Consequently, any irresponsibility on the part of the

media can translate into an exacerbation of conflict.

In an ideal world tears would not ensue from eyes on

account of the kinds of tragedies the island of Sri

Lanka has known in the recent past. Until such time,

let not the tears that are shed be robbed of their

dignity and meaning by a privileging that is so slanted

that it insults the very purpose that the Fourth Estate

is supposed to serve.

By way of conclusion

A man grieves over the loss of a son (above)

and so does a mother (below). The former is

a Sinhalese the latter a Tamil. Certain things

transcend identity, but that is something

that certain journalists seem to forget.


National Movement Against Terrorism

45/4, Jayasinghe Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 6, Sri Lanka

Telephone: (94) 011-2813026

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.nmatnet.com

some tears are less newsworthy

Travel