By Rupert De Alwis
Applications for the Journalism Awards for
Excellence 2007 conducted by the Editor's
Guild of Sri Lanka in association with the
Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI) will close
tomorrow (March 31) in the midst of
controversy as the once prestigious awards
head towards mediocrity.
The controversy comes even as the Editors
Guild and SLPI have deliberately shut out
Leader Publications from participating in
the awards scheme by including in the
general entry rules a clause which makes it
imperative for an editor to endorse that the
newspaper from which a journalist makes an
application subscribes to the Code of Ethics
of the Guild and the Press Complaints
Commission.
Editors working for Leader Publications,
needless to say, are not members of the
Editors Guild and the Group does not
subscribe to the Press Complaints Commission
or the mandate of the SLPI.
Top awards
Ironically, the Leader Group has hitherto
been the most successful newspaper group
since the inception of the awards in 1998,
sweeping the boards by winning practically
all the top awards. Neither has the Leader
Group ever had any connection of any sort
with the management of the awards scheme nor
the panel of judges.
This group has won the top most award -
The Journalist of the Year Award every year
since the inception of the awards in 1998,
except in 1998, 2001 and 2003. In 2003 the
entire staff of the Leader Group decided not
to participate in the awards to show
solidarity with one of their colleagues -
Frederica Jansz, who faced harassment by the
Editors Guild regarding her application.
The Editors Guild of Sri Lanka had been
conducting the Journalism Awards of
Excellence for 10 years since 1998 but
collaborated with the Sri Lanka Press
Institute (SLPI) - an organisation fuelled
primarily by Swedish funds in 2003.
Rich man's club
While the Press Institute is a private, rich
man's club run by a select few businessmen
who also run newspapers, the Leader Group
and several other publications have not
subscribed to the SLPI or to the Sri Lanka
Press Complaints Commission, nor does it
accept its mandate.
In fact this club is so exclusive that the
Editors Guild has not yet invited Daily
Mirror Editor, Champika Liyanarachchi to be
a member even though the criteria to be
invited as a board member is six months as
an editor of a national newspaper.
Liyanarachchi has been an editor since
January 2007. Ironically, however, she has
to endorse the applications of any
journalist of the Daily Mirror who wished to
qualify for an award stating the newspaper
subscribes to the Editors Guild Code of
Ethics.
Meanwhile it is interesting that the Press
Institute which has its own hierarchy is
nevertheless controlled by Waruna
Karunatilleke, a cameraman attached to
Reuters, much to the discomfit of several
high level board members. The Press
Institute has two arms - the Press
Complaints Commission and the Sri Lanka
College of Journalism.
SLPI which is funded primarily by the Swedes
has run into financial and administrative
trouble as it continues to make executive
changes due to an exodus of top level staff,
and the Swedes deciding to now pull out
their financial support, has compelled the
SLPI management to look at appealing to the
European Union to bail them out if
possible.
Shutting out the best
However shutting out the Leader Group which
consists of three publications - The Sunday
Leader, Irudina and The Morning Leader from
the awards in order to force the hand of the
Leader Group to join the rich man's club at
the Sri Lanka Press Institute has backfired
on the cash strapped Sri Lanka Press
Institute.
The reason SLPI needed the support of the
Leader Group in particular was to not only
justify their existence as an all
encompassing, umbrella media organisation in
the country but to also be able to peddle
that line in order to ensure a steady,
foreign cash flow.
No free lunch
But there's no such thing as a free lunch
and foreign funding was available only if
SLPI could showcase itself as a body that
had in its clutches every single media group
in the country. This was not to be as the
Leader Group including several other
publications would not subscribe to SLPI nor
bow down to the dictates of a select, few,
private businessmen who wished to control
the newspaper industry in the country.
While SLPI started off as a body focusing on
the print media they have now tried to
encompass the electronic media as well.
However, again SLPI has run into trouble
with both the massive MTV/MBC network which
owns the Sirasa, Shakthi and MTV TV channels
and three radio channels, and Swarnavahini
of the EAP Group, rejecting in writing, the
mandate of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
Such was the desperation of the PCC to rope
in for example the Maharaja electronic media
group, that repeated appeals were made only
to be rejected out of hand.
Desperate
Again so desperate was SLPI to have the
membership of the Leader Group and show full
control of the newspapers in order to
attract foreign funds that it resorted to
subterfuge by even including Leader
Publications in its Press Complaints
Commission Annual Report 2006.
Not only that, while it has shut out the
Leader journalists from the awards of 2007,
in its Annual Report 2007, PCC unabashedly
continues to abuse the Leader Publications
name in order to showcase itself as an all
encompassing body and to attract much needed
foreign funding.
Even though the PCC told The Sunday Leader
it had not yet fully prepared its 2007
report despite the fact a staff member had
assured The Sunday Leader an Annual Report
2007 could be collected from their office,
the PCC official website has an Executive
Summary of the Annual Report 2007.
False impression
There, in order to create a false impression
that the Leader Group is part of SLPI and
PCCSL among the several newspapers against
whom it had received complaints, it also
lists The Sunday Leader.
The Annual Report 2007 of PCCSL does in the
first paragraph acknowledge that several
challenges remain for PCCSL such as securing
the participation of The Sunday Leader, The
Sunday Observer, The Morning Leader and
Irudina newspapers. Nonetheless, by later
including The Sunday Leader in its
complaints list, it negates its own
assertions in its first paragraph.
However what is absurd is that admittedly,
the only clout the PCCSL has in so far as it
stands to influence the newspaper industry
is that a newspaper subscribes to the PCCSL
process when carrying a 'right of reply.' In
laymen's language, this means that if a
newspaper carries a right of reply it would
acknowledge PCCSL at the end of it. This
does not in anyway mean that PCCSL has any
right to compel a newspaper to in fact carry
a right of reply.
Deception
PCCSL also continues to communicate with the
three editors of the Leader Group in order
to create an impression of solidarity in the
eyes of the public, its sponsors and foreign
funders.
This is despite the fact that Leader
Publications has not subscribed to the
mandate of the PCC or the Sri Lanka Press
Institute and thereby does not wish to
accept any communication from either the PCC
or SLPI on any matter. Neither does Leader
Publications recognise the authority of
PCCSL.
It is interesting however that PCCSL in its
last report (2006) has attempted to mislead
the public and the funders by noting down
complaints received against The Sunday
Leader, thereby creating the perception it
subscribes to the SLPI/PCCSL mandate.
By not stating the Leader Group is not party
to the PCC in its report, PCC has attempted
to create the perception that Leader
Publications also comes within its mandate.
Double deception
This deception practiced by SLPI is all the
more evident since the report referred to a
complaint received against the Lanka
newspaper and noted that the said newspaper
does not accept the PCCSL mandate. Therefore
by making specific reference to the Lanka
newspaper not accepting its mandate, it has
deliberately and wilfully created the
impression that Leader Publications does
subscribe to its mandate.
In fact in its complaint summary for
February 2006 it states under the 'Action'
column regarding Lanka newspaper - the JVP
propaganda sheet;
"03-02-2006: Forwarded to The Editor for
necessary action on 07/02/2006. As Lanka
newspaper is not a member newspaper the file
closed on 28/03/2006."
However with regard to The Sunday Leader for
instance, in the same column it says,
"01/03/2006: Wrote to the Editor to take
necessary action."
Certainly for an organisation consisting of
a few kultur members that has taken upon
itself the role of policing the media, its
conduct raises serious issues of
credibility.
While the Leader Group is not against self
regulation which is rigorously practised
within the group as much as the group
respects the rule of law, good governance
and democratic values of which Responsible
Freedom of Expression is the bedrock, it is
against a rich man's club attempting to
manipulate the media industry to suit
business interests and personal agendas.
Code of Ethics
The Leader Group has since its inception
subscribed to an International Code of
Ethics, most particularly to speak to the
other side at all times when writing a
story. For this our journalists have had to
suffer in remand as we saw in the case of
young Arthur Wamanan.
The Leader Group also holds its sources
sacred and as a result we have on numerous
occasions had to suffer the inconvenience of
having CID officers grill our journalists
and editors to reveal our sources. We have
stood steadfast, informing the CID we are
willing to face any challenge in court but
will never reveal our sources.
The Leader Group also carries rights of
reply. The only difference is we do not
acknowledge the PCCSL at the bottom of the
article.
Keeping the best out
Funnily, however, it is for this lack of
acknowledgement that the Sri Lanka Press
Institute which consists of The Editors
Guild, The Publishers, The Working
Journalists Association and the Free Media
Movement, has now barred the journalists of
the Leader Group from participating in the
awards.
New rules
The general rules of entry inserted newly
and specifically aimed at shutting out the
Leader Group states that "all entries by
journalists must carry the declaration by
the journalist/s that they abide by The Code
of Professional Practice (CPP) of The
Editors Guild of Sri Lanka and by the Rules
and Procedures of the Press Complaints
Commission of Sri Lanka."
CPP has nothing that is not already included
in the internationally accepted General Code
of Ethics for Journalists as expounded by
the International Federation of Journalists
and Article 19.
In any event the Leader Group does indeed
subscribe to the contents of the Code of
Professional Practice, though it does not
acknowledge the authority of a chosen few
rich men. Nor does it acknowledge SLPI or
PCCSL as having any validity in law or fact,
especially as the conduct of SLPI has been
in serious question with regard to various
matters of the media.
The Leader Group bows only to the supreme
law of the land. In every other instance it
remains unbowed and unafraid.
Keeping the Leader Group out of the awards
scheme for 2007 by bringing in new
regulation was aimed at achieving two goals.
Firstly to force the newspaper group into
giving free advertising space to SLPI and to
force the hand of the Leader management to
accept the authority of SLPI, and secondly
it was thought that it would create a split
within the organisation with the journalists
and staff upset that they would not be
considered for the awards scheme due to a
decision of the management. The thinking was
that the anxiety of The Sunday Leader
journalists would then force the group to
subject itself to the dictates of the SLPI.
However this too backfired on SLPI with the
journalists stating that if the organisation
was being penalised and harassed they would
not participate in the awards scheme. In
fact even freelance journalists attached to
The Sunday Leader were of the same view.
Ironically, for SLPI which is reeling under
a lack of funds, the shutting out of the
Leader Group from the awards scheme has only
helped bring into sharp focus the absurdity
of their existence in the eyes of their
foreign donors and the fact that they are
not in fact an all encompassing media body.
In the final analysis, by keeping the Leader
Group that has consistently been the top
award taker since the inception of the
scheme in 1998, out of its Awards Scheme
2007, the organisers have only devalued the
value of the awards for the remaining
recipients.
It may prove a cake walk for mediocrity and
will certainly be akin to holding a Cricket
World Cup without Australia.
