Media freedom is not a dowry

American journalists, during the Cold War, had a yarn to embarrass their Soviet Union colleagues about the freedom of expression as understood by their Soviet colleagues. The story was about an American and a Soviet citizen meeting at a park and each boasting about how great his country was. The American had said: 'In my country the people are absolutely free. I can climb the steps of Capitol Hill and say loud and clear: The American President is a crook and fornicator but nothing will happen to me'. The Soviet citizen had replied: 'Same thing in my country, comrade. I can climb up the steps of the Kremlin and say: 'The American President is a bloody crook and fornicator and nothing will happen to me'.

Mr. Mangala Samaraweera - may have been schooled in the same thoughts of the Soviet citizen in our story. He had said that: 'There is more freedom in the government media than in the private media', when he wound up the debate on the Votes of the Media ministry on Tuesday

True, like in the former Soviet Union, the state media in Sri Lanka today has all the freedom to criticise , abuse, insult, distort , hurl mud at all those who dare criticise the government. They have the absolute freedom to sing their daily Bakthi Gee in their editorials to their tin gods and paymasters. But during the four year rule of the Peoples Alliance government, has there been one sentence critical of the all powerful executive president or any one cabinet minister? We can assure the minister that not one sentence critical of the notable and quotable in the PA cabinet has been uttered by this state media which Mr. Samaraweera says has greater freedom of expression than the private media. The private media in Sri Lanka, like that of any other country has its warts. And like any other organisation which is in the business of carrying news and views are subjective at times. But there is a world of a difference between the subservient Kept Press , the other state media organisations and private media organisations in this country today.

Mr. Samaraweera like all politicians in the final lap of their term of office tends to forget what they promised in their election manifesto on media freedom. The PA manifesto pledged: Major constraints arising from provisions contained in the constitution, Public Security Ordinance, Press Council Law, Official Secrets Act and Parliamentary ( Powers and Privileges)Act will be removed.... Action will be taken to broadbase ownership of Lake House... Shares of Lake House will be traded in the Stock Exchange- Government will not use its advertising control , influence or threaten any newspaper organization... ..Current structure of taxes and duties of newsprint will be drastically revised. Has any one of these promises been kept or is there any intention to keep to make these, promises come true in the remaining period of office ?

Mr. Samaraweera has revealed the flaw in his and the PA thinking on the media in his reply on the votes of his ministry when he said: 'The popular and controversial programmes broadcast by private institutions is convincing evidence of the Government's tolerance, ( emphasis is ours),understanding and commitment to media freedom'.

Mr. Samaraweera and most PA leaders are under the delusion that the media is being ' tolerated'- allowed to exist -by the grace of the Peoples Alliance government. Mr. Samaraweera should understand that the media in democratic countries exist as an embodiment of the fundamental rights of the people enshrined in legislative enactments. Independent journalists are not lapdogs waiting for crumbs to be given by their master , mistresses or paymasters.

The media today may be enjoying greater freedom than in certain dark periods of UNP regimes. But this freedom of expression is their inherent right, which the PA pledged protect.Whatever freedom the media may enjoy today cannot be considered a dowry gifted by a grateful President Kumaratrunga et al to the media for which the media has to be ever thankful . It is an inherent democratic right of the people.

The minister is right in his observation of ' an extremely active media' but that is not because of the government's munificence. Despite editors of the privately owned media being charged under archaic laws- the government using the full power of the state machinery, despite journalists being attacked by goon squads, despite the Kept Press buying over pliant journalists en bloc from private institutions with the objective of wrecking them, despite the laws of censorship and despite Machiavellian attempts to destablise private media institutions, the private media has continued to play the role expected of them.

Finally, we ask Mr. Samaraweera: Does he really think that the people believe him when he says that the state media has more freedom of expression than the private media ? If he does believe in that, he is a victim of what is known as the Goebbelsian Syndrome- constant repetition of a big lie leads to the conviction that the lie is true.