Some tears are less newsworthy

A note on media representation of conflict in Sri 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,
seenand 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: nmat@sltnet.lk
Website: www.nmatnet.com

Some tears are less newsworthy

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (12)

Similaire à Some tears are less newsworthy

Similaire à Some tears are less newsworthy (9)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Some tears are less newsworthy