(FMM/IFEX) – The following is a 25 May 2004 FMM press release: Exposing private lives in Media Our attention has been drawn to the editorial of the Daily News of May 24, 2004, titled “Canard nailed”, in which several privately-owned media institutions have been taken to task over their conduct in the recent exposures relating […]
(FMM/IFEX) – The following is a 25 May 2004 FMM press release:
Exposing private lives in Media
Our attention has been drawn to the editorial of the Daily News of May 24, 2004, titled “Canard nailed”, in which several privately-owned media institutions have been taken to task over their conduct in the recent exposures relating to an alleged relationship between Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader Rauf Hakeem, MP, and an adult female citizen of Sri Lanka.
We deplore the behaviour of all media institutions and personnel who have been involved in this exposé over the last few days, and reiterate that the public exposure of people’s private lives in this manner is contrary to all media ethics.
We are extremely perturbed by the language of the Daily News editorial, which is rhetorical and abusive. It describes the Sunday Leader as a “scurrilous pamphlet”, and the News Line programme on MTV as a “salacious two-bit breakfast show”. In addition, the Sunday Leader, MTV television stations Sirasa and MTV, the Sunday Times and the Daily Mirror have all been labeled as “anti-Government”, and having “as their number one priority the destruction of the UPFA [United Peoples Freedom Alliance].”
We have always maintained that while all media institutions should be guided by principles of fair and unbiased reporting, the state-owned media has a particular responsibility in this area since they are publicly-owned. The phenomenon observed by us in the past – that the state media takes on the role of defending whichever government is in power – seems to be repeating itself once more.
We are also perturbed by the attitude displayed by the editor regarding the ethics of exposing the alleged relationship between Mr. Hakeem and the woman concerned for public consumption, in the manner in which it has been done. Drawing on historical experiences such as that of John Profumo and Christine Keeler, and Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, the editor seems to argue that the outcry against the media’s exposure of this particular story is a “normal” media practice and therefore justified. We find this attitude to be most objectionable.
Sunanda Deshapriya
Spokesperson
Free Media Movement
