Interim Report: Electronic Media Monitoring
While the state media, in their main news broadcasts and current affairs programs have blatantly violated the guidelines issued by the Elections Commissioner in covering the Presidential Election thereby breaking the election laws, private media newscasts and current affairs programs too are, to a lesser degree, guilty of this offence This is revealed in a media survey commissioned by Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) to monitor the behavior of the electronic media in the run up to the Election.
All in all, the media have failed to provide information for the voter to make an informed decision regarding their candidate, TISL states in an interim report.
The survey was conducted by a team led by well-known electronic media specialist/analyst Thilak Jayaratne and covered the period from mid-December 2009 to the first week of January 2010. An interim report has been released on the findings of the survey which covered six TV channels (two state owned & four private) and five radio channels (two state & three private). TV channels covered were Rupavahini & ITN (state) and Sirasa, Derana, Swarnavahini & TNLand the radio stations were SLBC & Lakhanda (state) and Sirasa FM, Shree FM & Neth FM. The state-owned channels are those funded by the government and administered by the Ministry of Mass Media and Information while the others are funded by private sector organizations.
The survey has also shown that the level of professionalism of the anchor persons conducting interviews and that of the media institutions is very low and a mind-set akin to ‘hate journalism’ exists particularly in state media. Another revelation is that attention to voter education, both regarding the electoral process and the main issues involved in the election, is minimal. All in all, the media have failed to provide information for the voter to make an informed decision regarding their candidate and alternatives.
The survey was based on “quantitative” and “qualitative” analysis. The first which is simple and impactful entailed counting and measuring election coverage in the selected media. The amount of coverage each party or candidate receives is usually the first criterion that will be looked at in order to evaluate allegations of bias.
In “qualitative analysis” the quality of the coverage that parties and candidates received is measured. This applies primarily to news coverage. Qualitative evaluation looked at the language used and the message conveyed and this was to “qualify” the quantitative measure.
For the qualitative analysis, the research team randomly selected three TV programs for analysis as ‘case studies’ in order to compare and contrast different approaches by state and privately-owned media institutions presenting election related programs during elections.
For example ‘Hathweni Peya’ (Seventh Hour) broadcast over ITN on 21 December 2009 at 7 am which is an interview with a person,(Jackson Anthony in this case) showed bias in the choice of the interviewee and the content smacked of horseracing journalism lacking substance and credibility. The interviewer offered his own views and was partial. Both manifest and latent objectives were to support the incumbent president. Commenting on the presenter, it said that he did not display the skills expected of a professional broadcaster. Instead he seems to be very partisan and prejudiced.
Commenting on ’78 Ratakaeawana liyavilla yali kiyawamu’ (Let us read the document governing the country) over Sirasa TV on 6 January 2010 the report states that although it is a discussion with two panelists with the stated goal of examining the provisions of the constitution and its different aspects, as the program proceeded it was evident the latent objectives were different.
Stating that the choice of participants seems to be well balanced as far as their expertise was concerned, one (Sarath N Silva) was publicly campaigning for the common opposition candidate while the other’s political affiliations were not well known. This stirred up suspicions on the objectives of the program, stated the report.
The moderator displayed a certain degree of professionalism and always kept the discussion under his control. Equal time was provided for both participants.
‘Kathiraya’ (Cross) telecast over Rupavahini Corpration on 23 December 2009 based on an interview format allowed only one side of the story. From the content as well as the conduct of the interviewer, it was easy to deduce that the objective of the interview was to establish that the real war hero was the president. The interviewee was Dr Dayan Jayatilleka.
Summing up the three programmes, the report observes that “without any doubt or hesitation the publicly funded and state-owned media quite blatantly, unprofessionally have violated the Elections Commissioner’s guidelines and internationally accepted journalistic practices and norms. Only one point of view is presented and even a hint of dissent is not allowed. The choice of program format interview as against the discussion format alone shows their intentions. The private media, though not explicit as the state-owned media, behaves to a lesser degree, in a similar manner.”
Discussing the quantitative analysis of main radio news bulletins, the report states that from the bulletins monitored, it was evident that out of the total time allocated for election related items of Lakhanda and SLBC Sinhala National Service bulletins, 95% and 97% of time respectively was allocated to the incumbent president. The main opposition candidate was given only 5% and 3% respectively. Time allocation was somewhat fair by the selected private channels with Sirasa FM allocating 52% for the President and 44% for the main opposition candidate. The figures for Shri FM were 50% (President) and 48% (Common Candidate).
As for the TV news bulletins, Rupavahini gave 100% of the time allocated for election news to the President (nil to the General) while ITN gave 70% to the President and 30% to main opposition candidate .The figures for Sirasa TV, Swarnavahini and TNL were 40%, 43% & 51% (President)and 53%, 32% & 41% (Common Candidate) respectively.
The report comments that TV media practitioners usually do not bother to present the ‘other’ view in their news bulletins and give only one side of the story. This is more prevalent in the state owned media. Even when time is allocated for a particular candidate, the idea may be to portray that particular candidate negatively.
The report also highlights that in practicing horse race journalism during election time, the most important person—the voter is often forgotten. Voters’ voice rarely comes out.
Stressing the need for an independent regulatory body for media, the report states that in many instances, responsibility for implementing regulations on the media during election campaigns rests with the main electoral supervisory body itself if it has sufficient guarantees of independence, as well as the expertise to conduct the specialized work of media regulation. A number of countries have opted to create a specialized body whose responsibility is to regulate media during election periods – that is, it is neither a general election administration body nor a general media regulatory body.
Incidentally, the survey is continuing and TISL will issue a comprehensive final report in end February.