The Ministry of Mass Media has taken measures to make several amendments to the existing Press Council Act to include regulations on electronic and new media content as well.
The Sunday Morning spoke to Minister of Mass Media Keheliya Rambukwella to understand the ongoing process in amending a law that only governed print media and how he plans to widen the provisions of the Act towards appointing a single regulatory body for all media channels.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Has the study committee responded with the recommendations as to which amendments should be made to the existing Press Council Act?
We have received several proposals and drafts from various representative bodies. These proposals are still being studied.
[caption id="attachment_6343" align="alignright" width="442"]
"If you have reported about something that is of a sensitive nature and find out that it has caused distress due to wrongful accusations; in the print media, an apology will be published on a two-by-two column. But the damage has already been done" Keheliya Rambukwella [/caption]
How do you plan to regulate media content that gets released on online and electronic platforms?
While there are so many mechanisms, there are suggestions to implement different mechanisms that have been submitted to us by various representative bodies. The fact of the matter is that we will consider using the content and regulatory mechanisms that are currently practised worldwide. We will adopt these mechanisms with the acceptance of all parties concerned.
The Free Media Movement has pointed out that even the existing Press Council Act has many flaws. How do you plan to fix that?
At present, we have about 6,000-7,000 media personnel in Sri Lanka and about 10 owners of electronic and print media; while looking after their interests, there are also 21.9 million people whose interests need to be looked into.
So, be it a press council or a press commission or a few people who are interested in ethics, at the same time, there are certain other parties from the wider area that need to be looked into.
We cannot look at the proposed amendments in one way. Someone must take responsibility towards the people who have been distressed due to adverse reports that appear in the media.
At present, there seem to be several regulatory bodies that oversee media ethics. Media activists have suggested bringing all these bodies under a single regulator. How do you plan to execute that?
That request can be taken into consideration. Appointing the regulator and defining the functions of the regulator are what is important. Whether you have one or several regulators is not the question. There has to be uniformity in regulation. If you have even five people and the regulations are the same, whether it is done by X or Y does not matter much. But if all media institutions can be regulated through a single regulator, then that would be good.
Questions have been raised about appointing political figures for these regulatory bodies. How will you ensure that these officials will not use their position of power to oppress media institutions?
Everybody has a right to their course of justice, legal reports, but there of course have to be regulatory institutions which should have some personalities. These personalities might be inclined towards certain political party alliances, and everyone has some kind of political background.
As long as the regulatory body and the regulations are equal, one has to manage within that.
If media content is to undergo strict regulation, wouldn't that curtail the freedom to report on sensitive matters?
When reporting sensitive matters, one must exercise caution, because there should be some concern about being sensitive towards the party who is being accused. You cannot just let go of something which can be partly true sometimes and sometimes completely false. Does anyone think about the fate of their families and children; who is going to look after their interests?
Say, if you have reported about something that is of a sensitive nature and find out that it has caused distress due to wrongful accusations; in the print media, an apology will be published on a two-by-two column. But the damage has already been done.
Which is why there needs to be some sort of mechanism to allow the reporter to do a thorough study about the incident before it is released to the public. You cannot just think of something and let your imagination fabricate a story.
In such a backdrop, how will you define that Sri Lanka can experience media freedom?
The definition of freedom has to be clearly classified. What is freedom? Should it allow you to write about anything and tarnish an image of a person without investigating the true story behind the incident?
Lately, we are observing that parliamentarians are resorting to using threatening statements towards media outlets that are being critical towards them, rather than having an engaging discourse. Will this change once the media laws get amended?
If you can cite an incident, I can give you an answer for that. But I cannot just wildly say that some people have threatened, without knowing what the threat was about and who has done it.
What measures would your Government put in place to change the present culture of impunity that the media industry is experiencing?
That is why we are discussing and that is where I want inclusivity. I want to have an inclusive forum and express views frankly, and then we come to a final arrangement. Media impunity, media ethics, code of conduct are things that have been talked about over the past 10 years, but nothing has been addressed so far.
So, we need to finally find a mechanism which all parties will agree on and preserve the respect of every person and the entire country.
How long will it take for these amendments to take place?
I have given time for this, and I will not be rushing these amendments that are to be included. If I rush to bring in these amendments, they will say that I am trying to cover up certain clauses that are included. So, I am going to give a little time to all persons concerned and get the best out of it. Hopefully in six months, we will be able to finalise the amendments to the existing media laws of this country.
"If you have reported about something that is of a sensitive nature and find out that it has caused distress due to wrongful accusations; in the print media, an apology will be published on a two-by-two column. But the damage has already been done" Keheliya Rambukwella [/caption]
How do you plan to regulate media content that gets released on online and electronic platforms?
While there are so many mechanisms, there are suggestions to implement different mechanisms that have been submitted to us by various representative bodies. The fact of the matter is that we will consider using the content and regulatory mechanisms that are currently practised worldwide. We will adopt these mechanisms with the acceptance of all parties concerned.
The Free Media Movement has pointed out that even the existing Press Council Act has many flaws. How do you plan to fix that?
At present, we have about 6,000-7,000 media personnel in Sri Lanka and about 10 owners of electronic and print media; while looking after their interests, there are also 21.9 million people whose interests need to be looked into.
So, be it a press council or a press commission or a few people who are interested in ethics, at the same time, there are certain other parties from the wider area that need to be looked into.
We cannot look at the proposed amendments in one way. Someone must take responsibility towards the people who have been distressed due to adverse reports that appear in the media.
At present, there seem to be several regulatory bodies that oversee media ethics. Media activists have suggested bringing all these bodies under a single regulator. How do you plan to execute that?
That request can be taken into consideration. Appointing the regulator and defining the functions of the regulator are what is important. Whether you have one or several regulators is not the question. There has to be uniformity in regulation. If you have even five people and the regulations are the same, whether it is done by X or Y does not matter much. But if all media institutions can be regulated through a single regulator, then that would be good.
Questions have been raised about appointing political figures for these regulatory bodies. How will you ensure that these officials will not use their position of power to oppress media institutions?
Everybody has a right to their course of justice, legal reports, but there of course have to be regulatory institutions which should have some personalities. These personalities might be inclined towards certain political party alliances, and everyone has some kind of political background.
As long as the regulatory body and the regulations are equal, one has to manage within that.
If media content is to undergo strict regulation, wouldn't that curtail the freedom to report on sensitive matters?
When reporting sensitive matters, one must exercise caution, because there should be some concern about being sensitive towards the party who is being accused. You cannot just let go of something which can be partly true sometimes and sometimes completely false. Does anyone think about the fate of their families and children; who is going to look after their interests?
Say, if you have reported about something that is of a sensitive nature and find out that it has caused distress due to wrongful accusations; in the print media, an apology will be published on a two-by-two column. But the damage has already been done.
Which is why there needs to be some sort of mechanism to allow the reporter to do a thorough study about the incident before it is released to the public. You cannot just think of something and let your imagination fabricate a story.
In such a backdrop, how will you define that Sri Lanka can experience media freedom?
The definition of freedom has to be clearly classified. What is freedom? Should it allow you to write about anything and tarnish an image of a person without investigating the true story behind the incident?
Lately, we are observing that parliamentarians are resorting to using threatening statements towards media outlets that are being critical towards them, rather than having an engaging discourse. Will this change once the media laws get amended?
If you can cite an incident, I can give you an answer for that. But I cannot just wildly say that some people have threatened, without knowing what the threat was about and who has done it.
What measures would your Government put in place to change the present culture of impunity that the media industry is experiencing?
That is why we are discussing and that is where I want inclusivity. I want to have an inclusive forum and express views frankly, and then we come to a final arrangement. Media impunity, media ethics, code of conduct are things that have been talked about over the past 10 years, but nothing has been addressed so far.
So, we need to finally find a mechanism which all parties will agree on and preserve the respect of every person and the entire country.
How long will it take for these amendments to take place?
I have given time for this, and I will not be rushing these amendments that are to be included. If I rush to bring in these amendments, they will say that I am trying to cover up certain clauses that are included. So, I am going to give a little time to all persons concerned and get the best out of it. Hopefully in six months, we will be able to finalise the amendments to the existing media laws of this country.