Interview: Political Economy and Ideological Aspects of the Sinhala Media
- C. Dodawatta with Ranjith Perera

lines co-editor Ahilan Kadirgamar interviewed C. Dodawatta, a journalist with the Sinhala Daily Dinamina in July 2005. The interview was an attempt to explore the current state of Sinhala print media as part of the larger focus on the media in the August 2005 issue of lines magazine. This was a result of a few conversations with Ranjith Perera of SSA followed by an interview with C. Dodawatta, which Ranjith Perera translated. We are most grateful for the support of Ranjith Perera, without whose help this interview would not have been possible.

AK: Can you tell me a little bit about your political and ideological background?

CD: I am from the South, N.M' seat and hence a supporter of the LSSP. Then I was active with the All Ceylon Peasant Congress. I got my first experience as a journalist working for the newspaper put out by the Peasant Congress. Then I also worked with the Movement for Inter-Racial Justice and Equality and the Yukthiya paper. So my journalism was very much tied to activism. During the repressive years, we had campaigns for media freedom and freedom of expression.

AK: In terms of censorship there has been a change since 1994, is that so? In terms of the ownership of media, what sort of impact does that have?

CD: The question of censorship in terms of the law doesn't really matter because the Sinhala journalist will censor himself. There is self-censorship, because they are ideologically biased or controlled.

When they impose the censorship, the Information Department summons all the journalists. Then they read out the law and say that censorship is now in effect. The journalists then ask a number of questions. When should we send our drafts? Can we send it by fax? But these are all technical questions. There are no political questions or protest. This is what happened in 1995 when the war started.

AK: You say there is self-censorship among the journalists, and what amount of that is because of the editorial line of the newspapers?

CD: There is an institutional structure within which the journalist works. And when it comes to this self-censorship, I would say there is no hierarchy. In this structure from the editor to the ground journalists, there is self-censorship. People who don't want to practice self-censorship work outside this structure and they work in the alternative media. However, within mainstream media within the structure of companies, I would say that such self-censorship is prevalent. There is no difference between the government media or the private media, within mainstream media such self-censorship exists. Of course, there are individuals or random efforts at dissent, there is the occasional good journalist, but for the most such efforts will remain ineffective.

It is not a problem of the individual journalist. It is a question of ideology. Of ideological hegemony… Of the majoritarian ideology… Now if you take something like the post-Tsunami issues, the journalists may support the joint mechanism. On any single issue they may take a good stand, but if you look at it holistically they are still under the hegemony of the Sinhala ideology.

There are many problems with the institutionalized journalists. They are very partisan, and they would support certain political parties. For example the journalists in the Times Company, Lanka Deepa, they will support the UNP policies when the UNP brings an interim administration for the North. So, they may write in support of it. But the same journalist will not support P-TOMS (Joint Mechanism for Tsunami Reconstruction) when the PA government brings it.

AK: Could you speak about the ownership of the media?

CD: There is a continuity from the colonial times. The newspaper industry was organized by the colonial force. So, that compromise continues. In colonial times there was both colonial capital and local capital, which owned the media, but the ideology of the newspapers was colonial. Similarly now, the capitalists own the media, but the ideology is nationalist.

AK: So, isn't there a contradiction in that capital now is aligned with global capital, but the ideology of the media is Sinhala nationalist? How do they resolve that?

CD: I am skeptical about whether Sri Lankan media is controlled by global capital. Nevertheless, the ideology is more powerful than capital in determining the direction of the media. If global capital intervenes in the Sinhala media, there could be changes, but I am skeptical if that would happen. Global capital is not bothered about the ideology here, it is concerned about the market. So, global capital will come for the entertainment media and not bother about the ideology of the Sinhala media. They will have their profits and that is what they would be concerned about.

AK: I am also wondering if there can be a co-existence between global capital and Sinhala nationalism. For example with the open economic policies that came in 1977 and through out the 1980s, the Mahaweli project for example, or even during the Premadasa years, there was huge flow of international capital, but it went along with the symbolism of Sinhala nationalism. So, could there be a symbiosis of international capital and Sinhala nationalist ideology?

CD: The current situation is such that news media industry is not a profit making industry. They seem to be often running at a loss. So, I don't see the global capital having great amount of interest in the Sinhala media. There may not be a co-existence between international capital and Sinhala nationalist media, but neither is there a confrontation. There are two criticisms about the open economy. One is from the Left and the other is from the nationalists.

Now the criticism of the open economy from the nationalists is more effective than from the Left. That is the nationalists are more vocal and expressive. But it is basically a nationalist project. They would say its against our culture, its against our values and this a nationalist project.

AK: What has been the coverage of neo-liberalism in the Sinhala media, particularly as policies that are applicable to the Sri Lankan context? That is with respect to financial reform, labour reform or trade reform.

CD: It is a major crisis. There is no discussion of such issues in the Sinhala media. The absence of such discussion is a major crisis. Everyday, we have supplements in the newspaper. There are entertainment supplements, cinema supplements, financial supplements etc. But no economic supplement! There are fellows who write financial supplements but they just feed us information on the business community, nothing else. We need to organize such people to write. This is not a problem inherent to the media. It is a problem inherent to our society; we don't have the people who can write on such issues. When N.M. was in parliament, he used to go to the rural areas and give an analysis of the budget, but now that does not happen.

Even the few academics that can write about the economy do not write about it anymore. They will write about the conflict or constitutional reform, but not about the economy. That is because the newspapers also ask them to write on only certain topics. There is no market for those who write on the economy.

AK: Besides a shortage of critics or analysts is there also an ideological reason why discussion of neo-liberalism is silenced?

CD: The problem is historical. Our development was imposed on us. Our development thinking also came from outside, it did not grow and develop here. There is no social space for such knowledge production. It is not just the problem of the media. It's a more systemic problem. Outside of the media industry also this is not happening, and I would say the media is also a victim of the lack of such discussions in society.

From the 1930s to the 1960s, there was an organized political left movement. People were organized and they were confronting certain ideologies. Therefore, there were well-developed debates and there was analysis of the social-economic context. These days people are not even aware of the problem of neo-liberalism.

AK: Can you talk a little more about the ideology of the media industry?

CD: The media industry is highly centralized in Colombo. From the production to the distribution of the newspapers, everything is centered in Colombo. The collection of information to processing it is all centralized in Colombo. The production of news keeps the people in the rural areas out. The rural people are marginalized in this process. It is manufactured news to be consumed by the rural people. The problem is that the media industry is not decentralized. The mainstream media is highly hegemonic and does not address for example issues that relate to women. It merely collects information from the periphery and processes it and redistributes.

Even the Free Media Movement, which used to be very effective at one point, has now become a big institution. And they have a code of conduct etc, but they are too structured. They are not accessible and now perhaps not playing the kind of role that they can play.

AK: What has been the coverage of the JVP in the mainstream media? Ideologically, how do they fit in? How is their visibility?

CD: The media industry including the magnates, are more involved and aligned along party politics rather than class politics. Hence even their coverage of the JVP is a related to such party politics. This is a complicated relationship where most of the media is aligned with the UNP, but when it comes to the position on the ethnic question, the majority of Sinhala journalists see eye to eye with the JVP.

AK: How was the post-Tsunami and P-TOMS coverage in the Sinhala media?

CD: We were talking earlier about the ownership of the media and ideology of the media, it is very similar to that question when we look at the post-Tsunami coverage. Most of the destruction was in the North and East, but the journalists did not even acknowledge that. Hence they could not cover the P-TOMS fairly, because they could not even acknowledge the destruction by the Tsunami in the Tamil areas. Sinhala media has developed a thinking of society as Sinhala society not as Sri Lankan society and that is a major problem. This is a historical problem from the confrontation with colonialism. That confrontation was on the basis of Sinhala society, not on the basis of a multi-ethnic society. Hence Sinhala journalism cannot transcend this problem. Sinhala media only critiques the problems in Sinhala society, they don't consider the problems in the Tamil society, this is a historical problem. The Tamil media also may have the same problem, where they only address problems in Tamil society.

AK: Many people would say that during the last six months there has been a resurgence of Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism. Is this deep-seated or is this more superficial? Is this a long-term phenomenon? How has this impacted the Sinhala media?

CD: The reaction in the Sinhala media has a social basis in the mobilization of the Buddhist monks. This is worrying, but I also think that is not all. There is a lot of media hype, which has given voice to such Sinhala chauvinists. The Sinhala media has really compromised itself by promoting such campaigns.

AK: In terms of the future, what are the prospects of the peace process? My sense is that there are two camps in the South. The first has become extremely critical and rejects any moves towards a negotiated solution. The second has accepted appeasement, and does not take a peace with democracy and justice seriously. How does the media in the South see the human rights violations in the North and East, as there have been hundreds of killings and abductions as well as the recruitment of thousands of children. Are there any prospects of the Sinhala media addressing a middle ground rather than taking a line that trashes the peace process or looks for a peace at any cost?

CD: There are two camps in the society as well. We should find an alternative path where we can address questions of democracy and human rights and win over the Sinhala constituencies. And for that we may have to address their fears as well to win them over. But we should articulate a rights discourse as well. And there is the space in the media to take the middle ground to point out both the short-comings and the opportunities. But society is divided and similar division also exists in the media between the two camps. However, the media can play a great role in finding the middle ground. However, such debates are also not happening in the Sinhala media, because there are no major opinion makers taking on this debate in society. Nevertheless, the space in the media needs to be tapped.

AK: Thank you very much for your time and thoughts. It has been a great pleasure talking to both of you.

Home