BY NEVILLE DE SILVA

There is hardly a politician who does not pay homage to the concept of media freedom, at least in countries that call themselves democracies. Politicians, particularly those aspiring to higher office will burn incense at the altar of media freedom and portray themselves as defenders of the faith. All this is in the hope of winning public acceptance and hallelujahs from international institutions advocating freedom for the media.

Why, some even proclaim a willingness to shed their last drop of blood defending the media against authoritarian incursions that threaten to destroy one of the four pillars that hold up democratic governance.

It was in the late 18th century that Edmund Burke stressed the vital role of the press at the time, describing it as the fourth estate in parliament though it sat in the press gallery above the parliament’s chamber where sat the other three.

Since the days Edmund Burke recognized the critical importance of the press there has been a solid phalanx of politicians who pledge to safeguard press freedom as a cornerstone of democracy.

But there are also those who pay mere lip service to this freedom because it is profitable to do so in the furtherance of self-interest.

Much of this vocal support, of course, comes when they are in the opposition and the opportunity to practise what they preach seems remote. If and when they come to power they count on public memories being extremely short and their homilies on press freedom long forgotten.

But once in the seats of power they soon begin to forget what they pledged in public and how they castigated-quite rightly I think- the predecessor administration for the Damoclean–sword approach to the media and its repression of practitioners and institutions.

Switching roles from defender of the press while in opposition to offender of the media when in office comes quite naturally to politicians who, like the seven ages of man, play many parts in their political lives.

Admittedly the media is not infallible. It too is guilty of acts of commission and omission and even propagating falsehoods. One reason why media standards have deteriorated in Sri Lanka is because of the plethora of media outlets both in the print and electronic media and the lack of professionalism and trained and experienced practitioners than man them.

Another is that politicians cultivate journalists for publicity and promote themselves and journalists cultivate politicians for self-interest including jobs in state media. This symbiotic relationship also led to stories being planted against rival politicians or those perceived as a challenger to their political patron.

Believing the promises held out during two crucial elections last year that the media would be unshackled under a new dispensation, many of the more established and professionally-run media have shown they are not ready to be servile instruments voicing only what the government hopes they should do.

One can understand political anger being directed at institutions and practitioners for distortion, misreporting and worse at deliberate falsehoods. But the reason for the morphing of defender in opposition to offender in power lies elsewhere.

It is the power of the media to exposeand indeed its right to do so- political chicanery, hidden agendas, secret deals, corruption, family promotion and cronyism, lack of transparency and a host of other acts that offend public sensibilities, in fact everything that violate the principles of good governance as spelt out by its leading advocates, that rankles the minds of political power wielders.

It is when the media performs one of its essential tasks of ferreting out and placing in the public domain information that the government desperately wishes to hide from the people but is of public interest, that holders of political power try to coerce the media and want it cowed into silence or for it to retreat from its mandated responsibility.

In recent months the public have witnessed attempts by senior politicians in government making threatening noises against the media that seem not to toe the line they would wish the media to follow.

Media have not hesitated to criticize some actions, proposals and decisions of the government and justifiably so. Moreover, opinions critical of the yahapalanaya administration turning into an appendage of the West have been aired by the media so that the public would have access to other points of view.

Believing the promises held out during two crucial elections last year that the media would be unshackled under a new dispensation, many of the more established and professionally-run media have shown they are not ready to be servile instruments voicing only what the government hopes they should do.

It seems that frequent visits to China and Singapore are teaching our leaders more than how to establish model industrial zones and state-financed quangos. Over the years these two hugely differing states have shackled the media and suppressed dissenting voices.

Lee Kuan Yew, that grand vizier of thought control ran the city state with an iron hand more than a velvet glove. Some might wonder a Leeward lurch might prove useful along with imported economic models would surely be gnawing away at the minds of those who wish to curb the media.

I am not certain whether a story currently doing the rounds that the government intends to disallow print media publishers from venturing into the field of electronic media and TV/radio broadcasters from engaging in newspaper/magazine publishing, is true or not.

But one cannot put it beyond some self-appointed media expert or an official mediocrity in some ministry with nothing significant to do to cook- up a scheme on the false prospectus that this would halt the creation of media monopolies and give