Analysis and Report: Radhika Hettiarachchi Editing: Sanayi Marceline and Deshini Liyanaarachchi Research Team: Saman Gunatilake (Sinhala Print) Subramanium Nayanaganeshan (Tamil Print) Jean Godlieb (English Print) Sisira Kannangara (Sinhala Electronic) Rajaratnam Ramanan (Tamil Electronic) Data Entry: Chanaka Krishantha Filing: Supun Madhusanketha Introduction This media report attempts to illustrate the possible impact of the media on opinion-creation in the Sri Lankan populace at present. The ‘present’ situation in the country is one of deep political and historical importance: The third year anniversary of the ceasefire agreement and the future of the peace process, which includes the possibility of an interim authority are compounded exponentially by the devastating Tsunami which struck Sri Lanka on the 26th of December 2004. Thus the ‘present’ is a precarious time period for the future of Sri Lanka and its peace process, which is now indissolubly linked to the way in which both the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE handle the influx of international aid, donor visits, humanitarian relief, rehabilitation, recovery and rebuilding in the wake of a natural disaster. All this, in an environment of unprecedented international concern and scrutiny about the internal workings of Sri Lanka in a ‘post- Tsunami’ situation which has incidentally affected key areas of political importance (North, East and South), let alone the social, humanitarian and economic status of these areas. As such the impact of the mediai in disseminating information, in the least, and making political commentaries, at most, can be crucial when the country is still emerging from over two decades of civil warii. This report is a quantitative (content analysis) and qualitative (textual analysis) examination of how the media in general reports on key issues of interest in the ‘post-Tsunami’ environment during the month of March 2005. The areas of interest identified for the above purpose are, • donor relations and international community (excluding iNGO) involvement in the post-Tsunami relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction through aid and pressure on GoSL and the LTTE to work together • Tsunami aid distribution and disparities thereof, ensuing public protests and the impact of the above on a possible joint mechanism for post-Tsunami relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction and the long-term effects of such a collaboration on the peace process in general • human rights and ceasefire violations by the LTTE and the GoSL as they might impact the peace process, possibilities of federalism and an interim authority 1 This report provides an analysis of the Sinhala, Tamil and Englishiii print mediaiv to establish general trends in how a particular subject of interest is depicted, if it is a positive or negative impression that is implied or createdv. The frequency or repetition of a particular subject may also identify basic ‘trends’ in reporting. A further analysis of textvi with comparisons of how similar stories are depicted in the three language groups may provide an indication of the media content to which the Sri Lankan public may be exposed which may influence their opinionsvii. It must be acknowledged that there is no direct and absolute link created at a theoretical level on the ‘impact’ of the media in opinion creation. Thus this report makes no assumption on the direct impact of any media on peoples’ behaviour and/or opinion as what might be theoretically termed a ‘magic bullet’ or ‘hypodermic needle’ effect (Lasswellviii). In other words, this report does not prove that media content directly affects the opinions and behaviour of those that consume it. It only attempts to indicate the possibility of indirect or partial influence of the media in aiding the creation of opinions and ideas as one of the many factors, including personal political affiliations, income levels and education levels. It must be further noted that the ‘two-step’ or indirect model of communication theories claim that information is first processed and assimilated by opinion leaders and then passed onto people influenced by these opinion leaders. As consumers of media ourselves, and as media monitors it is imperative to note that the media is not an indicator or a reflection of public opinion. As such this media report is only able to provide the direction, patterns or trends in reporting which may indicate the affiliations or possible intentions of various media only. Donor Involvement A common trend in the reporting of donor relief, in terms of donor visits to the country and provision of relief by donor organisations is that most media in all three languages generally provide a positive impression of donor activityix. The English media is relatively favourable towards the donor involvement at 68.67% of articles. The Sinhala media is almost equal in its praise at 65.6% although the number of articles in the English media (both positive and negativex) is significantly higher than the number of articles in the Sinhala media. The Tamil mediaxi shows overwhelming support for donor relations, Norwegian mediation, donor aid and international community pressure on the joint mechanism at 83.2%. In the English media the numbers indicate that the state-owned newspaper, Daily News is most favourable at 87% followed by Daily Mirror (67.3%) while the Island is the harshest critic of the three at 58.8%. The numbers in the Sinhala media indicate that Dinamina (81.8%), Lakbima (68.2%) and Lankadeepa (78.8%) are clearly in support of donor involvement while the sister paper of the Island, Divaina proves to be the only dissenting voice at 61% against or in criticism of donor involvement, most of which is focused on donor pressure for a joint mechanism and Norwegian mediation. In terms of the numbers, it appears that in general, the Sinhala, Tamil and English media report that there is little or no disparity in the provision of donor aid to the North, East and South of Sri Lanka. One of the very few issues of disparity is reported by the Island (6/3) as ‘ethicized’ aid where the U.A.E offers to rebuild a village in the predominantly Muslim district of Ampara. The Tamil dailies generally do not 2 report disparity in donor aid to a particular region of Sri Lanka. Thus the general trend in reporting on donor aid is that there is almost no disparity in how it is allocated to the Tsunami devastated regions of Sri Lankaxii. Donor English Media Tamil Media Sinhala Media Activity Positive %* negative % positive % Negative % positive % negative % Donor 41 55 34 45 85 84 16 16 52 64 29 36 visits + pressure for J.M. Norwegian 7 54 6 46 27 84 5 16 16 55 13 45 mediation Donor Aid 66 85 12 15 7 70 3 30 16 89 2 11 * In the above table all percentages shown are positive or negative articles as a percentage of the total in each language group In particular, two incidents are notable in terms of donor relations. The first is the World Bank country representative, Peter Harold’s alleged statement to the Sunday Times (6/3) that the LTTE controlled areas in effect constitute an “unofficial state”xiii. The public uproar in the south of the country, along with the outcry of the JVP for Mr. Harold to be expelled, is depicted in the three languages in starkly different ways. The English papers remain neutral on the issue in general. A feature article in the Sunday Island (13/3) acknowledges that a man in the position of Mr. Harold should not say such a partial statement, but echoes his alleged sentiments by stating that there is in effect, a separate area under LTTE control that does not abide under the jurisdiction of the GoSL. The Sinhala media portray the issue through articles about JVP instigated protests against Mr. Harold without much editorial comment on the issue. Lakbima (20/3) carries an article which claims that the issue of Peter Harold has been ‘covered up’, without resolution, or has not been given the importance it deserved, perhaps leaning on the side of the JVP. However, the most interesting portrayal of the issue is seen in the Tamil Media. A front page article in Veerakesari (8/3 – page 1) downplays the issue and offers a defense for Peter Harold by attributing the supposed statement of Peter Harold to the JVP as something the JVP and the PNM have ‘created’ into an issue because the intention of the JVP is to stop aid from going into LTTE controlled areas. The author of the article thus says that the JVP is taking the Peter Harold statement out of context, while the paper suggests that what was meant by Peter Harold was simply ‘the LTTE controlled areas’. The editorial carried by the same paper, suggests that Peter Harold actually has full knowledge of the internal workings of Sri Lanka if he thus acknowledges the LTTE controlled areas while the entire raucous created after the article in the Sunday Times (6/3) was published is in reality, a ‘vicious campaign’ organised by the JVP to prevent the ‘Tamil-speaking’ people from getting any aid. This disparity in reporting the alleged Peter Harold statement presents several interesting clues as to the type of opinion the media (or the three language groups) would like to instill in its readership. For example, using the words ‘Tamil-speaking people’ includes Muslims living in the East as well, establishing the LTTE as the legitimate representative of the North and the East, including its Tamil speaking Muslim population. It is also important to note that none of 3 the other language media, so clearly linked the JVP protests against Peter Harold, and his alleged statement to donor aid. The second incident of note involves the visit of Ms.