What the Channel 4 video means

By Kath Noble

(September 02, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is said that a picture speaks a thousand words, but I suspect otherwise. When British television station Channel 4 broadcast a video of what it claimed to be a Sri Lankan soldier executing prisoners somewhere in the Vanni, there was almost no debate in Colombo. It was described either as a diabolical conspiracy to blacken the name of this country and its war heroes by diehard LTTE supporters in league with a West jealous of Sri Lanka because of its victory over terrorism, or as irrefutable proof that the Government is run by such bloodthirsty lunatics that we’d better move overseas as soon as possible.

That Channel 4 practises appalling journalism is indisputable. Its coverage of Sri Lanka is hardly ever based on actual investigation and pretty much always ignores the most basic reporting standards. Verified facts are extremely rare in what it still insists on calling news bulletins, while little attention is given to presenting more than one view of an event.

Its latest effort was no different. A group calling itself Journalists for Democracy provided a tape, which Channel 4 happily put out along with some old pictures from TamilNet, plus a generous helping of its own brand of usefully distracting rhetoric.

At every opportunity, the reporter drove home the idea that whatever was going on was basically ethic. Viewers were in that way encouraged to believe that hatreds ran so deep here that anything was possible. The Sinhalese community was relieved when fighting came to an end a few months ago, he declared, with the rebel Tamils defeated. That’s funny, because I thought that it was the LTTE who lost the war and that the vast majority of Sri Lankans were happy to see an end to the deaths.

Most pathetic was the admission that Channel 4 hadn’t checked the authenticity of the video, followed immediately by attempts to persuade viewers that it simply must be genuine. The tape wasn’t handed over by a Tamil liberation organisation, the reporter said. Well, that’s reassuring. But who are Journalists for Democracy and where did they get it from?

We were told only that the video had been smuggled out of Sri Lanka a couple of days previous to the transmission. In a false-bottomed suitcase, perchance? Or by a Channel 4 stringer disguised as a fisherman rendezvousing with one of Her Majesty’s submarines in international waters off the coast of Mullaitivu? Come on, the footage could have been uploaded to YouTube from Colombo. I could have posted it on a DVD to my aunt in Nether Wallop or wherever it is that Channel 4 types hang out. The illusion of a daring escapade was supposed to convince viewers that the product they were being sold was worth something.

Then the reporter asserted that the tape had been seen by an unnamed human rights investigator. Playing the ethnic card again, he informed us that the person in question was Sinhalese, as if that proved anything.

Had Channel 4 tried to identify the soldier? No. Was a technical expert consulted, to see whether the audio track had been recorded with the images, for example? Once again, no. Nothing in the way of verification had been attempted before going on air.

Notably, the Sri Lankan high commission response denying that any such incident had taken place was not read in full, although to have done so would have taken no more than another ten seconds. A sentence that drew attention to previous attempts to use doctored images to throw suspicion on the Government was cut. The full statement is available on our website, the reporter concluded merrily, knowing that few people would look to see what they were missing.

It is important to highlight these points. Appalling journalism has a way of turning allegations into facts, especially in Britain. So long as Channel 4 fails to present the necessary information for viewers to assess what they are shown and form a judgement, it must be challenged.

But this shouldn’t be the only reaction to the video. It may well be genuine, despite Channel 4.

I believe that the vast majority of the commentators who have been so determinedly pointing their fingers at the British television station over the last week know perfectly well that such a thing could easily have taken place. Even if this incident turns out to have been faked, there will have been others like it. Who could honestly stand up and claim that Sri Lanka has dealt with terrorism using purely legal means? Really? Let’s not kid ourselves, please.

There are many reasons why this possibility doesn’t cause anything like widespread outrage. Sri Lanka was in the midst of a desperate battle to rid itself of an organisation that had proven over several decades to be incredibly dangerous. Thousands had died in suicide attacks, been murdered for their opinions and political affiliations, or got killed on the battlefield, and the war seemed as though it could go on forever. This was so even in January, when the tape is supposed to have been recorded. Successive attempts to resolve matters peacefully had ended in failure. Principles that we hold dear in normal times and other places had begun to seem less important in the face of such a huge challenge.

At the same time, it was clear that the Army was behaving a good deal better than it had done in the past. However disturbing, our responses to an incident of this kind are necessarily different when we feel confident that it doesn’t happen all the time. All except the youngest in society remember when prisoners were executed at will and with awful regularity, to the extent that bodies could be seen lying in fields and on roadsides all over the country on more or less a daily basis.

Anybody who doubts this must first explain how there are 10,000 LTTE cadres and 300,000 other IDPs from the Vanni in detention centres in Vavuniya. Their existence shows that there has been a vast change in approach over the decades, for which it is obviously quite correct to be glad.

This doesn’t mean that the situation is as it should be. We know that there is plenty of room for improvement, and this is an ideal time to look afresh at what is happening to see how to move forward.

It would be a mistake to assume that things will continue to get better automatically, just because the threat to Sri Lanka is vastly diminished. That may indeed happen in time, but pressure will speed up the process considerably. How many people will die in the meantime? Will they have deserved it and why couldn’t things have been done according to the law? These are questions that require our urgent attention, because I am sure that there have already been unnecessary deaths in the struggle with terrorism, however understanding we may be of national security concerns. The public has to make it clear that they do not support certain measures that we know are employed, irregularly or otherwise. If they don’t, space will open up for more of the same.

Sri Lanka will not be able to begin this debate until the spectre of a war crimes tribunal is gone. The Government is clearly not going to allow it to happen in any case, but the seemingly endless calls for investigation and scrutiny by the United Nations and others make it difficult for issues like the Channel 4 video to be discussed rationally in public. Yet this is what will make a difference. The West should be made to understand that even if it were successful in its quest for prosecutions, this would have no impact on the future of this country whatsoever, but I’m afraid that its leaders are as uninterested in helping Sri Lanka with its problems as ever.

As things stand, any number of pictures can be beamed around the world. Millions of words will be written. But nothing will change.

(The writer can be reached at kathnoble99@gmail.com)

-Sri Lanka Guardian