Jon Snow’s article first appeared in the Guardian newspaper.
The scandal of Britain’s libel laws and their facility for libel tourism is well known. So too is our traditionally cavalier attitude to freedom of speech.
But even against this background, the idea that a country with one of the worst records for press freedom and human rights was able to use the UK’s broadcast regulations to challenge legitimate reporting of allegations about cold-blooded killings in a brutal civil war surely takes the UK to a new place.
Whatever private individuals and corporations may be able to do, our legal system does at least prevent states, governments, and political parties from suing for defamation in our courts.
I and my colleagues at Channel 4 News are emerging from a storm that saw Sri Lanka bypass our libel laws and attempt to use Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, to do what the law would not allow – silence our journalism.
Ofcom’s job is to protect “people who watch television and listen to radio from harmful or offensive material” and to further the interests of UK citizens in respect of communication matters. It does this well.
Ofcom’s job has never been to protect governments or organisations from criticisms or to further their political or commercial interests.
Last year, we broadcast a video showing nine bound and naked men, two of whom were shot, on camera, by soldiers who appeared to be wearing Sri Lankan army uniform.
On the night in question the script made clear that while we couldn’t authenticate this video, sent to us by a group called Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, it nevertheless raised matters of such importance that further investigation was warranted.
The Sri Lankan High Commission immediately denied the atrocities that the video appeared to show.
Two weeks later, at a news conference in Colombo, Sri Lanka said “independent” analysis had declared the video a “fake“.
It mounted a high-profile global campaign to discredit the report, protesting outside Channel 4’s London headquarters. The Sri Lankan government opened up a second front in the UK, filing a series of complaints with Ofcom – one for accuracy and impartiality, one for fairness and privacy.
What had begun as a media campaign to try to destroy the credibility of the Channel 4 News report had become a private battle using the UK’s broadcast regulator. It was a battle in which they were initially allowed to hide anonymously behind the confidential nature of the procedures.
In the end, battle was spared by the findings of a UN committee which recently concluded that the “offending” tape did appear authentic, and dismissed Sri Lanka’s analysis.
Strangely, on the eve of the UN report’s publication the government of Sri Lanka dropped its Ofcom complaints. Whether it had got wind of the verdict, we do not know.
The Sri Lankan video affair has revealed how the Ofcom procedures are potentially open to abuse that threatens to curb not only investigative reporting, but coverage of countries who have repressive and litigious trouble spots and who would rather hide this from public scrutiny.
In short the way Ofcom’s complaint procedures are framed raises serious implications for the reporting of issues of global significance,
Ofcom has come of age in my reporting life time and I regard it as an unexpected regulatory success. But we all need to look to the very real risk of governments “hijacking” the regulatory process for their own political ends.
In this case, Ofcom was placed at the centre of an international row over Sir Lanka’s human rights record and was being asked to take decisions which could have had a major bearing on the country’s attempts to defend its reputation. This cannot be a proper use of the Ofcom process and nor can this be in the interests of UK public at large.
Before Sri Lanka’s complaints were dropped, we were prepared to put these arguments in front of a court.
We felt a clear ruling that denied countries access to Ofcom’s complaints procedures would be beneficial not just too political debate in the UK, but would also help the regulator to avoid being drawn into major international crises. In the absence of a legal ruling, only parliament can change the basis on which complaints can be brought to Ofcom and we urge them to find time to do so.
Without such clarity, we have a serious concern that other countries could follow the Ofcom route.
Ofcom surely needs to ensure that Sri Lanka is the last country ever to be allowed to attempt to pervert the regulator’s domestic complaints procedure for its own reputational needs.
Commentsoldest first
During my recent trip to Sri Lanka, I asked locals what they thought of the current government. Their first words were “very good, now there is no more war” which after 30 years of violence is more than understandable.
I saw those images when first reported by C4 and somehow knew they were genuine.
When violations of human rights are carried out, governments will do their best to hide them.
Let’s be honest though, Sri Lanka is just a tiny fraction of what is really going on in terms of human rights violations.
May Ofcom continue unhindered but money talks, not human dignity.
adzmundo CND
Because you are a paid agent working for the mission and share a portion of $4 billion squandered by the Rajapakses.
How many of you are there in total?
You do not have life ime to respond to all about Sri Lankan barbarity
The real question is was the video genuine?? On the balance of probability it was and there would be a genuine need to know .Were it not, Ofcom would be one of the correct places to complain ,whether a British viewer or not. As with the libel laws if a libel was committed in this country our courts should deal with it.
In Sri Lanka , whether there was a violation of human rights and as Adz says , compared to some countries theirs is slight ,that is for other bodies to investigate .I will say that the terroist threat from the Tamils should be over with their defeat and can accept that the summary execution without trial is wrong but maybe effective.
I watched the videos with horror as the stripped men were bound, gagged and kicked around like lumps of unhealthy meat.
How can anyone dispute that human rights do not exist.
The footage speaks for itself . I agree the clarity of laws and the way they are framed is of upmost importance .Any loopholes which protect the public from viewing whilst simultaneously protect the perpetrators of these abuses from being discovered globally needs to be readdressed. I seem to recall this being discussed one evening on C4 , perhaps I read the article previously?
Was there any impact on your reporting following the complaints to Ofcom? I mean, does Ofcom have the power to ask Channel 4 News not to report further while an investigation is underway? If so, that would be quite sinister and an abuse.
It’s interesting that a government took that route. Of course ‘complain about Channel 4 to Ofcom’ has become part of Big Brother each year.
As a photographer I can see parallels with the situation regarding photography in public places. The way that people such as security guards try to control and prevent it. Taking on a role and assuming ‘powers’ that were never intended and which don’t actually exist in some cases. But in reality often they are successful and it provides a convenient shortcut for anyone who wants to avoid a more complicated process.
Keep up the fight, Jon. Our libel laws are bad enough, allowing wealthy people like Maxwell to gag investigative journalism by the threat of ruinous settlements.
We now seem to have a secrecy law by the back door with these double injunctions that don’t even allow us to know that an injunction has been awarded.
If Ofcom starts being manipulated by governments – our own or any other – then we are sunk.
Certainly this is a loophole that needs stitching up – Ofcom should only be of use for the UK – both in protecting our rights of access to see information and of people who feel they have been unjustly represented. The interesting thing here though is that this was an “attempt” and surely it is doubtful that this attempt would have succeeded as it was stated when introducing the clip “if authentic” and it was also said “we can’t prove the authenticity of these pictures”. Ofcom surely then would not of considered this a breach of the code that they have laid out. This loophole would need to be stitched up very carefully as it is an essential part of Ofcom that complainents can remain confidentential as, although it was abused in this case, it is there to protect when a person or peoples feel that they may have been put in danger from media reports or their quality of life been put at risk. Whether the deeds of those people were wrong or right is not for Ofcom to decide – that is the courts of laws domain. Stitching this loophole up therefore while still being able to provide the protection it was partly set up to provide may not be as simple as it first appears.
By examining dictatorships in Burma, Iran, Indonesia, Libya, Sudan and Somalia, Ekanaliyagoda highlighted some of the practices of dictatorial regimes. He identified the following: the lack of respect for public opinion and the law, lack of respect for the Parliament and the judiciary and lack of space for people to express and organize themselves as trade unions and other organizations that further the interests of people and the freedom of civil society.
http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2010/02/05/sri_lankans_insensitivity_to_violence/2485/
Where is he now? (Minorities are nothing for the King and cronies)
In Sri lanka i you ask some Sinhalese they’ll say we’re glad we’re rid of 30-yr LTTE terror”. If you ask Tamils, they’ll say ” Sinhalese may be rid of 30-yr terror. Tamils are yet to be rid of 62-year state terror. Detainedin camps and aid agents restricted from helping the detainees. Heavily militarised Northeast cordoned off from the rest of the country and economic embargo starved some to death and many to illnesses. Aid agents are prevented from going to many areas of the Northeast. Fishermen and farmers have severe restricvtions. Socio-economic-environmental fabric is destroyed for the Tamils. Journalists were attacked and ”disappeared” and murdered before and after the elections. …”
Commonwealth Journalists Association condemns treatment of journalists in Sri Lanka, 1 February 2010:
“The Sri Lankan leadership appears to have only a slim grasp on the concept of democracy. any government that subjects its independent news media to such violent and arbitrary actions has no right to call itself democratic. Sri Lanka doesn’t even come close to adhering to the most basic principles of the Commonwealth or, for that matter, of basic human rights.”
Sandra , I think that you have hit the nail on the head. Lack of respect infiltrates through every aspect of life. Lack of respect for individuals in general, lack of respect for individuals who form a collective.Denial of dignity for all in its varying degrees. The power game has become such an all consuming pursuit, it masks over the pleasures and the wealth of experience and opportunity this planet has to offer.
Whatever content violation of person rights is reflected ,the basic principles of respect are denied and disordered thought has become the norm.
Everybody should learn about harmony at school.
Harmony can be achieved in many ways, including;
Not spitting on the hand of friendship.
Not jeering at kindness.
Not sneering at the peacemaker.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Perhaps Snowbloggers who agree with Jon’s piece and wish to support the excellent Ch 4 news team can go a step further than blogging only – important though that is – by writing to our MP asking that the issue be raised at ministerial level and in parliament. (I ccd media ministers Ben Bradshaw and Gerry Sutcliffe, together with their shadows into my email earlier today. We all have a part to play in protecting and promoting the investigative journalism on which so much of social and economic progress depends.
Margaret: in response to your comment on a recent blog opposing those objecting to the UK taxpayer financing the pope’s intended visit: do you really see no difference between activism and self-serving litigious behaviour?
Leave a comment
* Required field.