The document discusses challenges posed by new media to traditional journalism in Sri Lanka. It notes that citizen journalists need legal protections as they increasingly document and share information online. While some mainstream newspapers have begun publishing user-generated content, they have done so improperly by heavily editing articles without permission or attribution. This undermines the integrity of citizen journalism. Overall, the document argues that mainstream media and legal standards must evolve to recognize the important role of citizen journalists in an increasingly digital age.

1. New Media and New
Challenges
Sanjana Ha2otuwa
Senior Researcher, Centre for Policy Alterna>ves

2. Context
• IGP believes mobiles can capture rape
• Mobile phones can host porn
• Protec>ng children from pornography on the web can be best
addressed by crea>ng paid accounts for parents
• Mobile phone sharing prohibited
• CDMA phones limited to fixed loca>ons
• Environment can be saved by taxing mobile phone usage
• No GPS in Sri Lanka
• An Execu>ve that does not understand, use or has any
experience with new media

3. Four points
• Ci>zen journalists need protec>on
• Mainstream media ethics needs to recognise User Generated
Content (USG) in the same manner as tradi>onal sources
• ISPs are the new gatekeepers and censors
• The rise of the Nanny State must be resisted

4. Protec>on of Ci>zen Journalists

5. Protec>on of Ci>zen Journalists
• The dis>nc>on between new and old media will disappear
• The prac>ce of journalism will con>nue to be dis>nct from
casual blogging
• Ci>zens already bear witness to process and events
• They will increasingly record, transmit and talk about such
processes and events amongst themselves
• They will be increasingly at risk

6. Protec>on of Ci>zen Journalists

7. Protec>on of Ci>zen Journalists
• “According to the views of a democra3c society all
those in print and electronic media as well as those
who are professionally engaged in collec3ng
informa3on and distribu3ng it to the public are
considered journalists. Even those who maintain
poli3cal and social blogs are considered journalists.”
• Statement by 5 media organisa>ons, 22 December
2007
http://ict4peace.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/key-media-organisations-and-trade-unions-in-sri-lanka-recognise-bloggers-as-journalists/

8. Protec>on of Ci>zen Journalists
• “… ïn saying that the only journalists the Minister
recognises are those with ID cards issued by the
Media Ministry, the Government of Sri Lanka
conveniently ignores the vital social and poli3cal
critques of bloggers in Sri Lanka. From Myanmar to
China to Iraq, the world today gets news and
informa3on through bloggers.”
• Sunanda Deshapriya, Free Media Movement (FMM),
December 2007
http://www.vikalpa.org/archives/350

9. Mainstream media ethics and UGC

10. Mainstream media ethics and UGC: The
Island
• June 13: My ar>cle was sent by email to groundviews.org and to The
Island Newspaper.
• June 13: Groundviews publishes my ar>cle in the original form.
• June 16: The Island publishes my ar>cle in a form that is dras>cally
changed from the original.
• June 16: I write by email complaining to the Editor of the Island and ask for
remedy.
• June 19: I write by email to the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka
and ask if they can entertain this sort of complaint.
• June 30: No reply yet from the editor of the Island, nor the Press
Complaints Commission.
• Full case study with all documenta>on at h2p://www.groundviews.org/
2007/07/01/the‐pretense‐of‐professionalism‐the‐flipside‐of‐media‐
freedom‐in‐sri‐lanka/

11. Mainstream media ethics and UGC:
The Island
1st July 2007
Dear Sir,
I wish to bring to your attention an article titled The pretense of professionalism - the
flipside of media freedom in Sri Lanka (http://www.groundviews.org/2007/07/01/the-
pretense-of-professionalism-the-flipside-of-media-freedom-in-sri-lanka/) regarding an
article submitted by Nishan de Mel published in The Island on 16th June 2007.
The facts of the case as they are presented in the article strongly suggest a gross and
indefensible misuse of Editorial freedom.
I would welcome your response that can be sent in via email to me or entered on the
website directly.
Best,
Sanjana Hattotuwa

12. Mainstream media ethics and UGC:
The Island
• The Island of 5 July 2007 reproduced ar>cle in full with the
following note from the Editor:
“An edited version of this leLer first appeared in The Island
on June 16. The original leLer is published in full today as
the writer has taken issue with us over the changes
effected to it for clarity and brevity. However, our decision
to reproduce it has nothing to do with the complaint he has
made to the Press Complaints Commission, which we came
to know only at the eleventh hour. We reproduce it on our
own as we previously made the mistake of edi3ng and
publishing it without returning it to the sender.”

13. Mainstream media ethics and UGC:
Lakbima
• “Perhaps the paper think I ought to be flaLered. For their informa3on (FTI), I’m not.
Yet oddly, I’m not angry about this (its really not worth the 3me and effort). It just
doesn’t feel “right”. Has the bad smell of something unethical.”
• Cerno, h2p://cerno.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/lakbima‐prints‐cernos‐post‐
without‐asking
• “As some one who always been a heavy cri3cizer of Sanjana and Groundviews, this
is a point where I whole heartedly ready to align with Sanjana.”
• A Voice in Colombo, h2p://www.groundviews.org/2007/07/12/rajpal‐abeynaike‐
editor‐of‐lakbima‐offers‐excep>onal‐responses‐to‐story‐on‐groundviews/
#comment‐1780

14. Mainstream media ethics and UGC:
Daily Mirror
• Regularly republishes ar>cles from Groundviews
• Arbitrary and exceedingly bad edits. En>re paragraphs are deleted,
paragraphs are shuffled around and mysteriously put into text boxes
• Ar>cles truncated and published as Le2ers to the Editor
• Repeatedly published with no a2ribu>on to Groundviews. Only once has
URL been given. Renown authors have chosen publica>on on Groundviews
over Daily Mirror
• “I am pleased that Groundviews provides DM with material for publica3on
and perhaps, inspira3on. The least you could do is to acknowledge it.”

15. Mainstream media ethics and UGC
• Ineffec>veness and lethargy of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) as
it is currently cons>tuted. Uninterested in engaging bloggers, though
bloggers are deeply interested in dialogue
• Mainstream media does not treat UGC in the same manner as other
sources. UGC is of lesser value – good enough for publica>on, but not for
a2ribu>on.
• Editors do not understand new media or blogging, much less how to
a2ribute UGC content (URL? Trackback? Pseudonym? Blog name?)
• The mainstream media's refusal to acknowledge its symbio>c rela>onship
with blogs is not only irresponsible, it's unethical.

16. Mainstream media ethics and UGC
• Need to formalise the interface between tradi>onal forms of
news and the flurry of growth in e‐news and e‐discussions on
current affairs
• The media overlap that such development ins>gates, requires
debate towards establishing some type of consensus of the
interac>on
• Common understanding and respect between tradi>onal
forms of media and the possibili>es UGC offers

17. ISPs: New gatekeepers and censors

18. ISPs: New gatekeepers and censors
• In Sri Lanka, telcos do not ques>on the Rajapakse regime and
are supinely subservient to the MoD
• Phones shut off to swathes of people without any warning
• Phones are tapped
• Emails are intercepted
• VoIP (e.g. Skype) thro2led on some networks

19. Limits of free speech online?

20. ISPs: New gatekeepers and censors
• En>re product lines have been discon>nued unofficially (Blackberry’s with
GPS and in‐dash naviga>on)
• Some telcos say that content interroga>ng governance, war and peace
need to be approved by them and the MoD before they can be part of an
ini>a>ve that encourages ci>zens to create such content
• Now disallowing teleconferencing!
• Websites are blocked by all ISPs
• There is no paper trail, no wri2en record of instruc>ons given to ISPs to
block, monitor and restrict access and communica>ons

21. ISPs: New gatekeepers and censors
• Bloggers and ci>zen journalists are hunted down, tortured and imprisoned
by repressive regimes
• Undermine the work of media and Human Rights advocates
• Help repressive regimes accurately target individuals and organisa>ons,
esp. NGOs
• For greater market share and ROI, will turn a blind eye towards issues such
as human rights
• May take a page from the UK, Australia or US

22. ISPs: New gatekeepers and censors
• FOE on the web and internet as important as FOE in electronic and print media
• ISPs and telcos need to be accountable and open to their customers on how they
manage network traffic
• ISPS must catalog and record efforts by governments to censor or monitor the
produc>on, dissemina>on or archival of informa>on
• A well defined legal process for Government to ask for user informa>on from ISPs
• Public Interest Li>ga>on that flags egregious cases of ISPs undermining human
rights
• Crea>on of a watch dog, on the lines of Electronic Fron>er Founda>on (EFF)

23. ISPs: New gatekeepers and censors
• Companies will express support for human rights but also ask
the public to basically trust them to do the right thing
• A fundamental problem is that companies will be very
resistant to the idea of independent monitoring, in par>cular
to a system that would allow for an independent third party
to assess:
1. whether companies have put policies into place that demonstrate a
respect for freedom of expression and user privacy;
2. that those polices are diligently implemented; and
3. that their implementa>on is effec>ve in curtailing these human
rights problems.

24. ISPs: New gatekeepers and censors
• Naming and shaming such ISPs and telcos that
encourage policies and prac>ces inimical to
human rights, privacy and the freedom of
expression
• Promising (and delivering!) the future today
may be hugely problema>c if we are heading
towards an Orwellian State

25. Rise of the nanny state. Or worse.

26. Rise of the nanny state. Or worse.
• Child pornography on mobiles and
pornography on the web. What is the
technology used to block it?
• Porn today. Democra>c dissent, human rights
concerns tomorrow?
• Transparency needed. The Execu>ve’s
paternalism covers a mul>tude of sins.

27. Slight technicali>es…

28. Slight technicali>es…

29. RSF and OSCE recommenda>ons
1. Any law about the flow of informa>on online must be
anchored in the right to freedom of expression as defined in
Ar>cle 19 of the Universal Declara>on of Human Rights.
2. In a democra3c and open society it is up to the ci3zens to
decide what they wish to access and view on the Internet.
Filtering or ra>ng of online content by governments is
unacceptable. Filters should only be installed by Internet
users themselves. Any policy of filtering, be it at a na>onal or
local level, conflicts with the principle of free flow of
informa>on.

30. RSF and OSCE recommenda>ons
3. Any requirement to register websites with governmental authori9es is
not acceptable.
4. … A decision on whether a website is legal or illegal can only be taken
by a judge, not by a service provider. Such proceedings should guarantee
transparency, accountability and the right to appeal.
5. All Internet content should be subject to the legisla9on of the country
of its origin (quot;upload rulequot;) and not to the legisla>on of the country
where it is downloaded.

31. RSF and OSCE recommenda>ons
6. The Internet combines various types of media, and new
publishing tools such as blogging are developing. Internet
writers and online journalists should be legally protected
under the basic principle of the right to freedom of
expression and the complementary rights of privacy and
protec9on of sources.
• See h2p://www.rsf.org/ar>cle.php3?id_ar>cle=14136

32. Thank you