By Vishwamithra –

“Leaders should lead as far as they can and then vanish. Their ashes should not choke the fire they have lit.” ~ H G Wells

We are all part of it. Journalism is not as noble as most journalists would like to call it. Journalism traditionally functioned as the primary medium for the public to assimilate information, ranging from profound societal analysis to local news. It now faces unprecedented threats—including digital disruption, declining trust, misinformation, and financial instability—while shifting toward consumer-driven, immediate, or sensationalized content. While the collapse of public trust in journalism stems from various structural factors—such as partisan bias and the rise of social media—the complexion of the issue fundamentally changed when the President of the United States began disparaging the press as the ‘enemy of the people,’ transforming media criticism into an institutional threat.

In a consumer-driven economy, the survival of any news media institution—whether government-owned or privately financed—largely depends on its financial viability. Even if readers are glued to a program, that content must be marketable to sustain the outlet. Ultimately, a dynamic equilibrium must be struck between audience engagement and advertising revenue, with sophisticated marketing mechanics determining which media instruments remain viable.

In non-democratic societies where the flow of basic information is governed by the state, the public is forced to rely on curated propaganda, while deeply analyzed content remains sparse and sporadic. Consequently, creativity and originality suffer. When political unrest—fueled by brazen corruption and the financial burdens of state extravagance—drives the populace to the streets, the situation becomes volatile. If these demonstrations are guided by clever, strategic politicians, the potential to topple the status quo becomes a distinct reality.

Despite its unilateral powers invested in Executive Presidency, Sri Lanka still has managed to survive as a working democracy, with the freedom of the Press still being observed to a reasonable degree. During the Rajapaksa period, especially those men and women employed by the mass media covering the North and its chaotic war time incidents had to bear insufferable hardships. Alleged to have been engaged in most heinous crimes, including murder and conspiracy to murder, the state and its masters surreptitiously maneuvered many abductions, killings and extortion. Freedom of the Press was dangerously challenged and its survival was not guaranteed by the state but by the famous Aragalaya-22.

Freedom of the Press is not an absolute right. Its observation and practice is subject to the vagaries of a given status of the sociopolitical environment of the country. One can understand the need and necessity for censorship of certain elements of information, yet a blanket censorship would certainly harm the very sociocultural development of a community struggling to raise its head above water. Adaptability to emerging objective conditions on the part of the media institutions as against submission to authoritarian rule is the role they must play in times of national crisis.

However, when examining Freedom of the Press one always refers to the freedom that an institution or a company enjoys while Freedom of Expression is often refers to an individual, a journalist or one of any other profession. Freedom of the Press is a freedom exercised by the collective and freedom of expression is by an individual. The distinction is minuscule as one that exists between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

In recent years, Sri Lanka has faced severe international criticism for systemic corruption and elite-dominated governance, particularly under the long-standing influence of political dynasties like the Rajapaksa family. However, the political landscape shifted dramatically in late 2024 following the election of Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) as President, whose victory was seen as a rejection of the corrupt status quo or old guard and the beginning of a new era of governance.

If I may be allowed to speculate, had Rohana Wijeweera‘s proposed governance style been put into practice by AKD—a one-time JVP hardcore turned transformed pragmatist—Sri Lanka would never have enjoyed even one hundredth of the press freedom we see in practice today under NPP rule. Sri Lanka, as one single family has rejected late President Premadasa’s Stalinism, nor have they accepted the Rajapaksa-Ranil Wickremasinghe style of crony-capitalistic governance.                

An aggressive yet friendly approach to dissemination of information walled within bearable, legal and institutional constraints could be a step forward in regaining and sustaining press freedom. Ceylon in the mid twentieth century (1930 – 1970) was dominated by media Moguls such as DR Wijeywardena. Lake House was, founded and run by  Wijeywardena, as one of the leading media houses in South Asia.  Amongst the print medium legends were HAJ Hulugalle, SJK Crowther, Reggie Michael, DB Dhanapala, JL Fernando and, of course, Mervin de Silva to name a few.

Legends of yesteryear had their own private opinions and political allegiances; they wrote so beautifully and with exquisite eloquence. They kept their political opinions within the chambers of their own minds and presented the readers with their objective critique and unadulterated candor. The writer does not attempt to belittle the current crop of skilled writers. But when referring to the greats of the past, one cannot help but feel nostalgic about the richness of the language coupled with contextual penmanship.

Nevertheless, writing on contemporary politics and its varied profiles demands not only proximate attention but also a stable sense of objectivity. Expecting a political commentator to be one hundred percent objective is an unrealistic target. But reasonableness of arguments, soundness of critique and authenticity of the narrative must always be maintained when one writes about a sensitive subject like politics.

Yet, the marketplace demands something entirely different; the very sustenance of the platform from which the writer uses to express his views is largely dependent on the volume of readership; it is often varying in sales and becoming too sensitive to the vagaries of changing attitudes and sensibilities of the ultimate consumer, the reader, the writer too has to change his tune and lower his own standards to suit the consumer gullibility.

Maintaining high standards of journalism while attempting to create authentic and readable material is the current challenge; its intrinsic values must not be sacrificed but always try to make the consumer buy it. That in itself is somewhat a monumental task and that is why the current writers border more or less on the threshold of mediocrity rather than brilliance. In no way am I trying to be too critical of the standards of contemporary writing; I am not qualified nor is that my intention.

In that large context, I surely can pen my own thoughts and personal philosophy of the current governance-style adopted by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. As I have repeatedly called attention to AKD’s fundamental style of management – one-man-show – begs for drastic change. It’s true, the office of Executive President, in the context of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, holds enormous powers within itself, which if wisely exercised, could produce very lucrative results for the country as a whole and for each segment of the population as the case may be. Nevertheless, the historical trajectory of the Executive Presidency, spanning from Jayewardene to Rajapaksa, suggests that ‘abuse of power’ is a more accurate descriptor than ‘use of office.

A core principle of AKD’s campaign was the pledge to abolish the Executive Presidency. He argued that this office concentrates too much power in one person and has historically led to authoritarianism. One year into his presidency, no concrete bill has been passed to dismantle the powers of Presidency, leading critics to question if he is now reluctant to surrender the very authority he once condemned. His supporters may argue that the crucial need of the hour is the stability of the country’s economic status. But AKD must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he and his NPP can deliver the goods, not only in a shorter period of time, but also without harming any principles of honesty, integrity and accountability.

Navigating in such unpredictable waters is no mean task. It’s not only the crew and the ship that need to be steady at all times. The skipper, above all, must be alert, his integrity beyond doubt and wisdom without question. Anura Kumara Dissanayake needs to satisfy all these conditions; not only his devotion to duty that is in question, his character, his stamina and his whole being, guts and veins are being tested now. Can he pass the test?

It is the responsibility of all of us, as commentators of contemporary times, to present all facts, their varied interpretations and their uses and abuses, to the reader and ask them whether the writing passes the basic test of readability, authenticity and above all, their relevance to the current environment. The writer’s intention should in no way be judged as a condescending appeal. Presented as a humble entreaty, this seeks to offer a broader perspective, encouraging the reader to look beyond the mere words. At the same time, in the fast-moving world of digital presentations, being relevant and contextual is more significant than anything else. Failure of intelligent mass media can fundamentally enable or accelerate a rise of the ultra-right.

*The writer can be reached at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com