By Aingkaran Kugathasan
Last month, a video showing Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe removing the microphone of a private television channel while saying, “Remove this, brother”, was widely circulated. A single incident cannot by itself establish that media freedom in Sri Lanka is under threat. However, it raised a fundamental question: who determines the terms of engagement between those in power and the media? Who is recognized as a journalist? Who should have the authority to define the professional standards of the media?
These questions gain importance in the context of the Bill to establish the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals, which has been presented to Parliament. Declining public trust in media, misinformation and concerns about professional standards are genuine challenges. Journalism requires credibility, accuracy and responsibility. However, any regulatory framework must ensure that improving standards does not weaken media freedom, diversity of voices or the media’s democratic role of holding power accountable.
The government came to office promising to strengthen democratic governance, access to information and media freedom. Therefore, the Bill must be assessed not only by the powers it creates but also by what it reveals about the government’s approach to independent institutions and democratic oversight.
Journalism occupies a unique position among professions because journalists do not merely provide information; they question governments, investigate public institutions and scrutinise centres of power on behalf of citizens. This makes the distinction between regulating professional conduct and restricting public scrutiny particularly important. Professional standards are necessary, but they must not become mechanisms through which criticism of those in power can be constrained.
The central issue with the Bill is therefore not simply the authority granted to the proposed institute but the limits placed on that authority. The legislation empowers the institute to recognize members, establish professional standards and take disciplinary action, including warnings, reprimands, suspension and removal of membership. Such powers may be legitimate in a professional regulatory framework, but their impact depends on how clearly they are defined and what safeguards accompany them.
A major concern is the absence of a clear definition of professional misconduct, which could form the basis for disciplinary action. Instead, its meaning appears to be left to regulations developed later by the governing council of the institute. This creates uncertainty over what conduct could ultimately attract sanctions.
Would an investigative report critical of the government constitute professional misconduct? Would a public interest disclosure involving confidential information be considered a violation? Could politically controversial commentary be treated as falling below professional standards? The Bill does not provide clear answers to these questions.
When disciplinary powers are granted to a regulatory body, they must be balanced with transparency, fair procedures and effective mechanisms for review and appeal. Without such safeguards, professional regulation risks becoming a tool that affects freedom of expression rather than strengthening journalism.
A further concern is that several important aspects of the framework, including membership qualifications, professional standards and key procedures, are not fully defined in the legislation but left to future regulations. This raises the question of whether Parliament is approving a clearly established regulatory system or creating a broad legal foundation whose scope may later be expanded through administrative decisions.
The Bill also introduces accreditation for media professionals. It is important to note that it does not state that a person cannot work as a journalist without membership of the institute. However, if accreditation becomes necessary in practice for access to government institutions, press conferences, training opportunities or professional advancement, a voluntary system could gradually become an unofficial requirement for participation in the media sector.
This concern is not new. Last year, controversy emerged over a proposal that only journalists holding media identity cards issued by the Government Information Department would be permitted to attend weekly briefings on cabinet decisions. The issue remains relevant: can a mechanism created for administrative convenience eventually become a system that determines who receives official access and who does not?
The Bill also identifies the assessment of the capacity and performance of media professionals as an objective of the institute. However, it provides limited clarity on how such assessments would be conducted, what standards would apply and how they would be balanced with editorial independence.
The proposed initial governance structure requires similar scrutiny. The minister and an interim council appointed under the ministry would play a significant role in establishing the first institutional framework, including decisions relating to membership, representation and procedures. This raises a broader governance question: how much influence should the government have in creating an institution that will later determine professional standards for the media sector?
The definition of media professionals also requires attention. The Bill includes not only journalists but also editors, publishers, media owners, administrators and academics. Bringing together groups with different and sometimes competing interests raises questions about representation. The interests of media owners, managers and journalists do not always align, particularly where commercial or political interests may conflict with editorial independence.
The credibility of the institute will therefore depend not only on its powers but also on the fairness of its representation and decision- making structure. A professional body that regulates the media must itself demonstrate independence, transparency and accountability.
The fact that the institute would be created through legislation makes this even more significant. It would not simply be a voluntary professional association but a statutory body with legal authority and regulatory influence. Its independence and accountability are therefore matters of public interest.
The discussion must also include independent journalists and alternative media platforms. In Sri Lanka, important issues relating to human rights, governance and minority communities have often been brought to public attention by voices outside traditional media institutions. Any accreditation framework must avoid excluding such voices simply because they operate beyond established media structures.
Supporters of the Bill may argue that journalism requires stronger accountability. That argument deserves consideration. Freedom of expression does not remove the need for accuracy, fairness and professional responsibility. However, the central issue is not whether accountability is necessary, but what form of accountability is compatible with democracy.
Sri Lanka already has institutions such as the Editors’ Guild, the Press Institute and the Press Complaints Commission, which contribute to professional standards, training and complaint mechanisms. Therefore, the necessity, powers and independence of a new statutory institution require careful examination.
Ultimately, this debate is not only about whether journalism requires standards. It is about who defines those standards, who enforces them and what safeguards exist against their misuse. Media freedom is not a privilege granted to journalists; it is a democratic guarantee that protects citizens’ right to information and society’s ability to hold power accountable.
The most important question, therefore, is not simply “Who is a journalist?” but who is given the authority to decide the answer. The debate over the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals is not merely about creating a new professional institution. It is about how Sri Lanka balances independence, accountability and diversity within its media landscape.
-This article was originally featured on groundviews.org
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.