burning bridge

Sri Lanka’s abductions

July 11, 2008 · 13 Comments

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the most challenging instances of reporting in conflict zones, especially when looking at whether and how participatory media projects and digital media technologies could be useful in filling information gaps. Paul Currion’s been writing about the importance of recognizing that early warning, monitoring and human rights organizations have valuable expertise. He says that participatory media projects should tread carefully when they approach the same questions, and demonstrate that they have systems for verifying information, in addition to their cool interfaces and quick response times.

With that in mind, I took a look through the literature on disappearances and abductions in the Sri Lankan wars to see whether participatory media projects are engaging the subject in a useful way. Human Rights Watch, among others, has done extensive research on the subject. From an HR watch report summary:

Hundreds of enforced disappearances committed since 2006 have already placed Sri Lanka among the countries with the highest number of new cases in the world. The victims are primarily young ethnic Tamil men who “disappear”—often after being picked up by government security forces in the country’s embattled north and east, but also in the capital Colombo. Some may be members or supporters of the LTTE, but this does not justify their detention in secret or without due process. Most are feared dead.

Here’s a BBC story on the Sri Lankan goverment’s response, denying HRWatch’s claims. HRWatch based its research on over 100 interviews with family members of the disappeared, field work, and dozens of interviews with aid and activist organizations, over the course of a year.

What stands out about coverage of abductions and assults in the Sri Lankan case is that journalists have also frequently been targets. Journalists and human rights advocates aren’t just monitoring attacks against civilians, they are documenting attacks against their own communities. In a sense, they are the story they are covering – an increasingly typical scenario in modern conflict, when perception of and information about events are often important elements in military tactics.

Because of this, both media and media support groups such as the Free Media Movement have been very involved in documenting, disseminating, and tracking incidents. FMM and others have over the past few years built strong links to regional and international freedom of expression groups. This creates a flow of information and advocacy that starts with local expertise and contacts and extends to global dissemination. The relationships also ensure more rigorous research methodology, accountability, and often access to some security and resources for local groups – whether by virtue of their increasingly international profile, or access to safe havens for those in trouble.

How are participatory media projects, blogs, and other nontraditional media tied into coverage of abductions, and what do they add? How are more traditional human rights organizations using digital media to get their messages out?

Among Sri Lankan media, the online news service TamilNet has timely coverage of events as they occur, as do Lankaenews and Lankadissent. TamilNet is one of the earliest online newspapers in Asia, and while it has a controversial profile, it is also widely read both in Sri Lanka and abroad, and helps shape the Sri Lanka news frame.

Among participatory media projects in Sri Lanka, Groundviews, Jasmine News Wires, and PACT are the most prominent examples. Each takes a different approach. Groundviews focuses on quality citizen reporting and analysis; Jasime on SMS news bulletins of events and a public SMS blog, and PACT on creating an accurate timeline of events. Each has a significant participatory element, together with a transparent process that states when and how editorial controls are applied.

Among blogs, the aggregator Kottu nets individual blog posts, participatory media links, and stories coming out of the advocacy and journalism communities. A search for “abduction” (July 11, 08) comes up with 20 links, about half of which are from advocacy organizations. Among blog posts, most are commentary, such as indi.ca.

While these efforts might have started out without the rigor of a Human Rights Watch, by virtue of their focus on human rights issues, they have rapidly gained the skills, profile, and relationships to be effective. They now have institutional homes, resources, and usually, some staff. They professionalize in response to pressures on them, as well as through links with other advocacy organizations – locally, regionally, and internationally, and attract resources accordingly.

At the same time, more evidence that human rights organizations recognize they are now media. Returning to the Human Rights Watch report on abuction, we see that their summary page is written like a news article, and disseminated as such on humanitarian news sites such as Reliefweb. Additionally, HRWatch has created a video of their staff discussing the report, available on their YouTube channel.

Behind all this activity, there’s the question of audience penetration and effect. The HRWatch video has less than 2000 views; Sri Lankan participatory media projects do not yet have mass audiences. They do, however, have the attention of the policy world, and of elites in and diaspora from Sri Lanka. Increasingly, they have strategies to get their work into mass media outlets, whether as columns in newspapers, or as reports about their work. Cumulatively, they have managed to both raise the profile of the issue of abductions, and to help direct resources and energy into better research and monitoring. It remains a question as to whether they’ve managed to affect the political landscape. HRWatch’s call for UN monitors is unlikely to be heeded by the Sri Lankan government.

Links to other reports on abduction, for those interested:

International Crisis Group

Asian Human Rights Commission

UN

Benetech

Amnesty

Asian Centre for Human Rights

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Categories: General
Tagged: , , ,

13 responses so far ↓

  • Paul C // July 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Reply

    I think the distinction you make between Groundviews, Jasmine News Wires, and PACT is very illuminating. Essentially what we see is a suite of tools, each with a clear focus and separate structure, but which together build a well-rounded picture of the situation on the ground. Is it true to say that any single organisation would not be able to provide this suite on its own?

    The question then becomes – what is the model for the sustainability of the work of these organisations? Traditional media has / had a business model; participatory media doesn’t so much but is flexible enough to be resilient around that constraint. Where do projects like these fit in to that scale, if at all?

  • ivonotes // July 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Reply

    Thanks for commenting Paul. In theory, it would be possible for a single organization to perform all these functions – but putting them altogether would probably mean they’d have enough work so as to require more resources and a more robust sustainability model. That, assuming they’d think it sensible to work together.

    There may also be a value to multiple orgs with a common agenda in such a tough working enviroment – multiple profiles, resources, and the creation of a community with a common agenda may be more resilient than one organization with a high profile, and consequently, perhaps perceived as more threatening to the government.

    Of the three, each has a different revenue model. Jasmine both charges for its SMS service and has received some development funds from the media development world; Groundviews is mostly volunteer and driven by Sanjana’s hard work and energy, though they’ve gotten some external funding as well I think; I don’t see a revenue model at present outside the donor world, but that can last for a good long while. Perhaps hooking up with another institution. PACT is a project of the Centre for Poverty Analysis, so it’s got an institutional home.

    Going forward, all three have good chances for survival. LK has a really active IT community and an educated, literate population. Separate initiatives to expand Internet access mean that there’s definitely a future for such projects, provided they can gain sufficient participation. For Groundviews, key will be the participatory, volunteer element. For Jasmine, it’s timeliness and sorting the pricing equation. For PACT, it’s both participation and ongoing relevance as a tool that records history – how and if it’s useful as a research tool, as a ‘live’ history text.

  • Sanjana Hattotuwa // July 12, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Reply

    Hi there,

    Thanks for an interesting write up.

    Just to remind you, once again, that you forgot Vikalpa (www.vikalpa.org) and Vikalpa YouTube Video (www.youtube.com/vikalpasl).

    Vikalpa is NOT just a Sinhala / Tamil translation of Groundviews. It complements Groundviews very nicely, by bringing in an audience more conversant in Sinhala / Tamil and through the publication of content geared to the imagination of those who primarily get their news and information in the swabhasha. It also pulls in photos from a Flickr channel I’ve created for the site, that will in the future be leveraged more as a CJ photostream for and by activists on the ground.

    Videos on the Vikalpa YouTube Video channel has been viewed tens of thousands of times from Sri Lanka and around the world, is aggregated on other channels and has gained the attention of GlobalVoices as well as France24’s Observers initiatives, amongst others.

    Groundviews, Vikalpa and Vikalpa’s YouTube channel, along with Voices of Reconciliation Radio (http://radio.voicesofpeace.lk) are all ideas of mine, inter alia, housed at the Centre for Policy Alternatives. Each of them was the first of their kind in Sri Lanka. Each of them are, to date, unique.

    And I know for a fact that each of them is on the radar of the government and other key actors in Sri Lanka.

    Paul asks “Is it true to say that any single organisation would not be able to provide this suite on its own?”

    I would humbly beg to differ.

    As Kofi Anan said of globalisation, the problem of citizen journalism is that we do not have enough of it around. In this light, I fully endorse and agree with your statement that:

    “There may also be a value to multiple orgs with a common agenda in such a tough working enviroment – multiple profiles, resources, and the creation of a community with a common agenda may be more resilient than one organization with a high profile, and consequently, perhaps perceived as more threatening to the government.”

    This is precisely what I have been working for in Sri Lanka, though to trumpet what I am doing at this juncture on blogs and other media would be to undermine, in a very real way, the human security of some of those who are committed to bearing witness to all that is wrong in Sri Lanka through new media.

    Will keep you posted on developments.

    Warm regards,

    Sanjana

  • Sanjana Hattotuwa // July 12, 2008 at 6:56 pm | Reply

    Also to note that I don’t know how “widely read” Tamilnet is in Sri Lanka anymore. As you know, it’s blocked by all ISPs in the country.

    Sanjana

  • “Mass audiences” and citizen journalism « ICT for Peacebuilding (ICT4Peace) // July 12, 2008 at 7:20 pm | Reply

    [...] Burning Bridges makes this statement in a recent post on participatory media’s impact on abductions in Sri Lanka. [...]

  • Community Media: Selected Clippings - 07/13/08 « Clippings for PEG Access Television // July 13, 2008 at 7:56 pm | Reply

    [...] Bridges makes this statement in a recent post on participatory media’s impact on abductions in Sri [...]

  • Kannan Arunasalam // July 15, 2008 at 11:02 pm | Reply

    An interesting article. The active participation of users is of course an important factor behind the aims of PACT and how successful we are in reaching it. We are experimenting with different ways to encourage this engagement of users. For example, to mark the 25th anniversary of Black July, the riots of July 1983, we are featuring the event on PACT for the entire month or so with the aim of – I believe for the first time – seeking to collect experiences and perspectives about this critical event.

    I would very much like to post your article on the PACT website. It would be great if you could Trackback your post: http://pact.lk/concept/trackback/

  • Mobile phone based citizen journalism videos on YouTube viewed over 104,000 times « ICT for Peacebuilding (ICT4Peace) // July 19, 2008 at 7:51 am | Reply

    [...] by a post on Burning Bridge to do a count of the number of times all the videos on the Vikalpa YouTube channel had been [...]

  • Sanjana Hattotuwa // July 19, 2008 at 7:56 am | Reply

    “The HRWatch video has less than 2000 views”

    On the other hand, our CJ videos on YouTube shot on a shoe-string budget, by someone who is not a professional journalism and almost all in Sinhala and Tamil, have generated over 104,000 views since its launch in Aug 2007.

    That’s still not in the millions MSM / traditional video services or even videos on say MTV, VH1 or MySpace would generated, but it’s not insignificant either, particularly in a country where bearing witness through mobile video is a concept that no one else is talking about or doing.

    See http://ict4peace.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/mobile-phone-based-citizen-journalism-videos-on-youtube-viewed-over-104000-times/

    A long way more to go, but the early interest suggests a growing demand for well produced CJ content that brings to light voices, issues and and little known dimensions of well reported stories to light.

    Best,

    Sanjana

  • Vikalpa Video in the YouTube Reporters Top 100 for coverage of 1983 anti-Tamil riots « ICT for Peacebuilding (ICT4Peace) // July 30, 2008 at 4:18 am | Reply

    [...] on Sri Lanka’s growing abductions, Burning Bridge noted recently that a video produced by Human Rights Watch on this disturbing issue had (at the time) only been [...]

  • Sri Lankan Mission website in Geneva: The flipside of getting to #1 « ICT for Peacebuilding (ICT4Peace) // August 15, 2008 at 4:09 am | Reply

    [...] at what they do is a clear wake-up call for civil society organisations to raise their own ante in the high-stakes battle for audience reach and retention on the web. Posted by Sanjana Hattotuwa Filed in ICT in [...]

  • Arrest, detain, torture, kill | Antony Loewenstein // October 31, 2008 at 2:04 am | Reply

    [...] Discuss. [...]

  • Kannan Arunasalam // March 18, 2009 at 5:01 am | Reply

    Feature: Historical roots and contemporary causes of conflict in Sri Lanka

    “I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese but there are minority communities and we treat them like our people. They can live in this country with us. But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things,” Army Commander Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, in an interview with Stewart Bell of the National Post newspaper of Canada, 23 September 2008.

    PACT’s overall purpose is to examine the root causes and contributory factors of conflict in Sri Lanka and to promote discussion on these themes. In the coming months, the PACT team will invite various individuals, including academics, journalists and historians, to give their perspectives on these topics and in turn we’ll ask you to give your reactions.

    Many commentators are calling for the root causes of conflict to be addressed in a meaningful way. They argue that even if the LTTE is defeated militarily, the underlying conflict will continue as a result of the non-addressal of these critical issues. Indeed, these issues existed long before the LTTE emerged as an armed militant group.

    What are these root causes and what should be done about them? This feature seeks to unpack some of these issues.

    The controversial statement above made by Army Commander Lt. General Sarath Fonseka raises issues of origin and a supremacist ideology that has roots, according to our first commentator Lakshman Gunesekara, going back some 500 or even 1,000 years. The former editor of the Sunday Observer talks to the PACT team about his views on the historical and contemporary causes of conflict in Sri Lanka and about racism in Sri Lanka, past and present.

    Our second commentator, Dr. Farzana Haniffa, an anthropologist and senior lecturer at the University of Colombo, talks to the PACT team about how the roots of conflict in Sri Lanka have impacted on the Muslim polity, and on Muslim nationalism and identity.

    Listen to interviews of our first two commentators by visiting the latest feature at http://pact.lk/2009/03/05/feature-historical-roots-contemporary-causes-and-contributory-factors-of-conflict-in-sri-lanka/

Leave a Comment