{"id":117824,"date":"2021-09-04T17:08:36","date_gmt":"2021-09-05T00:08:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=117824"},"modified":"2021-09-04T17:08:36","modified_gmt":"2021-09-05T00:08:36","slug":"erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-23-db","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2021\/09\/04\/erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-23-db\/","title":{"rendered":"ERASING THE EELAM VICTORY Part 23 Db"},"content":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

Once upon a time, said commentators, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)   was the most trusted broadcaster, to which the\nworld turned for news without distortion or warped opinions. It was the world\u2019s\nfirst national broadcaster.  BBC World\nService kept listeners around the globe informed during the Second World War.   Even\ntoday BBC is the largest broadcaster, employing over 22,000 around the world. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But BBC is\nnot as independent as it says it is. Its contract with the government says that\nBBC must consult with the Foreign Secretary before it prepares   programmes for the World Service. As a\nresult, the BBC world service now reflects British foreign policy. Its reports\nare not objective or neutral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BBC took the side of the LTTE in the Eelam\nwars. Sri Lankans were furious at the biased BBC reporting on the war. The news\nwas deliberately distorted. BBC correspondent Charles\nHaviland, who has been reporting from Sri Lanka since April 2009, was told   that his visa would not be extended.  He must\nleave the country. He was later given a three months extension.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The BBC reporters based in Sri Lanka had\nestablished links with the LTTE. LTTE deputy political wing leader S. Pulidevan\nwas among those invited by the outgoing BBC correspondent Frances Harrison to\ncocktails at Galle Face Hotel In 2004. Paranagama\nCommission said Pulidevan was in touch with\nFrances Harrison by satellite phone, right up to the last day of the conflict. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

BBC\u2019s Channel Four produced several television\ndocumentary films on the Eelam war. They wished to show that the military had\ncommittee war crimes.  So they showed\nsoldiers committing war crimes conveniently in front of the camera. Experts declared\nthese films to be false. The scenes were staged.  However, the films were shown with great\nsuccess, to gullible audiences at the UNHCR in Geneva and to television audiences\nin the west.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June 2012, Sri Lanka deported Channel 4\ndirector, Stuart Cosgrove from Sri Lanka. His wife of Tamil descent, Shirani\nSabaratnam, was not permitted to enter Sri Lanka and was turned back at the\nairport. Both were placed on a “blacklist<\/strong>” and barred from entering the\ncountry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2010, one year after the end of the Eelam\nwars, BBC ran two documentaries on the Eelam War IV, in the Hard Talk\nprogramme. The first was a three part series titled Tamils and the north\u201d.  The second was Democracy Sri Lanka style\u201d,\nalso in three parts. Both documentaries were prepared and presented by Stephen\nSackur. Sackur is admired by the Island <\/em>columnist\nCassandra, who says Sackur is her favorite interviewer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Links for Part 1  https:\/\/youtu.be\/J-M7Rgcykyg<\/a> \nand  https:\/\/youtu.be\/SZ9V02b8X6g<\/a>  \nand  https:\/\/youtu.be\/2bqgVDfEDvs<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Links\nfor Part 2 https:\/\/youtu.be\/KYygj0ErJBc<\/a> \nand  https:\/\/youtu.be\/TsOl8irEYh8<\/a>  and https:\/\/youtu.be\/k5LMco_Zcfg<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In\nthese two documentaries, Sackur took a very pro-LTTE anti government stance. The\ngovernment was always at fault    Menik\nFarm was like an internment camp, camera showed barbed wire and government troops.   The end of the war was brutally\nconclusive\u201d. The scale of the devastation is breath taking. The Vanni is now\nlike an area under occupation. Army is everywhere. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The documentary featured a  LTTE  \nsurvivor of the war, now in hiding, face not shown. He said he was in a\nbunker full of civilians (what was he doing there instead of fighting) Shells\nwere exploding all round. Shells fell in to the bunker and civilians died. Some\nran out to escape the bullets and got killed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tamil civilians returning home from the IDP\ncamp are shown as \u2018innocent victims.\u2019 We have lost everything and we are\nreturning to a barren land. We have no house, no money, we do not know what we\nare going to do now, they said.  The\nproblem is not over. We will not be a free people until we get self rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sackur\ninterviewed Gotabaya Rajapaksa, then Defence Secretary. This interview was not\nan interview at all.  It was an\ninterrogation. The interview was in English and Gotabaya\u2019s replies lacked the\npolished delivery of Sackur, but he got his arguments across. Sackur was\ninterviewing a military man on military matters and Gotabaya was not rattled. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gotabaya could be\nseen listening with amusement as Sackur quoted items from the file he, Sackur\nwas consulting. Gotabaya tried to explain what exactly a war crime was, but\nSackur cut in and interrupted Gotabaya. Sackur \nwas using the Hard Talk  style of\ncutting off the interviewee whenever the  interviewee was about to win the argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political interviews on Hard Talk are intended\nto get the interviewee off balance, have him flounder and struggle to answer questions,\nso that the country represented and its government looked hopelessly\nincompetent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hard Talk interviews are  also intended to get the BBC slant across to\nthe viewers. The interviews are politically motivated. BBC is using these\ninterviews to influence viewers <\/em>said those watching on You\nTube. This is  propaganda, they  said.  Hard\nTalk contains statements, not  questions.\nIn every interview Sackur  does he has\nalready taken a side and is  not ready to\nlisten. He does not look at the realities on the ground,  they  complained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point of HARD talk is aggressive\nquestioning, said Tim Sebastian. It is Hard Talk\u201d, after all.  Aggressive, accusatory, questioning, which was diametrically\nopposed to the   stance of the\ninterviewee. The idea is to \u2018hold people to account\u2019. Have them answer\nin public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Hard Talk the interviewer challenges his\nguests to answer tough, uncomfortable questions. What’s important are the\nanswers to these questions and how the guest handles them, said Hard Talk. This\nis fine if the interviewee is allowed to finish his\nsentences without getting cut off halfway, giving the advantage to the BBC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the staff who carry out this task, adopting\na superior judgmental manner, are mere paid employees, sitting in judgment on\nmatters of which they have no practical experience, never having delivered a\nstate project themselves, let alone run a country. Their experience is in news\nreporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay concludes with snippets from the\nHard Talk Interview with Gotabaya Rajapaksa <\/p>\n\n\n\n