This made the news a few weeks ago:

Forty-four journalists and other media workers were killed in Iraq last year. Somalia was the second deadliest place for journalists, with eight killed, followed by Sri Lanka (6) and Pakistan (5) [Link].

Media suppression, of course, isn't just measured in number of deaths:

Public interest blogging in Sri Lanka has been growing slowly but steadily since the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, which marked a turning point for citizen journalism. According to researcher and new media activist Sanjana Hattotuwa, citizen journalists are increasingly playing a major role in meaningfully reporting deaths, the humanitarian fallout and hidden social costs of violent conflict that are often glossed over or sensationalised by the mainstream media.

Hattotuwa acknowledges, however, that the ready availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs) does not guarantee public-spirited citizen journalism.

"In Sri Lanka, the significant deterioration of democracy in 2006-2007 has resulted in a country where anxiety and fear overwhelm a sense of civic duty to bear witness to so much of what is wrong. No amount of mobile phones and PCs is going to magically erase this deep rooted fear of harm for speaking one’s mind out," says Hattotuwa.

This makes the courage and persistence of the few citizen journalists even more remarkable. Unlike mainstream journalists, they lack official accreditation, trade unions and pressure groups to safeguard their interests. The state does not recognize bloggers as journalists; despite their growing influence online, most local news websites don't enjoy any formal status either.

For now, the citizen journalist in Sri Lanka is very much a loner -- and very vulnerable.

In recent months, pedestrians who filmed public events -- such as bomb attacks -- on their mobile phones have been confronted by the police. One citizen who passed on such footage to an independent TV channel was later vilified as a "traitor." Everyday information tools such as laptops, handicams and digital cameras have suddenly come to be seen as a threat to public security.

Using a camera in public is not illegal, but it sure has become hazardous in Sri Lanka today. Forget about political demonstrations or bomb attacks that naturally attract most media attention. Covering even the most innocuous aspects of daily life can be misconstrued as a "security threat" [Link].

But journalists in Sri Lanka have been speaking out:

Hundreds of journalists marched Thursday in Sri Lanka's capital to protest harassment and suppression of the media.

The march was organized by members of the Movement Against Media Suppression, who say media personnel have been killed, abducted and jailed by government-backed paramilitary groups and Tamil Tiger rebels [Link].

I think Groundviews is even more admirable when you consider the situation for journalists over there.

See Reporters Without Borders report here.

One delightful excerpt:

Some staff on Uthayan live spend time holed up in their offices in the centre of Jaffna. One journalist lived there permanently in 2007 for fear of being killed in the street. "We had 120 staff, of whom 20 were journalists, before August 2006. Now there are only 55 of whom five are journalists, who are prepared to face up to the risks," editor M. V. Kaanamylnaatha said in June when he welcomed Reporters Without Borders to his Jaffna office.

Until May the Jaffna press went through huge problems to obtain essential supplies. The regions three titles were being asphyxiated by the authorities, who from August 2006 onwards refused to allow ink and newsprint on the list of goods that could be delivered to Jaffna. Despite their growing popularity, Uthayan, Yarl Thinakural and Valampuri were forced to drastically reduce their pagination and circulation. Finally after pressure, mostly from abroad, the army lifted its embargo and stock was able to arrive from the capital by boat. (Emphasis mine.)

Ugh.

---

In the other news, the Sepia gang has said I don't have to jump overboard just yet. So I will post Part II in the next few days rather than the next few hours.

He's doing admirable and genuinely brave work. I've always wondered about civil society in Sri Lanka. You would think that a populace that supposedly has a 90%+ literacy rate would be more sophisticated, more wary of manipulation, more disposed to moderation. But this doesn't seem to be the case at all in Sri Lanka.

Why does it seem like the Sanjana's of Sri Lanka are so few? Are they really as marginalised as they seem? Why does a supposedly relatively educated population allow for that?

Anyway, thank you for groundviews Sanjana and thank you for this post Vasugi.

From David Blacker's article How to Kill Innocent Women and Children (link):

Elephant Pass was a fairly isolated base, and most civilians who had any sense had left the area, so anything we saw could be killed. When I first arrived in EPS in December 1990, the garrison was securing the base’s perimeters after the LTTE onslaught of the previous months that had started off the Second Eelam War. During this security operation, the base perimeter had been expanded to swallow several small hamlets that, upto the end of the ceasefire, had been populated. The civilians had obviously left in a hurry, leaving most of their stuff behind, and my platoon was detailed to clear the houses. We burned everything we couldn’t use, and watching all those saris and flowery frocks burning, I was also struck by how unfair it all was. Sometime in ‘91, I was spotting for a sniper, and he called in mortars on a Tiger column that was on a road. There were civilians on the road as well, and some of them were hit too. Afterwards, we watched through our scopes as a foreign doctor or medic (we could see his blonde hair even at six-hundred yards) tended to the fallen, including the Tigers. My partner then shot him. Unfair?

It's one really insightful article amongst many others.

I've read many of your posts on Sepia Mutiny, and I wanted to say thank you. I've been an audience of SM since the beginning, and I anxiously awaited for an SL blogger to bring about subjects that make me recall being of SL heritage (food, heritage and the conflict). Thank you for bringing the views which don't reflect either extreme positions, but indeed request that the reader really ponder on the facts which are presented, and not jump to emotional conclusions.

Most of the SL part of me are only in memories and pictures of my mother. I am always looking for a good kathirikai kulombu recipe, and there are days I yearn for some red-rice puttu and iddiappam. Oh and who can forget the Kandos stand. Wish the bay area had a good SL restaurant or Caterer... hopefully a trip back home to Canada will satisfy the above desires.

Thank you for blogging, on behalf of another SL VV initialed gal.

I was just able to listen to the video, and it's impossible to listen to this man's testimonial of the difficulty (gross understatement) of living with the military presence in Jaffna (convoys, shellings, automatic weapons fire) and reconcile that with the following statement from a piece on the website of Sri Lanka's Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva about Kosovo's independence:

In the final instance however, the secession of Kosovo is traceable to a single mistake: the decision by President Milosevic to follow the advice of President Yeltsin (who had already been lobbied by the US), and withdraw the Yugoslav army from Kosovo, notwithstanding the fact that in its heavily camouflaged and dug-in positions, it had withstood US/NATO bombing and was well positioned to inflict, with its tradition and training in partisan warfare, unacceptable casualties on any invading ground forces...

These then are the lessons for Sri Lanka: never withdraw the armed forces from any part of our territory in which they are challenged, and never permit a foreign presence on our soil [Link].

How can this possibly be the lesson for a state which argues that those subjected to this sort of treatment are in fact its citizens?

In the abstract, of course a negotiated settlement is the best outcome. I'd like to hear more of people's thoughts, though, about why/whether the application of force to certain political groups might be necessary to set the stage for a settlement that will work. I'm thinking, for example, of the LTTE & JVP--to what extent are they more like the Red Brigades or FARC (with whom negotiating may be futile, because even though the people they claim to represent would benefit from a negotiated settlement, those groups might well fear being sidelined post-settlement, so their interest may be in continuing the conflict)--do they in fact deserve a place at the table when the settlement is negotiated? And if not (which is my instinct) how do we secure a place at the table for the real interests of the people that those groups claim to represent, but who are threatened to participate?

I'm sorry, but I have to say that I am not a fan of S. Hattotuwa, who no doubt is a very well-intentioned man trying to do what he can. I still feel that his reportage (he is not trilingual, but bilingual in Sinhala and in English) and his analysis of the conflict, (as a war between Rajapakse and Prabkharan writ large) is deeply superficial. There are far better researchers in CPA, ICES and SSA than Sanjana, but Sanjana has proved to be adept at mastering the language of communications today, and I feel has used that, and the creation of websites such as Groundviews and Vikalpa, as well as blogging tools, to catapult and promulgate his own writing. Because of the lack of writing in "new media" outlets such as these websites, by older, more experienced and dare I say it, more intelligent writing by Sri Lankan activists, such as Savithri Goonesekere, Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake, the pre-2002 Jayadev Uyangoda, and the like, Sanjana's writing has become a very loud voice, because there are no other voices. And this has happened to the extent where he is now being cited as a "true" voice here!

His characterization of the war in the piece cited above is flawed at its heart and observational at best. I won't go into everything right away, but I have the following comments. For example why is dissent not tolerated in Sri Lanka, whether you are Sinhalese or Tamil? Why is this war characterized as one of the Sinhalese govt. against the Tamil LTTE? It is not a war of wicked against innocents, although certainly innocents suffer. The true fact is that the people who make these situations possible arise from our OWN society. Tamil suicide bombers come out of Tamil society. They are not born as so, and neither are they made as so. Sinhalese military hardliners like Sarath Fonseka, come out of the same society. And these are just the high profile actors. There is a vast shadow legion of operators who act behind the scenes, dealing and cross-dealing, corrupting and being corrupted, and they come from our own society, from our own heart of darkness. There is no us or them. We have seen the enemy and it is us. But we don't know what to do about it. Casting stones at those it is easy to pinpoint is no great analytical feat. Neither is it prescriptive, which is the real issue that every true Sri Lankan is dealing with: what do we do next? Where do we go from here?

The second question I have about journalism in Sri Lanka is that, while I feel that journalism is absolutely critical to the health of any civil society, AND that in Sri Lanka there is a vast void of true accounts and reportage, merely recording what any one on the street knows, and disseminating that to a non-Sri Lankan audience, does not count as journalism. The true tragedy of journalism in Sri Lanka is that there is no sustained journalism for people IN Sri Lanka, for these journalists are murdered, abducted, or never heard of again. The S Hattotuwa journalism is not investigative, interrogative, or revelatory enough to really be a threat to anyone.

Just my humble opinion.

A.V.I.A.F.: Thanks for taking the time to write that comment! That piece of Sanjana's isn't reportage; it was an op-ed. I think Groundviews is asking some of the same questions you are about dissent. It's certainly not encouraging everyone to agree! I'm not saying Sanjana is the one "true" voice; I'd argue that it's the collection of voices represented by Groundviews that's important.

Nor do I see Groundviews as an opponent to the first question you raise. In fact, I'd argue that that question is being asked on the site generally. And as for using the tools of new media to communicate, what's wrong with that? What does it mean to "master the language of communications today?" Why is that mastery shallow or bad? How is that language inadequate for this discussion? (I'm not asking rhetorically—I'd really like to know.) I don't agree that Sanjana is unfairly promoting his own work—but even so, reporters and writers and bloggers do promote their own work in all mediums. Why would blogging be different? You seem to be implying that the medium has somehow made things unfair. I'm intrigued, since one common criticism of new media is that it doesn't privilege expertise, but gives more people access to publish their work. Why aren't the people you refer to publishing in well-read new media outlets? And what does that mean?

As for the op-ed—it posited a thesis: while various parties argue otherwise, this war is unprincipled. It defended that thesis. It didn't claim to be providing a specific political solution—unless you interpret declaring the war unprincipled and ending it an answer. (I suppose you could...)

Second: I don't buy that Groundviews is about "what anyone on the street knows," and not for people "IN Sri Lanka." Do people in Galle really have a good idea of life in Jaffna, and vice-versa? And what about the value of creating a record for posterity? Lots of the participants ARE in Sri Lanka. I agree that citizen journalism is not a replacement for the expertise of professional journalists. But in the absence of free media and the kind of coverage that would quote and represent citizens, it's certainly something. It's not just about our need to hear the information. It's also about their need to tell it for some kind of record.

You wrote:

"The true tragedy of journalism in Sri Lanka is that there is no sustained journalism for people IN Sri Lanka, for these journalists are murdered, abducted, or never heard of again. The S Hattotuwa journalism is not investigative, interrogative, or revelatory enough to really be a threat to anyone."

I agree with your first sentiment. Obviously I would like professional journalists in Sri Lanka to be able to operate in freedom and safety. (I'm a journalist!) But Groundviews isn't trying to replace those people; it's a different project entirely. It can't totally solve the problem, but I think those involved with it—and like-minded sites—should get some credit for creative use of citizen journalism in a conflict zone. (I also think citizen journalism needs a new name. But that's a different topic.)

My former prof wrote this on citizen journalism, for those who are interested; it's one of the most frequently quoted pieces on the topic...

Thanks again, A.V.I.A.F.

ptr_vivek: I am quite in agreement.

rob: raises a complicated question to be sure. certainly moderates and minorities should have a voice in a negotiated settlement. but i'd lean towards including rather than excluding; doesn't have to be an either/or, no?

retorts: yay, retorts. yes, this is a project of civil society... I think that's a better way to think of it, rather than thinking of it in comparison to professional journalism. It's NOT a replacement. It's something different. And still, to my thinking, something pretty great.

livinsimple: you made my day. seriously.

"I think it’s a brilliant way to get around media censorship in that country"

"And Groundviews supports a range of views and voices. "

Clearly you haven't been following the same Groundviews that I have. The site itself has a strict policy of censorship -- anything that does not agree with Sanjana Hattotuwa's line of thinking or critiques the activities of NGO organisations gets deleted without notice. It points fingers at the government and (everyone else it seems) for censorship but has no qualms in practicing the same itself. As for supporting a range of views and voices, it only supports those that have the same agenda as the founder who has been involved in such organisations as the Centre For Policy Alternatives, an elitist NGO organisation and that has been discredited by civil society. Many Sri Lankan bloggers have critiqued Groundviews for its partisan nature and the double face it presents to the world claiming to be a site that offers "citizen journalism" but where only contributers that toe Sanjana's line are provided space to air their views.

Here's one...

Citizen journalism or trampling on citizens; examples of censorship at the Groundviews blog

This is going to be a very long and boring post even more so than my usual posts, since it will detail (and i mean detail) the censorship taking place at Groundviews blog. It is also meant to serve as a reference for future. so be warned.

When the Groundviews blog was launched by the NGOs infoshare and Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), several articles and posts were published in several media outlets online and offline claiming the virtues and benefits of citizen journalism as a supposed feature. The daily mirror article and post on madrid11 blog are good examples). Similar sentiments were expressed in faq (rather misleadingly so called), and site guidelines pages at groundviews.

These articles and pages included the following quotations...in reality these claims have turned out to be misleading statements because if my experience is to go by, a large portion of comments were censored.

Citizen journalism?

3 · retorts said

I've always wondered about civil society in Sri Lanka. You would think that a populace that supposedly has a 90%+ literacy rate would be more sophisticated, more wary of manipulation, more disposed to moderation. But this doesn't seem to be the case at all in Sri Lanka.

Why does it seem like the Sanjana's of Sri Lanka are so few? Are they really as marginalised as they seem? Why does a supposedly relatively educated population allow for that?

I agree with V.V., retorts--this is a project of civil society and one that deserves attention. Nira Wikramasinghe puts it well: " 'The internal security of the state' became a familiar phrase in the political jargon of the 1980s, and the army was repbaptized as the 'security forces.' It was a less confrontational way of making civil society accept the realities of war and violence under the guise of a discourse on 'security'(Civil Society in Sri Lanka: New Circles of Power, 2001:29).

The Sri Lankan state, LTTE, and other official supporters of this unjust war, always wish for the acceptance and silence of SL's civil society, especially when these actors can and should be held accountable for their unjust acts. They look for means through which to strike the affective chords of civil society--acting on behalf of our rights, our safety, our nation, our homeland, etc. But the "our" excludes voices of dissent. Along with these means, supporters of the war use force and violence for the sake of "security," but security for whom? Even before independence, these tactics were being used in order to imagine a soon-to-be unitary nation-state (think back to the demands by Senanayake and Bandaranaike in the State Council to disenfranchise Plantation Tamils in the 1920s, for the sake of maintaining a Sinhala majoritarian community). So I think it is a question of the ways in which forms of silencing dissent are made known to civil society despite any diversity in their beliefs or judgments. Sumanasiri Liyange recently posted on Groundviews about civil society and the role of international communities in Sri Lanka which I found interesting. You can read it here.

Thanks for the comment, retorts, and for the posting V.V. (I may be your oldest friend, but can I be your "oldest" fan?:))

9 · V.V. Ganeshananthan said

rob: raises a complicated question to be sure. certainly moderates and minorities should have a voice in a negotiated settlement. but i'd lean towards including rather than excluding; doesn't have to be an either/or, no?

we often speak as if we know all the groupings present at this future and still mythical 'final' negotiation table. Look at how the Karuna faction evolved from having one single public face (Karuna) to being splintered into several groups today. The pace of change, I think, is accelerating everywhere and the representatives of the Tamil people at the final table might just end up being somebody like Douglas Devanananda and his gov't-financed EPDP goons or some other paramilitary force loyal to the GOSL. Even if the Tigers are still present as a unitary entity that still has some sort of leverage, I would expect a sham session of negotiations in which the Tamil population will be crushed.

Negotiations will hinge on leverage and it appears, at least in the disputed territory (not Colombo which is obviously a different story), the Tamils have nothing.

Nayagan: I guess that's what I'm saying about no need for either/or (especially since, as you point out, Nayagan, this is an imaginary table anyway). Will Tamils be represented by only one party or standpoint? Will Sinhalese? Muslims? Does that make sense? Where is this table, anyway? Seems sadly far off in the distance to me. Yes, splinter groups beget splinter groups beget splinter groups... Regrettably, I share your pessimism.

Nick: I am not ignoring your comments re: censorship, but hope to address them in a future G'views post, esp. since Sanjana did say things about his strategies for comment moderation...

Civilized responses, please. These are important issues and they deserve a thoughtful discussion.

13 · Nayagan

Negotiations will hinge on leverage

Yes, that's exactly right. And that's why it's ultimately impossible to think about settlement separately from the fighting, as unfortunate as that is. I guess it would be interesting to look more closely at why/when some armed factions "run out of steam" and "throw in the towel"--I'm thinking of, for example, the apartheid regime in South Africa on the gov't side of the divide, or the IRA on the insurgent side. . . .Not that they're analogous in anything but a crude fashion, but their examples might furnish some clues as to when groups might start thinking that a deal beats more fighting.

Sri Lanka has no champion on the global stage. The cultural boycott of South Africa in the 1980s and Paul Simon's "Graceland" were instrumental in shaping world opinion against apartheid (even as Congressman Dick Cheney voted against a resolution condemning the South African government's continued imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, who had been charged with terrorism). Tutu and Mandela & de Klerk won Nobel Peace Prizes. Nadine Gordimer won a Nobel for Literature in 1991 (apartheid ended in 1994).

The Northern Ireland conflict had the attention of every British prime minister during that era, plus headline-grabbing violence in London and Belfast--which meant the world had to take notice (the IRA assassinated Dickie Mountbatten in 1979; not even former viceroys of India were safe on holiday). At the end of the Troubles, there was real leadership and gut-twisting compromise among its actors. Tony Blair, George Mitchell, Gerry Adams, David Trimble, and John Hume will be remembered as great leaders. Trimble & Hume shared a Nobel Peace Prize. It also helped that Irish culture was strong globally, much of it protest music and literature. U2 is huge. Seamus Heaney (whose poems were often about the Troubles) won a Nobel Prize for Literature.

There are no such people associated with Sri Lankan right now. Michael Ondaatje (Canada) and MIA (Brooklyn) are the most famous Sri Lankans in popular culture -- at least until Sugi's book hits the stands;>). Sri Lanka needs an advocate with a global audience. Imagine where the Tibet would be without Tenzin Gyatso (the DL--another Peace Prize) and Richard Gere.

Any long and intractable conflict needs superhuman leadership within and lobbying and pressure from without. Celebrity endorsement matters, even if it seems silly. Imagine the headlines if Angelina announced she were adopting a Sri Lankan baby.

Unfortunately most people need to be shown why they should care about something, and Sri Lanka at the moment does not have a champion.

Groundviews is far from what it is being portrayed here. It represents only one small spectrum of the Sri Lankan population; an elitist anglicised minority that wines and dines, eats caviar, sponsors meetings attended by around 20 odd people and whose pockets are lined by international organisations such as the Bergoff Foundation. If you skim through all of the contributions on the site, very little (if anything) is critical of the LTTE. If one were to take Groundviews as representative of Sri Lankan opinion, the vast majority of Sri Lankans must then consider the LTTE to be an innocent participant in the ongoing conflict.

The site whitewashes what the LTTE does - all its massacres, bombings, assasinations, child soldiers and suicide bombers. It is hard to find a piece critical of the "media freedom" that exists in LTTE controlled areas -- but wait, there is no such thing as an alternative opinion in LTTE controlled areas, and apparently that is not of any concern to Groundviews (why?). It interviews Tamil civilians who are victims of war, but where are the voices of the Sinhalese, Muslims and Burghers? It speaks of "attacks on diversity" but never the total lack of it in LTTE controlled areas where all non-Tamil ethnic groups have been ethnically cleansed. Selective reporting and selective comment selection is the Groundviews mantra.

The site runs on an agenda and pushes that agenda at the expense of freedom of opinion. The voices it allows onto its blog are only those voices that agree with its agenda. Unlike Sepia Mutiny where freedom of opinion reigns, at Groundviews you better agree with Sanjana or out you go - it's their way or the highway. I find it strange (and somewhat amusing) how people who rail against censorship and pretend to be the saviours of free thought are only too happy to practice facism themselves.

A.V.I.A.F.

Let me respond to the comments raised. There is a ton of literature raised about what the digital divide represents, and what "new media" perpetrates in terms of class differences. How many people a) can write and express themselves in English, the primary language for groundviews, vikalpa (although I recognize that there is a local language inititative in these websites, it certainly hasn't taken off). Secondly, how many people have access to a computer? I recognize that Hattotuwa's piece isn't reportage but an op-ed, but in Sri Lankan newspapers, there is very little difference between the two. Furthermore, I think he has definitely excessively taken a line where he is promoting his own voice through these websites. You are unaware of how he has been received in Sri Lanka, and although it might be easy to characterize those who dissent with his styles and facile opinions as "haters", the truth is, as Nick said, there is a reason why he invites such discourse. And these other writers that I speak of, Goonesekere, etc. do not write in "blogging" or "groundviews" because it takes time for them to write something that truly advances the state of knowledge in the field, and contributes to the discussion. Hattotuwa is merely noise.

Furthermore, the 'famed' citizen journalism, does not happen in Sri Lanka, and it is not happening through groundviews. The spectrum of views it invites is one of elites, driven by CPA, which has almost zero, and totally negligible forays into field work. CPA has been discredited for its lack of understanding and agency as a so-called premier advocacy and research institute in Sri Lanka. The most interesting of its work is in fact not even published, and its role in policy laughable.

I apologize if I seem extremist, but honestly it is derisive that you would think that S Hattotuwa and Groundviews a legitimate forum for citizen journalism. Most people in Lanka, from Galle to Point Pedro read local-language newspapers. Another tragedy of citizen journalism is that they can't speak each other's language, let alone English, and they cannot access true grassroots dialogue, although there are a few laudable grassroots organizations empowering such dialogue. This is an elitist, Colombo view about what Sri Lanka needs, when quite clearly both S Hattotuwa and CPA are woefully unqualified to comment or act.

And my personal offense to the style of op-ed that Hattotuwa writes is because I think it is superficial. And V.V., this is not personal but I also find it strange that you are taking on the project for a voice for Sri Lanka, when it does not seem like you are either from Sri Lanka or know very much about the complex situation on the ground, (despite good intentions and an informed intellectual understanding of it).

Preston, I think that you point out a lack in Sri Lanka of good leadership. But I also think that is a rather obvious void. I think the interesting questions to be asked are what are the systemic issues (if any) that prevent the emergence of good leadership? Because there are brave, intelligent committed people who have devoted their lives to working in these areas. They do not always achieve high-profile status, nor sadly, reach positions of political power capable of enacting good policy, but there are systemic issues that for example favour the elections of populist candidates. There are serious class divides, urban-rural divides that underpin the conflict, as I know you are aware for.

I guess all I am against is a facile interpretation and commentary on the issue, which is what has incensed me about VV's post and about Hattotuwa in general.

Again, this is just a view, and one which I feel vehement about. I do not mean to cast aspersions on any of your personal intentions, I just think it is flawed in execution.

Well-done Groundviews! For Blocking My Comments on your Site...

They call it "citizen journalism". But SLT blocking TamilNet is a "threat to democracy". So the conclusion is, blocking opposite opinions is accepted in citizen journalism, but should not be tolerated in other areas.

I've tried to post a comment on an article on groundviews titled "War, abductions, killings, human rights violations and evictions" by Sasha Ekanayake, but their system kept rejecting my comment over and over again.

Looks like they have blocked me from commenting on their site. Good. Still they say GOSL blocking TamilNet is a great threat to democracy and expressing opinions. But, blocking counter arguments on their point of views is apparently totally in accordance with democracy, and free speech.

In the evening, at about 5.30pm, I've posted another comment using a fake identity "Murugan", and toned my comment with very much in agreement with the original post.

Surprise! The Pro-Groundviews comment was immediately approved, but one paragraph was edited out (It's OK to edit that out, because what I've mentioned in that paragraph was not true)

...

Yet they say they are a "Sri Lankan Citizen Journalism Initiative". Blocking counter arguments on their POV's by a Sri Lankan citizen like me, is called "citizen journalism" ?

Dev, your link takes us to a blog entry from June 2007. Scrolling down, Sanjana responded to you:

http://landlikenoother.blogspot.com/2007/06/well-done-groundviews-for-blocking-my.html#comment-5215648351728253421

And you responded further:

http://landlikenoother.blogspot.com/2007/06/well-done-groundviews-for-blocking-my.html#comment-7200696614380499943

I can't really speak to the merits of Groundviews vs. A Voice in Colombo, but isn't it a good thing that there are multiple platforms for multiple points of view? If people disagree with Groundviews, they are more than welcome to start their own blogs and say whatever they want. This is, in fact, the mission you articulate on your site.

So instead of attacking Groundviews on Sepia Mutiny, why don't you just put forth on A Voice the point of view you believe is missing from the discussion? You are, in fact, a citizen journalist with all the tools you needs to make your voice heard.

Sorry preston, I must make it clear that the blog is NOT run by me, I just posted some excerpts from the blog. The three dots were supposed to represent paragraph breaks.

----

In reply to your other comments, I don't think that Groundviews should call itself a site for citizen journalism. It's clearly not the case when one man runs it as personal fiefdom to promote only his worldviews. Might as well rename it "Sanjana Hattotuwa's Blog" instead of trying to fool everyone into believing that it promotes diversity of thought and the full spectrum of views held by Sri Lankan citizens, and that it is propelled by 'ordinary folks' in Sri Lanka. There wouldn't be an issue if Groundviews claimed itself to be the voice of the Centre For Policy Alternatives or the Bergoff Foundation or whatnot.

If people disagree with the posts on Groundviews they should be free to post their comments on Groundviews itself without censorship (as long as it's in decent language etc). They should also be free to post articles that are polar opposites to what other Sri Lankan citizens are thinking (eg some Sri Lankans think that negotiations is the only option available, while others think that the LTTE has to be military defeated). It's pretty clear that Groundviews only posts articles that sympathise with Sanjana Hattotuwas viewpoints and the various NGOs he works for.

22 · Dev

Dev,
I see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point, so please don't think people are blowing you off. On the other hand, there's a lot to what Preston is saying in #21--if I were to, say, set myself up as a blogger trying to shed light on a topic, what matters is what I say, and it seems plausible that any sort of comment policy (e.g., no comments, moderated-at-my-whim-comments, or open comments) could be compatible with my saying something valuable. So, as long as you're not prevented from saying your thing (on your own blog, etc.), and as long as Groundviews doesn't have a monopoly on analysis, I think this question of Groundviews's commenting policy is a bit of a side-issue ultimately.

19 · Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam said

And V.V., this is not personal but I also find it strange that you are taking on the project for a voice for Sri Lanka, when it does not seem like you are either from Sri Lanka or know very much about the complex situation on the ground, (despite good intentions and an informed intellectual understanding of it).

She is Sri Lankan.

Not that it's a pre-requisite for blogging about it...what a boring world this would be, if I only wrote about California, Kerala, MINIs or Johnny Walker Black. ;)

Well Rob, Groundviews shouldn't claim to be a site for citizen journalism then, if it deletes comments that disagree with its obvious editorial line (ie Sanjana Hattotuwa's worldview). If it is indeed a site for citizen journalism them it ought to respect and accept wide ranging views that one would expect from a diverse society such as that exists in Sri Lanka. What may be pointless to you could be quite important to someone else and a site that claims to champion and pioneer citizen journalism should know that and hold that principle in high esteem. The censorship practiced by Groundviews extends not only to the comments but also to the articles that are posted to the website. Groundviews does not publish articles that are outside Sanjana Hattotuwa's narrow paradigm. So in my view Groundview's lamentations about censorship in Sri Lanka ring quite hollow. It seems the very people who supposedly champion freedom have no qualms about trying to push their own agendas onto others and no qualms about claiming it as "the voice of ordinary Sri Lankans." If you have time, do have a look at all of Sanjana's past writings before Groundviews popped up and you will see that the articles that appear on Groundviews have a strange similarity.

I agree with Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam, Groundviews is about Sanjana Hattotuwa promoting his own views (and a few others who share his views) under a facade of "citizen journalism"

It is certainly not, as V. V claims, a site that "supports a range of views and voices"

Dev,
I'm not really sure what "citizen journalism" means, to be honest. If you're exposing that it means that not just anyone can (necessarily) participate fully on a "citizen journalism" website, then I agree with you. But maybe "citizen journalism" just means that a particular person can publicly discuss topics (regardless of their own comments-policy) without having access to the traditional press, in which case Groundviews seems like "citizen journalism." So, it all seems to come down to the definition of that term, about which I'm agnostic.

Even with your second definition, Groundviews (ie Sanjana Hattotuwa) chooses which particular person gets to publicly discuss topics and which views are aired. I know two people who have had their submissions rejected not because their writings were offensive, poorly written or were "pointless", but because they espoused views contrary to Sanjana's. For example, if you were to submit an article on, say, "Why The War is Just" (the opposite of what Sanjana thinks), it will not be published** Many Sri Lankan bloggers have already aired their views on this matter.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of articles written under pseudonyms are actually articles written by Sanjana himself but passed off as "contributions" by others. Some of the writing is too eerily similar to Sanjana's past writings when he was heavily involved with the Centre For Policy Alternatives.

** It probably will now if Sanjana reads this, so that he can claim otherwise

27 · Dev I know two people who have had their submissions rejected not because their writings were offensive, poorly written or were "pointless", but because they espoused views contrary to Sanjana's.

Yes, ok--but, please say more about why that's problematic--does he have some sort of market power that means posting on another site isn't a valid substitute (i.e., if Sanjana is keeping out other valid views, why aren't those views successfully promulgated on another forum)? Or are you mainly complaining that his website isn't as "open" as some might claim (which seems different than a claim of censorship)? I am genuinely curious--just trying to draw out your argument so that it's more convincing . . . .

Anna, V.V., please don't take my comment about "not being from Sri Lanka" as somehow that you are not "Sri Lankan". I think a war of identity is being fought nationally precisely because of this: of what it means to be Sri Lankan and I was certainly not trying to exclude anyone from the debate or carry that war to this forum! However when I said "from Sri Lanka", I meant that VV did not live there, and does not live there, and therefore, quite understandably so, may be removed from the reality of what is happening there. And you are right, that does not qualify anyone any less for commenting on it, but as with all forms of journalism, even blogging, that commentary must be questioned and debated upon, which is what this forum is about.

29 · Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam I think a war of identity is being fought nationally precisely because of this: of what it means to be Sri Lankan

Is it really up for grabs whether the Sinhalese or the Tamils are Sri Lankan? I don't think that that's what it's about at all--it's about relative power between the groups, not (I hope!) that one side is not really Sri Lankan!

29 · Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam said

I was certainly not trying to exclude anyone from the debate or carry that war to this forum!

Totally understood. :) I actually wanted to thank you for such a civil conversation-- we don't always get to have those here, especially about subjects which rightfully inspire emotion.

I realize, of course, that one might hope that "Sri-Lankan" need not be first and foremost about ethnic identity, but let's be realistic, that is what the war is about. On both sides.

And V.V., this is not personal but I also find it strange that you are taking on the project for a voice for Sri Lanka, when it does not seem like you are either from Sri Lanka or know very much about the complex situation on the ground, (despite good intentions and an informed intellectual understanding of it).

AVIAF, I appreciate your attempt to clarify this comment. In this first incarnation it was certainly... regrettably phrased. (Dare I say… facile?) I would hate for a substantive debate to be derailed. Asking me to justify my interest in Sri Lanka is quite different from saying I am not physically there.

To your more relevant point is that I am not in Sri Lanka, so I am removed from the situation on the ground, of course that is true. I have never attempted to pretend that I am there or to speak from that vantage point. I do make an effort to communicate with people there and people who have recently been there—in a variety of areas. This is no substitute. However, as A N N A notes, this doesn't prevent me from making logical arguments.

All that said, I don’t know anything about your background. Where are you? In Sri Lanka, presumably. To the extent that you are able to share your experience, what has it been?

Hi all,

Great debate here and thanks Sugi for the original post - I've noticed a significant spike in traffic to Groundviews on account of it.

Firstly, the various accusations levelled against me and the site aren't new and won't go away. The blogs referred to here with comments that I've not posted on Groundviews are excellent examples of the power of new media to openly debate vital issues. Each of these blogs potentially has the same power to convince and educate as Groundviews itself and quite frankly, the more the merrier. The thing that saddens me the most is no one who spends significant time and energy criticizing Groundviews has set up an alternative forum for citizen journalism - clearly the tools are there and free, and Groundviews has demonstrated by example how powerful new media can be even in cycles of violence. So please follow the posts referred to here, and most importantly, read more on the blogs they belong to.

Couple of points Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam in particular brings up deserve specific responses. One that Groundviews isn't citizen journalism and no inroads into the field. Making inroads into the grassroots isn't the raison d'etre of Groundviews - rather, it's to bring up stories rarely heard and post them for public consumption. Second, that the sites are for self-promotion. Groundviews has 452 posts and 2,258 comments. 33 of the articles are mine and maybe a dozen comments.Vikalpa has 264 posts to date - none of them are mine. Vikalpa Video on YouTube has over 90 videos that have been viewed thousands of times. Not a single was shot by me or is on me. Do the math. Argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Comments here are also raised the question of a hidden, personal or clear agenda on Groundviews and the other CJ sites that I set up but don't edit or manage daily. Believe it - there's an agenda. And it's bloody personal. It's quite simply to bring to light commentary that shames a government employing the same tactics as the entity it is fighting against. It's a larger problem (can liberal democracies really combat terrorism when they are bound to constitutional rule and human rights? Or must we become our enemy to defeat it, and if we do, can we really go back to democratic governance?) but the commentary on it in mainstream media in Sri Lanka is woefully inadequate and for a number of reasons ranging from self-censorship to open terror, aided and abetted by members of the Government (essentially thugs in parliament), against those who do speak out.

This means that you'll get to read on our sites stories that critique the government for acting the way it does precisely because it is bound to uphold democratic values. Else, we may as just be living under the terror of the LTTE. Repeatedly, articles on the site have pointed this out - and one of the best example of late is this one - http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/01/ethnos-or-demos-questioning-tamil-nationalism/ and a response here - http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/22/a-reponse-to-ethnos-or-demos-questioning-tamil-nationalism/

As for not being connected to the grassroots, come on folks, read the stuff up on Groundviews and on Vikalpa (if you can read and comprehend Sinhala and Tamil) before you make comments like this. Here a challenge - name a single Sinhala newspaper with coverage on life on ground in Jaffna this year that is not towing the line of the Government. Then listen to http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/28/current-situation-in-jaffna-sri-lanka-a-resident-speaks-out/. It isn't the Truth with a capital T, but a perspective that I personally find vital as a foil to that which I read elsewhere. More than any other blog or website on and in Sri Lanka Groundviews has covered the situation in the embattled areas in Sri Lanka:

http://www.groundviews.org/author/kalaai/
http://www.groundviews.org/author/chum/
http://www.groundviews.org/author/chum2/

And the narratives of those who have travelled to and met with those on the ground in these areas:

http://www.groundviews.org/author/ruki/ (and a number of other reports on the North and East - just search for them on the site)

The facets of governance, peace, war and life these stories bring out compete with more facile reportage by Government owned media in Sri Lanka and the silence by other media because of a significant lack of access to these areas for journalists who aren't keen on guided tours.

Finally, I find it particularly interesting that so much of emotion is associated with rejection on Groundviews, that it is a telling marker of just how well known (and dare I say increasingly influential) these sites are. As I note on the Society for New Communications Research site that awarded Groundviews with an Award of Excellence in 2007 (http://www.groundviews.org/2007/12/05/groundviews-wins-2007-award-of-excellence-in-new-communications-from-society-for-new-communications-research/):

"The primary objective of Groundviews was to set a standard for and raise awareness on citizen journalism supporting peace building through the publication of progressive multi-lingual content. The initiative has largely succeeded in this regard." (http://www.newcommreview.com/?p=925)

Here's the challenge to all those who disagree - Groundviews has proved that new media and citizen journalism works and can have an impact. Donors who would have laughed me out of the room two years ago will now seriously listen to initiatives that leverage new media and the web (and importantly, mobile devices - Groundviews since launching its mobile version, gets around 100+ readers a day who read content using their mobile phones) to promote progressive debates online in English and the swabhasha. We've done all the hard work, so instead of or at the very least, alongside your criticism of Groundviews, create some initiatives of your own that go beyond parochial and essentially uninspired blogs of the gratuitously aggrieved to more open, significant and progressive sites of the empowered.

All the best,

Sanjana

34 · Sanjana Hattotuwa

Well-done--I'm with you!!

AVIAF, I was breaking up my responses, as the thread was getting quite bulky, but Sanjana has addressed most of the remaining points I would have included. A few adds:

You're arguing against this as though it has prevented others from writing. I don't see how that's possible. You also wrote that because they take time to produce something of substance, the other writers you refer to don't blog. But they could easily create their own blogs and run those however they want. As Rob asks in post #28, why isn't that possible? You don't have to blog at lightning speed.

Next, your general problem with new media. Some of your points about its reach are reasonable, but I still think it's waaaaaaaaay better to have Groundviews than not. I also don't read it as prescriptive, whereas unless I am misinterpreting, you do. Of course not everyone has a computer. But the mobile phone initiative helps with that—and you do have to start somewhere. Newspapers aren't flawless either, and people have already targeted them, as both of us have observed. Lack of newsprint, threats to the physical safety of journalists... Groundviews is posting raw material like video and protecting identities of both the information suppliers and those who are being interviewed—look at that Jaffna interview.

Finally, you'd like harder questions to be asked. I agree with and appreciate the desire for a better and tougher conversation. Of course we should always push for more. But I think you're taking a lot for granted—all too often, SL threads go up in flames. (This thread, for example, is quite a bit better than other SL discussions I've seen on SM.) It's a lot to create a space where that doesn't always happen. If those are the questions you'd like asked and answered, why not create something where that can happen?

I'd encourage people to follow the links Sanjana posted.

Wanted to point out this example of an edited comment. Note that the critical questioning—which is the same question I had after reading the post—is still in there, although the admin points out that the comment has been edited.

Dear Sugi,

Perhaps a more compelling example is http://www.groundviews.org/2007/07/12/rajpal-abeynaike-editor-of-lakbima-offers-exceptional-responses-to-story-on-groundviews/#comment-16275

This comment was in response to those I got after I posted exceptionally insulting communication I received from an Editor of an English newspaper in Sri Lanka, see http://www.groundviews.org/2007/07/12/rajpal-abeynaike-editor-of-lakbima-offers-exceptional-responses-to-story-on-groundviews. It was an issue that galvanised the SL blogosphere, generating support from amongst even the most ardent critics of the site (see http://www.groundviews.org/2007/07/12/rajpal-abeynaike-editor-of-lakbima-offers-exceptional-responses-to-story-on-groundviews/#comment-16321)

This post is important for another reason - I've explained in some detail how I go about comment moderation on the site, that answers some of the points raised in comments on this thread. See http://www.groundviews.org/2007/07/12/rajpal-abeynaike-editor-of-lakbima-offers-exceptional-responses-to-story-on-groundviews/#comment-16707

Best,

Sanjana

a) I think its fascinating to understand how traffic to groundviews has spiked according to this post, and this thread. Almost no one in Sri Lanka reads Sepia Mutiny (sorry guys), as it reaches quite a different diasporic audience. I think one can make the argument that the new traffic to groundviews, is a result of diaspora flows to that site. And if it is even noticeable that there is a spike according as a result of this post, I actually think that says something quite significant about a) the kind of audience (elitist) that groundviews attract and b) its poor reach. And the site itself quotes here: http://www.groundviews.org/about/, that only 30% of its readers are Sri Lankan (by which I mean resident in Sri Lanka in case I start any more disputes:-)I note also that the site uses the terminology "from Sri Lanka" to express residence, suggesting perhaps its not just me who views the term "from" as such). Now one can make the argument that "groundviews" is supposed to attract international attention, but please give me, and the citizens of Sri Lanka a break, and a) stop calling it "GROUNDviews" and b) stop calling it citizen journalism.

b) I'm not really that interested in the edited comments debate- I think in Sri Lanka, all sorts of arguments both for and against can be made for some form of censorship (or "comment moderation" what a euphemism!), and that deserves to be considered on a case by case basis. I am interested to see the responses that the practice has evoked however, and I would caution against all here to dismiss them purely because of the 'extreme' language that they evoke. One of the problems with NGO types is that they think all debate needs to be conducted with reason, and with moderate language. But as we all know, reason has left Sri Lanka. We are operating now in a world without rules, without certainty, and without order. So, give the people a break. Let them vent out their aggression, frustration and fear. Nobody knows what else to do.

c) Next, the point about: why don't you create your own website? Again, I find this argument to be facile (!p.s. I love how everyone has adopted this word in this thread! can I take credit for that at least?!). This is a typical argument employed by NGOs, who start off with one mission, a) say alleviating poverty, come up against the whole host of problems that that entails, and then settles for a single objective of a) doing no harm. Does groundviews cause harm? No. Is that the standard I measure it against? No. The standard is not relative to other sites, but absolute. I don't take the Churchillian view that "democracy is the worst form of government, until you look at everything else". Groundviews has the funding and infrastructure from a variety of organizations, including CPA which in turn receives money from bilateral and international donor agencies. Groundviews has a responsibility to the citizens of Sri Lanka to use that money appropriately and responsibly. And it takes money, and staff to market, increase outreach, and penetrate the right user base. The concept of creating an alternate, duplicate site would be useful in abundant societies, but not in scarcity-ridden Sri Lanka.

d) the next interesting thing I have is how you can evaluate and monitor advocacy initiatives and their impact. M&E is almost impossible to do for advocacy due to the lack of a control group, and tangible inputs and outputs. Measuring causation or correlation is immensely difficult. Anecdotal evidence however abounds, but is inconclusive (e.g. one reader says groundviews changed my life, another says groundviews worsened my life). Therefore I find Hattotuwa's response quoted above: "Groundviews has demonstrated by example how powerful new media can be even in cycles of violence" QUITE FUNNY. Please Sanjana, do elaborate on this rather grandiose claim. And people: that does not mean I am AGAINST new media. I am cautious of what it its effects and its impact is, particularly in a society that has low internet user statistics, and low English literacy (no matter what the infamous 96% literacy stats tell you!), and I am sceptical of the scale of its transformative effects that is attributed to it.

e) The mobile phone initiative that you speak of, is I believe new. Furthermore as we all know, in situations of critical security, the GoSL shuts off mobile coverage in Jaffna and other territories. Again, am sceptical of its power. As for the youtube interview where the individual speaks and is protected by a lack of facial identity: let me tell you this. Everyone in Jaffna will know who that man is. And the Army will know who he is. He didn't say anything that the world didn't know, otherwise he would have been in grave danger. Again, the viral spread of information in a sealed off territory like Jaffna is amazing. The only thing Groundviews has done is to connect that voice to an international audience. On this, and his challenge :"name a single Sinhala newspaper with coverage on life on ground in Jaffna this year that is not towing (sic) the line of the Government", I am curious: does he think that somehow Groundviews is "sinhala"???? Or that it penetrates a large audience that reads Sinhala newspapers? Neither of those claims seem rational.

f) now to sanjana's rather ludicrous point that only 33 of the articles are his. I applaud his careful account. (In fact I think this form of pettiness is a rather special attribute of Sri Lankans, myself included, and typical of exchanges like this where the larger point gets drowned out in an orgy of literal-mindedness). ANYWAY. The point Sanjana is that even a cursory view of the last few posts of groundviews (unless for some reason that is atypical) is that about 80% of them I would say, are from CPA writers (or from the rather mysterious "groundviews"). And the vast majority of the other 20% are from the likes of David Blacker!!!!! Now, am I really insane if I comment here that David Blacker's claim to fame is "A Cause Untrue", a book riddled with prejudice, unsubstantiated reporting under the clever disguise of fiction, and a rather sensationalized account of the conflict? Whatever his flaws are as a novelist are, I would HARDLY characterize him as a "view from the ground". Finally, nothing stops the other writers I've mentioned from 'blogging" etc. But we do have to realize the reality is that "blogging" is a generationally specific tool, which many older writers may not be accustomed to, and secondly that while some people may not call this "blogging at lightning speed", it is not a medium that lends itself to posting every six months say, which is the gestational period that in my humble opinion, is necessary to produce an original substantive analytical piece.

Finally, and I promise to stop here, I think this is what is the niche that groundviews has fallen into. It is not citizen journalism, given that only 30% of its reports are from people in Sri Lanka, and of which I would venture 90% are from NGOs and civil advocacy initiatives such as CPA MOST of whom are based in Colombo. It can be argued that it is a forum to debate Sri Lankan policy (and I mean both GoSL and LTTE) and highlight its injustices to an international, non-Sri Lankan audience. If this is so, I, as a Sri Lankan, would be very disappointed in using donor money for initiatives whose first priority is not to serve a Sri Lankan audience but an international one. So stop calling it "citizen journalism" and change its title from "GROUNDviews".

as for my identity, Sri Lanka is a small place. Can we not be judged by the quality of our responses and what can be inferred from that? Furthermore, if Hattotuwa and the rest of civil advocacy groups in Sri Lanka spent half as much time as putting their necks on the line and lobbying for policy (or understanding how to influence that process- again, a serious lack in Sri Lanka by so-called advocacy initiatives) as they do defending their sites, maybe we would move an inch or two in this conflict.

Okay, this is ridiculous. I almost deleted that tome, but I'm giving you the benefit of my doubt; perhaps you are unaware that what you've done is frowned upon.

Please display some courtesy towards fellow mutineers by refraining from leaving excessively long comments. If you have that much to say, it is no longer a comment, it is an entire post.

Do the right thing, put it up on your own blog and leave the link here. It may be "facile", but it's also free...and fair.

Patience, young grasshopper! I don't have a blog, and am actually unaware of any sort of etiquette observed in these forums. And one wonders why digital discrimination persists? In true Sri Lankan style, I note also that Hattotuwa's response was longer than mine. But, noted, and I will desist from appearing in these forums again.

41 · Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam said

In true Sri Lankan style, I note also that Hattotuwa's response was longer than mine.

Duly noted (though to be fair, your nemesis was responding to some of your many, many concerns).

I don't discriminate-- I find all excessively long comments boorish. No pittu points for either of you.

There's a limit on comment length now? That's a new one.

AVIAF, I hope you stick around. I don't think most of your criticisms are valid, for reasons Sanjana and Vasugi have already stated, but having another perspective is always valuable.

Why does it matter that ~70% of its readers are not based in Sri Lanka? How does that make the perspective of Groundviews any less Sri Lankan? I understand that you think it is from/caters to the elite, but aren't you just quibbling over the definition of 'Ground'? I was born there, but haven't lived there in a long while, my only source for information is the internet. The videos and articles on groundviews provide access that isn't available elsewhere. I read various blogs too, but so far i've yet to see an intelligent one that advocates the position of the government. Sittingnut's blog is generally poorly argued apologist crap, and that seems to be the status quo. There's a vacuum - feel free to fill it!

Dear AVIAF,

I too hope you stick around (although I adopted the word "facile" somewhat sarcastically). The limit on comment length is not new. I don't agree with almost anything you said, but ditto to what retorts said.

And I do want to address this:

as for my identity, Sri Lanka is a small place. Can we not be judged by the quality of our responses and what can be inferred from that?

Sri Lanka is a small place, so I didn't really expect you to answer this question, beyond maybe saying "I am based in Batti" or "I was born in Colombo but now work in Trinco." I asked you about your identity for a couple of reasons: one, just to point out that this isn't quite a level playing field—you know that I am not in Sri Lanka, which is fine. However, we have no idea from where you write, what your motives might be, etc. That's okay--it's your choice, and I have still gotten a lot out of this debate--but I think it's worth at least noting that we are writing from different levels of anonymity.

Second, I asked out of real interest about your experience in Sri Lanka. There's a lot of interest abroad, and that's not necessarily elitist. The range of those who have emigrated has broadened a lot, and of course while I know quite well I'm not in the same position as someone who is still there, I still care about what's happening.

With that, I'll take myself to the work of continuing to transcribe this interview so we can get to the next Groundviews post. Thanks for playing, all.

43 · retorts said

There's a limit on comment length now? That's a new one

Yes, we invented it yesterday to be oppressive and unjust. /sarcasm

We've discouraged such boorishness for years, for very good reason. It's difficult to address someone's points, when they have 18 of them. We're interested in a discussion, not a lecture.

I love you AVIAF. Rock on.

AVIAF-- started to write a comment here in response to your comments and the larger debate, but as it became longer and longer, I realized it probably wouldn't make the cut here.

So it's up as a post at Pass The Roti. I hope to hear more from you soon; you're one of the more interesting interlocutors I've seen online in a long, long time.

(Hello V.V., nice comment Kageru! -- ::ducks out::)

47 · kettikili said

AVIAF-- started to write a comment here in response to your comments and the larger debate, but as it became longer and longer, I realized it probably wouldn't make the cut here. So it's up as a post at Pass The Roti.

*dutiful click*

This started out as a comment on another “South Asian” blog, on which I haven’t been inclined to participate, but felt compelled to by your comment. However, it got “excessively long” and “boorish.” So I am posting it here, in another place where I also feel public discourse on Sri Lankan and diasporic politics has a long way to go. Thank you for posting your comments, despite their apparently “excessive” length. (Brevity may be the soul of wit, but pithy remarks do not make for much of a discussion.)

What a welcoming way to start a post, Pass the Roti. I saw it and immediately hit the "back" button, so well-played, Tom Petty. That'll show those mean mutineers, what with all the scare quotes and all.

Pondatti, my snark may seem unwarranted, and if that's all you see to that post, I'm sorry, because that wasn't the point. I do find SM Intern's complaint (#40, 42, 45) to be ridiculous, and if you care to see an explanation, I've replied in a comment to "layman," which I'm cutting-and-pasting here:

Didn't mean for this entire post to come across as petty-- if anything, it was venting some frustrations I have about South Asian blogging on Sri Lanka. (A lot of those unassigned frustrations actually apply to this blog too. Maybe even especially so.) I meant to link to the Sepia Mutiny thread right off the bat, but why I didn't name them is, well, I actually thought that might come off the wrong way. (Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but now that I look at it again, I am more inclined to see what you said.) And I especially didn't want to malign my friend, who was the original writer of that post. She's an amazing person, and one of the few people who (IMHO) has said anything sane on the subject in that forum.

You are right insofar as my snark about comment length was directed towards SM Intern's response to AVIAF. I understand the point in not posting a lengthy comment if the writer wants it to be read-- just as this post isn't likely to find too many readers. But the idea that a comment that tries to respond to another comment should follow some unspecified rule of length, to me, is ridiculous-- and I don't buy the rationale behind it. Why is one lengthy comment (that tries to think through the issues at hand) seen to bury discussion, while 100 silly comments are not?

This is my basic problem with the way the forum is run. If something is important to me, and I'm trying to work through it, soundbites don't suffice. Sorry if that rubs the wrong way.

There you have it. I've said my piece, as I wanted it said, and it works for me.

49 · kettikili said

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...And I especially didn't want to malign my friend, who was the original writer of that post. She's an amazing person, and one of the few people who (IMHO) has said anything sane on the subject in that forum.

Huh. That's how I feel about my imperfect but well-intentioned attempts to post about Sri Lanka-- (very) damned if I do, (a little less) damned if I don't. :\

Why is one lengthy comment (that tries to think through the issues at hand) seen to bury discussion, while 100 silly comments are not?

But why isn't that sort of thoughtful mega-comment more appropriate as a post? Why is that such a terrible idea? I think that if AVIAF started a blog, they'd immediately have an audience, just based on the feedback on this thread. It's not a question of burying a discussion or a preference for death by a thousand comments, it's the pursuit of manageable comment threads; it really is difficult to read super-long comments on tiny screens. It's hard to refute or discuss specific points, when they are buried among two-dozen other contentions...unless you write a mega-comment of your own...and that just exacerbates the situation.

I didn't come up with the rule, but I understand it and I try to follow it myself. I'm sorry that you find it arbitrary or stupid.

This is my basic problem with the way the forum is run.

:( No one is perfect, but we give this forum everything (what little) we have.

If something is important to me, and I'm trying to work through it, soundbites don't suffice.

I agree, completely. But how does discouraging long comments automatically equal "only soundbites" are allowed? Where's the middle path? All we ask for is comments of a reasonable length. Is that evil of us?

K, I don't consider myself maligned, and I appreciate your lengthy response. (As you know, since my lengthier response went to your inbox.) I hope it's obvious why I'm trying (failing?) to move on to another post. But before I do: AVIAF, retorts, ptr_vivek, rob, kageru, whoever... I hope you will debate and discuss, and I will do my best to respond without being defensive. This is of course extremely personal and not personal at all... the touchiest kind of debate.

I'm not a particular authority and am happy to hear from those with different opinions. Nor do I mean to suggest that Groundviews is above criticism: like any editorial product, of course it has its flaws. But my aims include giving them what credit I think they're due--and steering criticisms towards things that are actually actionable, like K's suggestion of an acknowledgment of awareness of limitations. My preference is for the pragmatic rather than the abstract, and that's the first good suggestion I've seen. I find her idea actually very interesting and wonder how specifically it might be implemented. Where on the site would it go? What language might it use?

AVIAF, I wasn't trying to attack you by asking about your identity... I merely wished to point out that anonymity doesn't necessarily protect you from people ascribing guesses to you. It's more of that damned if you do, damned if you don't business. Ah, Sri Lanka... Anyway, orneriness might be your style, but it's not mine, so thank-you-come-again... seriously.

It's not surprising that quite a few Srilankan Tamils are going gaa gaa over Groundviews seeing as it has absolutely zero criticism of the LTTE or Tamil nationalism, but oodles of it for the Government and Sinhalese nationalism. It's getting harder and harder these days to justify suicide bombings (including those carried out by pregnant women as they are in Sri Lanka), child soldiers, bombs on buses, extortion, and intra-ethnic Tamil-on-Tamil violence. So Groundviews comes as a welcome respite to those who wish to whitewash the Tamil Tigers and rail against the Evil Genocidal Government (incidentally the LTTE prohibited the Tamil populace under its control from voting in the last elections - no hand wringing by Groundviews on that issue surprise surprise).

Citizen journalism? Please. It's run by a member of the Centre For Policy Alternatives; supporting a "range of views and voices" is the last thing it does. If Groundviews is representative of ordinary Sri Lankan citizens they would have already voted in an uber-liberal-colombo-elite government, granted Tamil Eelam on a platter and be toasting the LTTE by drinking arrack and dancing to loud baila music.

A N N A (#50), I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the function of short vs long comments. After what you've said, I understand where you're coming from, but take issue with the way the policy was initially conveyed. I also generally have a hard time reading and responding to long comments, but I think they can have a place, when the points behind them are intricately connected.

:( No one is perfect, but we give this forum everything (what little) we have.

And I recognize that. Leaving a couple of comments aside, if SL threads continue in this vein, I'll have to retract my previous statement. :)

That would've been my last word in this thread, to let V.V. move on with the business of her follow-up post... but it seems almost criminal to let the following be the final word in a relatively nuanced thread:

It's not surprising that quite a few Srilankan Tamils are going gaa gaa over Groundviews seeing as it has absolutely zero criticism of the LTTE or Tamil nationalism, but oodles of it for the Government and Sinhalese nationalism.

And now an obvious rationale for AVIAF's reluctance to provide identifying information becomes abundantly clear.

Lankapura, first of all, nobody is going "gaa gaa." There are criticisms throughout this thread and elsewhere. Secondly, you've obviously missed the point of Sanjana's comment (#34)-- after linking to a few critical analyses of Tamil nationalism published on Groundviews, he goes on to explain why the site focuses on the government-- it is clear to anyone who can read between the lines that it is a denunciation of LTTE tactics, and the use of those very same tactics by the government (hello, paramilitary proxies). But of course, you aren't reading what is being said. You haven't bothered to step out of your box to think why Tamils who write under their own names scrutinize every word they put out there, and why so many express their positions under pseudonyms. Instead, you're ascribing political positions to the commenters solely on the basis of your *assumptions* about their identities. So Tamil = Tiger or Tiger supporter.

Ironically, the LTTE's political leadership and its most ardent supporters prescribe exactly the same view.

Funny that.

39 · Aut Viam Inveniam Aut Faciam

c) Next, the point about: why don't you create your own website? Again, I find this argument to be facile . . . . Groundviews has the funding and infrastructure from a variety of organizations, including CPA which in turn receives money from bilateral and international donor agencies. Groundviews has a responsibility to the citizens of Sri Lanka to use that money appropriately and responsibly. And it takes money, and staff to market, increase outreach, and penetrate the right user base. The concept of creating an alternate, duplicate site would be useful in abundant societies, but not in scarcity-ridden Sri Lanka.

How about not a duplicate site, but more of a simple site, like, e.g., "GroundviewsWatch," where you could provide textual commentary on what you feel are Groundviews's omissions/what have you?

Really Kettikili? Perhaps it's different for you, but for me it sure seems as if V.V. is going gaa gaa over Groundviews in her original post. It's pretty much a promo piece for Groundviews -- without mentioning all the other rather unsavoury bits that people have brought up about the site and its editor in the proceeding comments. What exactly are the "few critical analysis" of Tamil nationalism you're talking about? Wait, are you talking about that solitary "ethnos or demos question" article? The one that is bashed in reply? And exactly how many replies to all the other articles on Groundviews have been published? Heck, even the comments are heavily censored to suit the editorial line. The site certainly does not denounce the LTTE or terrorism half as much as it denounces everything else. Where are the interviews with the Sinhalese civilian whose whole family was blown to bits on a bus bomb? The Muslim civilian who was ethnically cleansed from Jaffna? The Tamil civilian whose father was shot dead because he was considered a "traitor" to the Tamil cause? Or how about life under the LTTE? Not groundviews stuff I suppose? No comment about the fact the only mono-ethnic areas in Sri Lanka are those under the LTTE? I guess according to Groundviews the LTTE is a small, itsy bitsy participant in the conflict that has ravaged the island for the past 20+ years. Funny that. Apparently its the last thing on the minds of Sri Lankans. And sorry to burst your bubble, but I have been following the blog since its onset when it went on an advertising blitzkrieg and Sanjana Hatottuwa was using his column in the Daily Mirror to promote the website. Did I make assumptions about the commentators on Groundviews? Or is it you who has jumped to that assumption? Whatever the case, like I mentioned earlier, supporting a "range of views and voices" is the last thing that Groundviews does.

55 · Lankapura said

Whatever the case, like I mentioned earlier, supporting a "range of views and voices" is the last thing that Groundviews does.

What do you like to read?

Amar Chitra Kathas.

It is not true about groundviews not entertaining criticism on the LTTE. Personally, I have commented many times on the atrocities of the LTTE in response to published articles and have also pointed out the whole issue of the diaspora phenomenon. I must say I am also a bit worried about the whole censorship allegations I have been reading about groundviews. it is really sad if this is all true and it undermines the effect of groundviews. I have also had people telling me about submitted content not being included. This is a bit sad, because groundviews sometimes publishes articles of very poor quality i.e. CHA. Despite the fact that it does attempt to carry real stories highlighting the ground situ, the quality of these articles are really not up to the mark. So the question arises whether 'groundviews' is really 'citizen journalism' or a platform for 'popular personalities/ organisations' using this as a propaganda tool. Nevertheless, I must say that 'groundviews' is truly a superb initiative and must strive to uphold their attempts at 'citizen journalism'.

People who are interested in reading more about Sri Lanka especially in terms of the whole Diaspora issue should have a look at this blog site, http://sahasamvada-forum.blogspot.com/