Berit Bliesemann de Guevara, in MATSUSAS, 12 September 2014, where the title runs “Reading the International Crisis Group or why think tank reports have to be taken with a pinch of salt” …. with highlighting empasis veing the work of The Editor, Thuppahi
Recently the New York Times caused turmoil among prestigious and influential US think tanks when it published an investigative article about concealed connections between these non-profit research organisations and a broad range of foreign countries, among them Norway, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar (NYT online, 6/9/2014). The article revealed that leading think tanks like the Center for Global Development, the Brookings Institution and the Atlantic Council are receiving funding from foreign governments in exchange for influence on the organisations’ recommendations to US policy-makers. The article criticized this practice for its lack of transparency and the supposed loss of intellectual freedom and objectivity. ‘The money is increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington’, the authors cautioned. The attacked think tanks rejected the accusations, pointing to ‘credibility’ and ‘scholarly independence’ as their major ‘currency’, although one interviewee admitted that self-censorship could be a future problem because in times of dwindling funding sources, saving one’s job could well trump the urge to be critical.
Filed under accountability, american imperialism, British imperialism, centre-periphery relations, cultural transmission, economic processes, politIcal discourse, power politics, press freedom & censorship, propaganda, security, self-reflexivity, slanted reportage, the imaginary and the real, truth as casualty of war, unusual people, vengeance, war reportage, world events & processes
Johan Mikaelsson, in Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, 5 November 2018, where the title is “Impunity Island: Sri Lanka’s “predator emeritus” on rebound,”
Many local journalists feel discomfort when they hear the name Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He is seen as a ruthless person, who was behind the murder wave that took the lives of their colleagues. They see it as unthinkable to contact him and ask critical questions. The few foreign journalists who tried to put some pressure on him when he held his powerful position 2005–2015 were met with anger. After 2015, Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been almost invisible in international media.
‘Gota’, the nick-name under which he is usually known, is now often surrounded by a glow, a shimmering luster. Many want to see more of ‘Gota’, they regard him as a wonder maker. Most editors avoid challenging him. A few journalists in the domestic English-language press have asked difficult questions, but ‘Gota’ appears to be ready to move on, possibly as a candidate in the presidential election in 2020.
Filed under accountability, atrocities, governance, historical interpretation, human rights, Indian Ocean politics, landscape wondrous, law of armed conflict, legal issues, LTTE, performance, politIcal discourse, power politics, press freedom & censorship, Rajapaksa regime, reconciliation, security, self-reflexivity, Sinhala-Tamil Relations, sri lankan society, Tamil civilians, terrorism, truth as casualty of war, unusual people, war crimes, war reportage, world events & processes