It
is rather surprising to see the level to which the media continues to play upon
an allegation that Ranil Wickremasinghe assisted the other side and not the UNP
candidate in a 1994 election, an allegation that has already been completely
refuted by Chandrika Bandranaika herself.
In
the first place when a politician for the first time resurrects something that is
alleged to have happened in 1994, in his 2012 campaign, has to be taken lightly
as time itself is reason enough to question - if there was a grain of truth in
such. Remember in politics if one does not pounce on the transgressions of
one’s foes within moments of occurrence the value fades, to say nothing of 18
year old allegations. It is sheer absurdity to continue.
I
would first question the ethics of any journalist who carries the same after
the initial stage announcement. If they repeat it they must point to the
rationale behind its likelihood to come out after such a time span.
Therefore
if he, Maithripala has nothing else to stick to Ranil Wickremasinghe, then one
must assume that RW comes out like a bed of roses with no other faults, if past
sins are brought out when none appear to be leveled over more recent failures. Why
then make one self such a fool?
The
bankrupt ideas of the Government to resort to base allegations should turn any
self-respecting journalist to howl at such allegations as being dreams of
hallucinating politicians and not of people who are at all serious about their
own profession! This therefore is also bankrupt journalism.
It
is very sad that as a country we tolerate such nonsense without reporting the
logic of such statements made so many years after. In my reckoning NO
journalist in Sri Lanka has had the courage to stand up to this despot who has
ruined his own District by dynastic favors, with nothing to show for his long
tenure at the top, nothing but personal
glory and ruin of every economic activity of local people and with no regard to
their well being.
I
need not give space to wonder why RW has not commented, as it does not require a
response. He has more important matters to concern him than this. It is an indication
of the bankrupt nature of news, that this subject is not superseded by important
matters of the day, in an election period where debates about policy should take
precedence. Come on the fourth estate!
No comments:
Post a Comment