Shadow Newsrooms and Energy Politics: How Contract Journalism Risks Becoming a Black Operation Against Democratic Governance
Colombo — Sri Lanka’s already fragile information ecosystem is facing a new and troubling challenge: the emergence of politically aligned “shadow media operations” that blur the line between journalism, lobbying, and covert influence campaigns.
At the centre of the current controversy is a sustained media offensive targeting the Ministry of Energy, led by Energy Minister Kumara Jayakodi, following the rejection or non-selection of at least one major procurement bid related to coal supply and fuel blending. While allegations of corruption have circulated widely across several websites, YouTube channels, and television platforms, a closer examination suggests a more complex — and potentially more concerning — phenomenon at work.
The Rise of “Credential Laundering” in Sri Lankan Media
A notable feature of several media personalities driving the current campaign is their repeated public emphasis on having “worked for” internationally recognised institutions, including global media organisations and religious or diplomatic bodies. However, industry sources point out that many such associations were short-term, contractual, or consultancy-based, rather than permanent editorial roles.
Media analysts describe this practice as credential laundering — the strategic amplification of limited professional affiliations to project authority, credibility, and access. Once established, these individuals often launch independent platforms branded as “investigative” outlets, while operating without transparent editorial governance, funding disclosure, or professional accountability structures.
“These are not newsrooms in the traditional sense,” said a senior media academic. “They are often personality-driven platforms with opaque funding streams and no meaningful separation between reporting, opinion, and paid influence.”
From Journalism to Influence Operations?
Multiple independent observers have noted striking similarities in the language, framing, and timing of recent stories alleging corruption within the Energy Ministry. The reports frequently cite unnamed sources, leaked documents without verification, and selectively framed procurement decisions — particularly around coal procurement for the Norochcholai Power Plant and fuel blending arrangements.
Crucially, the narrative gained momentum shortly after the Energy Ministry declined to accept a bid from a private supplier. The rejection, according to ministry officials, was based on technical non-compliance and procurement transparency requirements, rather than political considerations.
In response to the allegations, former ministers who previously held the energy portfolio have appeared across multiple media platforms, offering commentary and criticism of the current administration’s decisions. While former ministers are entitled to express views, governance experts caution that their interventions risk being instrumentalised by commercial interests seeking to reverse procurement outcomes.
Business Interests and Media Amplification
According to officials familiar with the procurement process, at least two business entities with interests in coal supply are believed to be aggressively lobbying through indirect channels after failing to secure contracts. While no court has established wrongdoing, the pattern of coordinated media messaging has raised concerns within regulatory and civil society circles.
“What we are seeing is not investigative journalism uncovering corruption,” said a governance watchdog representative. “It is closer to a pressure campaign — using media visibility to create public outrage, force reversals, or discredit officials who insist on procedural compliance.”
The Energy Ministry maintains that all procurement decisions were taken in accordance with existing laws, cabinet-approved guidelines, and technical evaluations. Minister Kumar Jayakodi has publicly stated that transparency and due process are non-negotiable, even when decisions displease powerful commercial actors.
When Former Ministers Become Pawns
Perhaps the most politically sensitive dimension of the controversy is the visible involvement of former energy ministers in amplifying allegations. Analysts note that while such figures may genuinely disagree with current policy choices, their appearances often coincide with narratives favourable to specific bidders.
“In effect, former ministers risk becoming pawns in corporate disputes,” said a former senior civil servant. “Once that happens, the public debate shifts from policy and accountability to spectacle and accusation.”
This dynamic, experts warn, undermines democratic oversight rather than strengthening it.
The Democratic Cost of Media Black Operations
Sri Lanka’s democratic system relies on independent, ethical journalism to scrutinise power. However, when media platforms operate as paid instruments of commercial or political retaliation, public trust erodes rapidly.
The danger lies not only in false allegations, but in the normalisation of influence operations disguised as investigative reporting. In such an environment, genuine whistleblowers are drowned out, credible journalism is discredited, and governance reforms are portrayed as conspiracies.
International press freedom groups have repeatedly emphasised that transparency in media ownership, funding, and editorial standards is as important as freedom of expression itself.
The Way Forward
The current episode highlights the urgent need for:
-
Disclosure norms for media platforms claiming investigative authority
-
Clear separation between journalism, lobbying, and political consultancy
-
Institutional protection for public officials who adhere to lawful procurement processes
-
Public literacy to distinguish between evidence-based reporting and influence campaigns
As Sri Lanka navigates economic recovery and institutional reform, the integrity of its information space may prove as critical as fiscal discipline or energy security.
The question now facing the country is not merely whether corruption exists — but whether journalism itself is being corrupted, repurposed as a tool of black operations that serve private interests at the expense of democratic governance.
Until funding sources, motivations, and editorial accountability are openly addressed, allegations alone — however loudly repeated — will remain insufficient to substitute for truth.