When Personal Grievance Masquerades as Journalism
In any functioning democracy, journalism is expected to operate as a discipline anchored in fairness, verification, and ethical restraint. It is not merely a profession; it is a public trust. That trust, however, begins to erode when personal vendettas are dressed up as public interest commentary.
The recent conduct of Jayanta Poddala, a former Secretary General of the Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association, raises precisely this concern. Poddala is not an unfamiliar figure in Sri Lanka’s media landscape. His past—particularly the harrowing experience of abduction and torture in 2009—commands a degree of sympathy and respect. Having later returned to Sri Lanka in 2017 and lodged a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department, he has, by all accounts, endured more than most in the line of duty.
Yet personal suffering, however grave, does not confer a perpetual licence to abandon professional ethics.
In a recent episode, Poddala took to public platforms to launch a deeply personal and, by many accounts, highly insulting attack against Darshana Hettiarachchi, a London-based organiser affiliated with the JVP/NPP political movement. The tone and substance of these remarks have prompted a legitimate and necessary question: can a journalist—particularly one who has himself been a victim of abuse—justify targeting another individual with what appears to be little more than unsubstantiated hostility?
The issue here is not political disagreement. Robust critique is the lifeblood of democratic discourse. Nor is it about shielding public figures from scrutiny. Rather, it is about method and motive. When criticism lacks evidentiary grounding and descends into personal disparagement, it ceases to be journalism and becomes something far less defensible.
Ethical journalism demands due process. At a minimum, this includes offering the subject of criticism an opportunity to respond. It requires clarity of accusation, transparency of intent, and adherence to verifiable fact. What it does not permit is the airing of personal grievances under the guise of public accountability.
Darshana Hettiarachchi, the subject of Poddala’s remarks, is not an obscure figure within the Sri Lankan diaspora. Over the past two decades, he has built a reputation—particularly within London’s Sri Lankan community—for measured leadership and cross-community engagement. His involvement in supporting minority concerns, including standing alongside Muslim communities during contentious cremation policy debates and advocating for Tamil youth in moments of crisis, has been widely noted.
Colleagues and observers frequently point to his calm demeanour and collaborative approach as defining characteristics. In a diaspora often fractured along ethnic and political lines, such qualities are not insignificant.
Moreover, Hettiarachchi’s current responsibilities extend beyond local activism. With the JVP/NPP now occupying a governing role, his engagements reportedly include participation in national-level functions, policy-related activities, and international visits aimed at studying governance models and institutional frameworks. These are not the pursuits of a fringe actor but of someone operating within a structured political and administrative ecosystem.
Against this backdrop, the absence of a clearly articulated rationale behind Poddala’s criticism becomes even more conspicuous. If there are substantive concerns, why are they not presented transparently? Why are specific allegations not outlined, documented, and subjected to scrutiny? Without such clarity, the attack risks appearing arbitrary—if not vindictive.
There is also a broader ethical contradiction at play. Individuals who have themselves been victims of injustice often speak with moral authority on issues of accountability and human rights. That authority, however, carries with it a heightened responsibility. To inflict reputational harm on another individual without due diligence undermines not only the target but also the credibility of the accuser.
Journalism, at its core, is not a weapon for personal retribution. It is a mechanism for truth-seeking. When that boundary is crossed, the consequences extend beyond a single dispute; they corrode public confidence in the profession as a whole.
If Jayanta Poddala believes there are legitimate grounds for criticism, the path forward is straightforward: present the facts, substantiate the claims, and allow for a right of reply. Anything less risks reducing serious discourse to the level of personal quarrel—an outcome that serves neither the public interest nor the integrity of journalism.
In the end, the standard must remain consistent. The same principles that journalists demand of those in power—transparency, accountability, and fairness—must also govern their own conduct. Without that symmetry, the line between watchdog and participant in the very dysfunction they critique becomes dangerously blurred.