-By A Staff Correspondent - Colombo
(Lanka-e-News -03.Dec.2025, 11.40 PM) When Sri Lanka was struck by Cyclonic Storm Ditwah in late November, unleashing the worst floods the island has seen in nearly half a century, the nation found itself confronting not only a humanitarian disaster but also an information crisis. While hundreds of thousands of families were wading through chest-deep water, several media institutions — most prominently Derana News, with commentary amplified by presenter Chatura Alwis (in the picture)— began broadcasting claims that the NPP Government had “ignored early warnings” issued by the Meteorological Department.
Within hours, the allegation spread across social media, was repackaged into viral clips, and was subsequently reported by outlets such as the Daily Mirror and Daily Morning. The narrative was simple, sensational and politically explosive: the government knew flooding was coming but did nothing.
But as the floodwater recedes, so too does the credibility of that story. What is emerging instead is a complex tale involving misreporting, political opportunism, and the dangerous power of misinformation at a time of national tragedy.
The controversy began on the evening of 29 November, barely 24 hours after Ditwah caused torrential downpours exceeding 350 mm in some areas. On a widely viewed Derana programme, Chatura Alwis emphatically stated that the Meteorological Department had issued “early warnings predicting extremely heavy rainfall” and that the government had “failed to act.”
The message was unmistakable: the NPP Government had been negligent.
Other media outlets quickly followed. Online news platforms published headlines accusing the administration of “ignoring scientific advice.” Commentators on social media, many affiliated with opposition groups, circulated edited video clips purporting to show that the Meteorology Department had, prior to the storm, forecast a “major rainfall event.”
In an emotionally charged environment — with deaths rising, families displaced, and infrastructure collapsing — the claim took root with alarming speed.
Within 48 hours, officials at the Department of Meteorology publicly clarified that no such “extreme rainfall” or “red alert” warning had been issued in the days leading up to the disaster.
Their official bulletins, published online and sent to all media institutions (including Derana), had predicted “showers and thundershowers in several provinces” — standard seasonal forecasts for late November. Nowhere did these reports mention the likelihood of severe flooding, landslides, or anything resembling a catastrophic cyclone impact.
Senior meteorologists stressed three critical facts:
Cyclone Ditwah developed unusually fast, changing intensity within hours rather than days.
It remained unpredictable, behaving unlike prior systems, with an atypically slow movement over the island.
There was no scientific model available—locally or internationally—predicting the extraordinary rainfall that materialised.
“Had we received indicators of extreme rainfall, we would have issued immediate alerts,” a senior forecaster said. “There is no circumstance under which an early warning is selectively withheld.”
As these facts emerged, the foundation of the accusations began to crumble.
The central problem was not simply that misreporting occurred — but that established media institutions repeated and amplified an unverified claim at a moment when factual accuracy was vital.
A review of the Met Department’s advisories between 24 and 28 November shows:
No “heavy rainfall above 150 mm” advisory was issued.
No “Major Flood Warning” was circulated prior to 28 November.
No “Cyclone Landfall Alert” was provided because Ditwah had not been forecast to behave the way it ultimately did.
Yet Derana and several other outlets presented the opposite.
Some meteorological officers privately noted their disappointment that “bulletins were publicly available to every newsroom in the country,” making the misinformation particularly inexcusable.
The NPP Government, which came into office promising transparency and anti-corruption governance, has faced fierce resistance from certain political factions and media houses aligned with traditional parties.
Government officials argue that the “missed early warning” story was not a journalistic error but an orchestrated political attack, designed to exploit the chaos of the disaster to damage the government’s credibility.
A senior cabinet spokesman described the situation bluntly:
“This is disaster-time propaganda. Some people are trying to weaponise tragedy.”
Several patterns support this view:
The false narrative originated from commentators with known political leanings.
Media houses repeated the claim without verifying with the Met Department, which is standard practice.
Opposition social media teams immediately used the claim to accuse the government of negligence.
In Parliament, the Minister of Health — serving also as government spokesman — addressed the controversy:
“There was no early warning. There was no ignored advisory. What there is, is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public during the worst natural disaster in decades.”
Recognising the scale of misinformation circulating, the government has lodged a formal complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to investigate:
How the false narrative originated
Whether political groups coordinated its dissemination
Which media personalities knowingly broadcast unverifiable claims
Whether there was an intention to provoke public panic or undermine trust
The CID has already begun collecting recordings, newsroom communications, and digital media posts linked to the allegations. If wrongdoing is proven, penalties could include fines under the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Act and even criminal charges under the Penal Code for wilful public mischief.
Legal experts note that this investigation could become a landmark case determining how media accountability is enforced during national emergencies.
One reason the “government ignored early warnings” claim is technically flawed is that the Meteorological Department operates with substantial institutional independence.
Its bulletins are:
Automatically distributed to all media
Publicly accessible on official channels
Simultaneously shared with disaster-management, aviation, maritime, and emergency services
Not routed through any ministry for approval
In other words, no government — NPP or otherwise — can hide an early warning even if it wanted to.
Several independent climate scientists confirmed:
“If the Met Department had issued a major warning, every newsroom would have received it instantly. There is no mechanism for selective withholding.”
This fact alone renders the accusations illogical.
Climate behaviour in the Indian Ocean has grown increasingly erratic. Sri Lanka has experienced:
More flash floods
More sudden cyclonic systems
More unpredictable rainfall distribution
As one climate researcher put it:
“The problem is not that warnings were ignored. The problem is that extreme events are becoming harder to predict.”
This is a shared challenge across South Asia, where meteorological models often fail to capture rare cyclonic anomalies such as Ditwah’s sudden strengthening and slow movement.
The real debate should therefore be about strengthening:
Data-sharing systems
Local forecasting models
Early-warning infrastructure
Public awareness protocols
Instead, for several days, energy was spent untangling a media-driven political rumour.
This episode raises uncomfortable questions about Sri Lanka’s media landscape:
Should major broadcasters verify claims with expert institutions before airing them?
Should commentators with political affiliations be allowed to present speculative statements as fact?
Should online publications correct or retract stories once official clarifications emerge?
The Press Council and Editors’ Guild are already considering joint guidelines to prevent similar occurrences. But critics argue that voluntary codes are insufficient when political agendas influence editorial decisions.
Fake news is no longer merely a digital nuisance; in an emergency, it can directly undermine rescue operations, weaken public trust, and create unnecessary panic.
Was the “ignored early warning” story a coordinated conspiracy against the NPP Government, or simply a chain of journalistic errors?
Evidence so far indicates a mix of both:
✦ Unverified claims were broadcast as fact
Derana’s initial presentation was assertive, not speculative.
✦ Other media platforms repeated the claim without checking official bulletins
A basic journalistic failure.
✦ Political groups capitalised on the chaos
Amplifying the narrative to score points during a tragedy.
✦ The Met Department’s data disproves the allegation entirely
Their advisories are timestamped and archived.
✦ The government responded only after significant public confusion
Which allowed the story to gain momentum.
What remains to be proven — and what the CID investigation aims to uncover — is whether any political actors intentionally engineered the misinformation.
The NPP Government faces its most severe test since taking office, and opponents sense an opportunity to dent its rising popularity. But using a natural disaster for political manipulation carries enormous ethical risk.
As one political analyst noted:
“If the allegations were proven true, they would destroy trust in the government. But if proven false — as the Meteorology Department has already indicated — then the credibility of those who spread them collapses.”
Thus far, it is the latter scenario unfolding.
In the final analysis, Sri Lanka’s tragedy should have united the country. Instead, it briefly became a political battlefield where misinformation, speculation, and sensationalism flourished.
There is a broader lesson here.
Natural disasters demand:
Competent governance
Reliable science
Responsible media
Public trust
Any attempt — intentional or reckless — to erode these pillars during a crisis poses a danger far greater than misleading headlines. It risks turning moments of collective vulnerability into opportunities for political sabotage.
As Sri Lanka begins the long road to rebuilding homes, lives and infrastructure, it must also rebuild trust — between government institutions, the media, and the public.
Because in the age of climate uncertainty, the next disaster may arrive without warning. And the last thing the country needs is another storm made of misinformation.
-By A Staff Correspondent - Colombo
---------------------------
by (2025-12-03 20:13:45)
Read 19086 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news