Sentiment analysis of Ranil Wickremesinghe's Al Jazeera interview with Mehdi Hasan

Renowned journalist Mehdi Hasan interviewed the former President of Sri Lanka, Ranil Wickremesinghe, on a programme of Head to Head, produced by Al Jazeera. The programme was released to YouTube, and also first broadcast on 6 March 2025.

At the time I studied 5,144 comments in response to it, the video had been watched over 218,620 times, and liked over 8,000 times. Comments, views, and likes are increasing at pace, which means that by the time this is read, the sentiments, trends, and patterns analysed are not going to fully or accurately capture additional sentiment. What follows must be read as a study of the sentiments in the comments published at the time of writing this post.

A comment by Udana Jayathilaka ("No one questions politicians like this in Sri Lanka. Respect") generated the most amount of likes at the time of writing.

The overwhelming tone of the comments is negative towards the former President. There's a strong sense of anger, frustration, and disillusionment with Sri Lankan politics. There is, however, a smaller counter-current of support for Wickremesinghe and criticism of Al Jazeera.

Overarching themes

• Criticism of Ranil Wickremesinghe:?The former President is accused of corruption, human rights abuses (specifically the Batalanda torture camp), economic mismanagement, protecting the Rajapaksa family, lying, and being out of touch with the Sri Lankan people. Many commenters express relief that he is no longer in power.
• Support for Al Jazeera and Mehdi Hasan:?Many commenters praise Al Jazeera and Mehdi Hasan for their "tough questioning" and "exposing" Wickremesinghe. They see this interview as a rare instance of a Sri Lankan politician being held accountable on an international stage. Sri Lankan journalists are criticised for not being brave enough to ask difficult questions.
• The war and human rights:?Comments frequently reference the Sri Lankan civil war, with accusations of war crimes and gross human rights abuses. There's a division here: some commenters emphasise atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan government and military against Tamil civilians, while others highlight the violence perpetrated by the LTTE (Tamil Tigers).
• Economic crisis:?Sri Lanka's 2022 economic crisis (the aragalaya) is a recurring theme. Wickremesinghe and the Rajapaksa family are blamed for the bankruptcy and economic hardship, with some comments highlighting specific financial scandals, including the Central Bank bond scam which predated 2022's macroeconomic collapse.
• Political corruption:?The comments consistently allege widespread corruption within the Sri Lankan political system, not just limited to Wickremesinghe. There's a sense of deep-seated frustration with a political elite, and old guard - perceived as self-serving and unaccountable. This is a continuation of the "system change" meta-narrative of 2022's aragalaya.
• Desire for justice and accountability:?Many express a desire for justice and accountability for past crimes and corruption. There are calls for Wickremesinghe and the Rajapaksas to be prosecuted.
• Hope:?Some comments express hope for the new NPP government and a desire for systemic change in Sri Lanka.
• Bias and propaganda:?There are accusations that Al Jazeera and Mehdi Hasan are biased against Sri Lanka and are pushing a pro-LTTE or anti-Sinhalese agenda. Some accuse the interview of being staged or funded by the Tamil diaspora. Al Jazeera is frequently accused of being funded by various factions, pushing hidden agendas, and conducting "hit pieces."
• Defense of Wickremesinghe:?A minority of commenters defend Wickremesinghe, arguing that he stabilised the economy, stood up for Sri Lanka, and is being unfairly targeted. They also accuse the interview and Al Jazeera of bias.
• Humour:?There's the classic use of humour to mock Wickremesinghe, comparing him to Mr. Bean or making light of his responses.

Specific issues and allegations

• Batalanda:?This is a major point of criticism, with Wickremesinghe accused of direct involvement in human rights abuses.
• Central Bank bond scam:?The former President is accused of involvement in the bond scam, which isn't a new narrative, and is a particularly strong narrative frame in the comments studied.
• Easter Sunday Attacks:?Some commenters allege that Wickremesinghe and/or the Rajapaksas were complicit in or negligent regarding the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings.
• Burning of the Jaffna Library:?Wickremesinghe is accused of involvement in the burning of the Jaffna Library in 1981.
• Protection of the Rajapaksas:?Wickremesinghe is repeatedly accused of shielding the Rajapaksa family from prosecution.
• War crimes:?There are allegations of war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan military during the civil war.
• Economic mismanagement:?Wickremesinghe is blamed for Sri Lanka's economic collapse.

Echo chambers

The comments against the AJ video demonstrate a classic example of echo chambers, where those who engage/comment primarily interact with and reinforce opinions that align with pre-existing beliefs - i.e., demonstrating confirmation bias.?

Anti-Ranil Wickremesinghe/Pro-NPP (National People's Power) echo chamber

This is the largest and most vociferous group. They believe the former President is corrupt, a murderer, a protector of the Rajapaksas, and responsible for Sri Lanka's economic woes. They view him as a symbol of the corrupt political establishment. They likely support the NPP as an alternative. Those who comment reinforce each other's criticisms of Wickremesinghe, praising Mehdi Hasan and Al Jazeera for "exposing" him. They share similar accusations (Batalanda, Central Bank scam, protecting Rajapaksas) and express a shared sense of relief or satisfaction at seeing him challenged. They dismiss any defence of Wickremesinghe as "bootlicking" or coming from "paid bots."

Language in this echo chamber included: corrupt, murderer, thief, fox, joker, disgrace, Batalanda, Central Bank scam, protecting Rajapaksas, lying, out of touch, economic mismanagement, failed politician, Rajapaksa puppet, no contest, exposed, finally a real journalist, justice, accountability, hope for the future, Rajapaksa stooges, bank robber, cunning, destroyed the country, worst politician, evil, Mr. Bean, pathological liar, political games, Rajapaksa's servant, washed-up dictator, crook, crimes, no democracy, Ferrari broke down, brutal, violating human rights, political fossil, good riddance, cooked, roasted, ruined Sri Lanka, arrogance, conspiracy, LTTE money, Tamil diaspora, Chamuditha English version, Batalanda killer, traitor, fraud, disgusting, useless, failed, power hungry, no shame, low level behaviour, Al Jazeera expose, Sri Lankan Mr. Bean, real journalist.

Pro-Ranil Wickremesinghe echo chamber

This is a much smaller group. They believe Wickremesinghe is a capable leader who stabilized the economy and is being unfairly targeted. They view the interview as biased and see Al Jazeera as having an anti-Sri Lanka agenda. Some also see him as defending Sri Lanka against false accusations of war crimes. Comments in this echo chamber defend Wickremesinghe, praise his handling of the interview, and criticise Hasan's interview methods. They accuse Al Jazeera and the audience of being biased or pro-LTTE, and often use terms like "Diaspora" and "LTTE sympathisers" to discredit opposing views.

Language in this echo chamber included: capable leader, stabilized the economy, unfair, biased, pro-LTTE, diaspora, agenda, defended the country, great leader, true patriot, stood up for Sri Lanka, best politician, only alternative, visionary leader, intelligent, experienced, not a war criminal, rescued the country, strong personality, respect, did a great job, single-handedly, LTTE propaganda, Tamil puppies, good answers, handled it well, best president we never had, great leader of South Asia, living legend, great politician, impressive.

Anti-Western/Anti-Al Jazeera echo chamber (potentially overlapping with the pro-Wickremesinghe echo chamber above)

Those in this echo chamber believe Al Jazeera is hopelessly biased. Comments suggest AJ is an untrustworthy media outlet, pushing a Western, specifically often American or British, agenda, or the agenda of groups they dislike (like the Tamil diaspora, often conflated with LTTE supporters, or "Islamists").

• They believe Al Jazeera is intentionally misrepresenting facts, promoting propaganda, and unfairly targeting Sri Lanka and Ranil Wickremesinghe.
• They see the interview as a "hit piece," a staged attack, or a form of "bullying" journalism, rather than a legitimate attempt to hold power to account.
• They also believe that Al Jazeera is hypocritical, focusing on alleged Sri Lankan war crimes while ignoring or downplaying issues in Western countries or countries Al Jazeera is perceived to be sympathetic to.
• Comments often label the channel, and Hasan as "terrorist supporting" or linked to extremist ideologies.
• Those in this echo chamber dismiss criticism of Wickremesinghe and the Sri Lankan government as stemming from a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the Sri Lankan situation, or as deliberate attempts to destabilise the country.
• There is a strong sense that Al Jazeera, and by extension the West is interfering in Sri Lankan affairs and should "mind their own business."

Language in this echo chamber included: biased journalism, propaganda, hidden agendas, LTTE sympathisers, Western media, USAID, regime change, staged, funded by Tamil diaspora, one-sided, no manners, unprofessional, cheap thrills, low IQ, interrupting, disrespect, terrorist channel, Hamas channel, not full video, hit piece, agenda journalism, no contest, gotcha journalism, Tamil terrorist diaspora sponsored, disappointment, sore losers, global political conspiracy, western agendas, Tamil tiger terrorists, LTTE cubs, LTTE NGOs, NGO hit job, extremist ideologies.

Tamil Nationalist echo chamber

This group focuses on the grievances of the Tamil community, emphasizing allegations of war crimes, genocide, and discrimination by the Sri Lankan government. There are also frequent references to the Black July. They share stories of suffering and injustice, support calls for international investigations, and express solidarity with the Tamil diaspora. Comments are uniformly highly critical of the Sri Lankan government and military.

Language in this echo chamber included: grievances, Tamil community, war crimes, genocide, discrimination, Tamil Eelam, separate state, freedom fighters, human rights violations, Black July, justice for Tamils, oppression, marginalization, historical injustice, Jaffna library burning, ethnic cleansing, Tamil rights, accountability, no justice, LTTE, Mullivaikkal, mass murder, never forget, Tamil homeland, self-determination, international investigation, diaspora, political prisoners.

Power law dynamics, and chief instigators of YouTube commentary

A study of the accounts that had commented on the video (at the time of writing) showcase a classic power law distribution, in which a small number of users contribute disproportionately to the overall comment volume. The top 1% of commenters (just 31 individuals) generated 11.87% of all comments on the video. The top 20% of users (611 accounts/individuals) were responsible for nearly half (49.15%) of all comments. This closely approximates the Pareto principle, often called the 80/20 rule, though in this case it's closer to an 80/50 distribution.

At the other end of the spectrum, 75.74% of all users (2,314 accounts/individuals) commented only once.

The most prolific commenter (SL Micro, @slmicro3857) made 65 comments on this single video, followed by two users (Pasan de Silva @mycodingchannel9690, and Janindu Galagama @JaninduGalagama-e4w) who each contributed 45 comments.

SL Micro's comments - all of which are in Sinhalese, with occasional English phrases, particularly when making direct accusations ("yes.very corrupted man ranil") - reveal intense political animosity, combining mockery, serious accusations, historical grievances, and gratitude towards those perceived as exposing Wickremesinghe's alleged misdeeds. The emotional tenor oscillates between anger, derision, and vindication. He/she/they often compare Wickremesinghe to "Mr. Bean," presenting the former President as a fumbling, mumbling, bumbling, comedic figure rather than a serious political leader. Underlying this mockery is a foundation of intense negativity and serious accusations. The commenter repeatedly labels Wickremesinghe as a "murderer" (???????) and "torturer" (?????), with particular references to "Batalanda" (??????), likely referring to allegations of a torture camp operated during Wickremesinghe's earlier political career.

The comments also contain expressions of gratitude towards Al Jazeera and specifically journalist Mehdi Hasan, whom the commenter thanks for "revealing the truth" about Wickremesinghe. This suggests the interview was perceived as critical or challenging to Wickremesinghe, which aligned with the commenter's own negative views. The commenter appears vindicated by the international media coverage, stating that Wickremesinghe's alleged uncaring attitude towards citizens has been "proven in front of the world."

Historical grievances feature prominently in the comments, with references to alleged atrocities from Sri Lanka's troubled past. Beyond the Batalanda references, there are mentions of the Easter bombings, with accusations that Wickremesinghe failed to act on intelligence to prevent the attacks. There is also a reference to events in 1987-89, likely regarding the youth insurrection and subsequent government crackdown, suggesting the commenter holds Wickremesinghe partially responsible for these historical tragedies.

Comments by Pasan de Silva (@mycodingchannel9690), mirroring SL Micro, reveal a consistent pattern of criticism directed at Wickremesinghe, centred primarily on two main accusations.

Firstly, de Silva repeatedly emphasises Wickremesinghe's long political career as Prime Minister "five times" while arguing that he bears responsibility for Sri Lanka's economic decline, stating numerous times that "This guy is only given credit by his supporters, but according to them, he's not responsible for the stagnant economy, which declined after 2017, and then the eventual bankruptcy." This economic critique forms the backbone of his commentary, portraying Wickremesinghe as a failed leader whose supporters refuse to acknowledge his role in the country's financial troubles. de Silva specifically mentions that Wickremesinghe and someone named "Harsha" were "blamed by international financial councillors for bankrupting the stagnant economy," while praising someone called "Nandalal" who allegedly "saved the economy."

The second major criticism revolves around allegations that Wickremesinghe attempted to grant autonomy to Tamil separatists in 2005, with de Silva repeatedly claiming that "he tried to give autonomy to Ealam and Tigers in 2005 if he won the election" or more dramatically that he "wanted to give half of Sri Lanka to Praba." Beyond these primary criticisms, de Silva exhibits contempt for Wickremesinghe's supporters, questioning their credibility by calling some "fake accounts," telling others to "go back to school," and occasionally using crude language in Sinhala. He also dismisses Wickremesinghe's legitimacy as president, referring to him mockingly as a "13% president," suggesting he lacks popular support. Unlike SL Micro's emotionally charged comments, de Silva's criticisms are more politically focused on policy decisions and governance outcomes, though still expressed with obvious disdain and frequent repetition of key talking points across multiple comments.

Janidu Galagama's comments primarily express strong political support for Wickremesinghe, who is repeatedly referred to as a "Great Leader," "Living Legend," and "Global Asiatic Leader" of Sri Lanka and South Asian politics. The user frequently adorns these statements with multiple emoji symbols including elephants (??) - the symbol of Wickremesinghe's United National Party (UNP).

There is also notable antagonism towards several entities, including the present government:

1. Al Jazeera is repeatedly criticised as "biased against Sri Lanka" and the user suggests the network does not adequately cover Israeli actions in Gaza while focusing on Sri Lanka.
2. The NPP/JVP is described in derogatory terms and accused of terrorism, particularly referencing violence during 1988-89.
3. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is framed very negatively, with (unsubstatiated) claims that they collaborated with the JVP and Rajapaksa in the 2005 election to defeat Wickremesinghe.

Galagama's comments contain a lot of derogatory, demeaning, and vulgar terms in transliterated Sinhala, including the use of sexual slurs against political opponents. The transliterated Sinhala in the comments included ponnayek (effeminate/homosexual slur), ponnayo (plural form of the same slur), napunsaka (impotent), Jeppo/Jepponta (derogatory term for JVP members, extending to NPP now), puka dena (giving one's rear/anus, implying submission), Ubhe Amma deepan (offensive reference to someone's mother), Kalakanni Awajathaka (wretched/ill-born), Sakkili (caste-based slur), kaapan (eat it - used offensively), pachayage (of the worthless person or contemptible liar), lontha (rag/useless), wahallunta (to slaves), lapayage (lepers), kohomath redhi naha (doesn't even have/without clothes), and variations combining these terms with political affiliations to create compound insults.

There are also claims that Wickremesinghe "revived the bankrupt Sri Lankan economy" in 2022-2024 and that both Wickremesinghe and Mahinda Rajapaksa are "great leaders" despite their "shortcomings." Galagama asserts that Sri Lankans don't need Al Jazeera to "solve our national problems."

Comparison with official presentations of Wickremesinghe

In Will the real Wickremesinghe, Premedasa and Dissanayake please stand?up?, published in July last year, a few months prior to the consequential presidential election, I studied how official tweets by the former President's official Twitter account, and the President's Media Division (PMD) tweets presented him.

Official tweets present the incumbent President as a credible, competent, forward-thinking leader. Tweets on RW in Sinhala often discussed his personal characteristics, and leadership style in more detail, both positively, and negatively. English tweets focused more on his professional capabilities, and less on personal attributes.

Based on the official tweets by RW and the PMD, the incumbent president emerges as a seasoned statesman, and visionary leader. He is a calm, collected figure steering Sri Lanka through turbulent times with a steady hand. RW is pragmatic problem-solver, adept at navigating complex economic challenges, and international relations. He is a reformer, committed to modernising Sri Lanka’s economy, and institutions. RW is a unifying political figure, rising above partisan politics for the greater good of the nation. His intellect, and experience are frequently highlighted, which help define a leader capable of making (and actually taking) difficult decisions. This version of Wickremesinghe is a diplomatic, visionary, erudite statesman, deeply committed to Sri Lanka’s progress on the global stage.

The difference in sentiment between this framing, and the leading presentations of Wickremesinghe in the YouTube comments studied is extreme.

The YouTube comments represent a raw, unfiltered outpouring of public anger and disillusionment, while the official tweets represent a carefully managed and highly positive public relations campaign. The YouTube comments focus heavily on alleged past misdeeds and perceived character flaws, while the official tweets emphasise professional capabilities and a vision for the future.

There is practically no overlap in the portrayal - the appreciation of Wickremesinghe in the YouTube comments against Hasan's AJ interview is diametrically opposed to, and completely distinct from the Wickremesinghe painted by official tweets last year.

The YouTube comments are visceral and personal, while the official tweets are far more formal, and focused on policy. The YouTube comments are overwhelmingly critical and dismissive while the official tweets, by the nature of their role, and source, are laudatory. One depicts a despised, discredited figure, and the other, a celebrated saviour or savant.

This extreme contrast highlights a massive disconnect between the official narrative promoted by Wickremesinghe's erstwhile administration and the prevailing sentiment amongst those who watched, and engaged with Hasan's interview (on YouTube, and at the time of writing).