When the facts don't tell the whole story...

New Straits Times associate editor Rehman Rashid reportedly said at the Asia Media Summit 2004 (NST, 21 April) that the job of reporters is not to change the world or think for the readers. Rather, they are to help the readers think for themselves by getting the facts and presenting them clearly.

While he certainly has an important point about respecting facts, why does this journalistic attribute still leave much to be desired in the mainstream press, including the paper he works for?

Selective facts

At last month’s election campaign, what the media did was basically giving us the facts of the Barisan Nasional campaign. What BN leaders had to say very much hogged the print space and broadcast airtime.

Opposition parties were hardly covered. On the few occasions they were, they were seen associated with something negative or, if not negative, given very short shrift.

This was quite unlike coverage of the BN - especially candidates Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak. The media did not appear to have the slightest problem with finding the space or airtime to present their remarks, sometimes in toto. The coverage also typically appeared on the first two pages of the papers or the first three items of TV bulletins.

The media cannot claim the opposition parties had little to say at a time when they were election campaigning.

As examples, let us compare the coverage of the MCA’s “slip-up” in Bukit Bintang during the campaign with that of beer-drinking in the vicinity of a PAS operations room in Terengganu.

As we mentioned last month, only theSun (among the English dailies) reported on the MCA’s “slip-up” in Bukit Bintang. What happened was, during the campaign, folks in the area were upset with an MCA poster that used a derogatory reference to mothers in the party’s attack of DAP. The MCA took down the poster and dismissed the “slip-up” as an error on the part of its China printer, but not before the DAP got wind of it. The latter demanded an apology from the MCA to the people in Bukit Bintang and held a press conference, at which, some of the members of the public also raised other complaints against the MCA.

The Star and the NST did not carry a word on the facts of the event. Neither did any of the TV stations.

On the other hand, almost all the mainstream media covered the story about the three Chinese men drinking beer in the vicinity of a PAS operations room. The story cast a negative light on the credibility of PAS as an Islamic party and was exploited by the BN, with Najib Razak leading the BN in skewering PAS over it.

So, just reporting the facts alone is insufficient, because which facts are selected and how they are handled (the slant) by the media are also important factors to consider. In fact, two different reporters writing about the same set of facts can produce two vastly differing news reports, depending on each writers' value judgements, political opinions, and cultural upbringing. Equally important are the facts that are omitted - which can often radically change the complexion of an article.

It should also be emphasised that “media” here does not refer just to reporters (as was the focus of Rehman) but also editors. This is because reporters could have gathered the facts and presented them clearly in their reports, but the editors have the final say on whether the facts - and which facts - see print. And so, editors, too, must respect the facts in order to help readers think for themselves.

But based on the examples given above, the selective presentation of the facts by the NST and The Star is evidence of their bias. Their behaviour arguably amounts to thinking for their readers (as in vote for BN) as opposed to helping the readers think for themselves (as in here are the facts on the various parties contesting to help you to be well informed about which candidate or party to vote for).

The Big Picture

Another related matter is that facts must also make sense to the readers. And in order for that to happen and to help readers to thnk for themselves, the facts should be adequately presented or put in context, especially the historical context.
Readers must be given the Big Picture. Take as an example the prime minister’s directive to BN elected representatives to declare their assets every two years in order to help check graft and create a clean BN government.

That was the fact given by all the mainstream media, which basically acted as a mouthpiece for Abdullah. But what was missing is the historical context, namely, the fact that the policy of asset declaration was already practised under Mahathir’s premiership.

Without giving the historical fact of the policy, the media did not help the readers think about comparing Abdullah’s policy with Mahathir’s ­- especially why Abdullah’s policy would have a chance at checking corruption where Mahathir's failed. That Mahathir’s policy did fail is obvious given that Abdullah, in his strong focus on fighting corruption, did not mention that his policy was a continuation of Mahathir’s.

But International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz did tell the media that Abdullah’s policy was already practised under Mahathir as prime minister. (This came only a day after the media reported on Abdullah’s policy.) As we highlighted in an earlier piece, neither NST nor The Star reported that fact; only theSun did although it did not help readers with any attempt at analysing and comparing the policies.

Whether or not Rafidah offered the remark, the media should present all the facts of Prime Minister Abdullah’s asset-declaration policy and its historical context.

It is too simplistic to tell reporters to just get the facts and present them clearly. While that is a very important part of journalism, reporters and editors should also keep in mind other equally important aspects as well ­ that the facts should be presented fairly and adequately, not selectively or devoid of context i.e. important and critical facts should not be omitted either. Only then would readers be well informed enough to think for themselves.