NST's biotech debate comes two months late

Two letters published by the New Straits Times in the past few days merit attention. They show why “developmental journalism”–which amounts to “government-say-so” journalism, in practice, with our mainstream media--does not help anyone and can even tarnish the image of the people in government.

The first letter ran on 3 Aug came from a reader, H.P., who pointed out some negative effects of genetically modified (GM) foods. The following were cited to make the case:

a) most European farmers and consumers have opposed GM foods because of “growing (scientific) evidence” of the negative impact on health, the ecology and agricultural biodiversity
b) recent studies showed dangerous signs of DNA transfer from the GM foods to the human body
c) the failure of GM cotton in Indonesia (and the impact on the farmers and economy)
d) the agricultural economy in Argentina wrecked by GM soya beans

H.P. hoped that the government would pause to consider the ill effects of the biotechnology industry before rushing headlong into it.

The second letter appeared a couple of days later. It is from Kelvin Keh, executive director of the Malaysian Biotechnology Information Centre (Mabic). He disagreed with H.P. and specifically refuted only point (a) above. Keh said H.P. gave only one side of the picture regarding the situation in Europe, saying:

“What should have also been mentioned is that Europe has, in its recent past, endured a string of food and health scares that have left public confidence at an all-time low. Added to that is the strong campaigning of anti-GM groups in Europe.”

But then what accounts for the apparent success of the anti-GM campaign? GM foods are typically pushed by big multinational companies that are often a lot more well endowed financially than the many anti-GM groups put together. Surely these big corporations often with a global reach can outspend their detractors in the PR campaign? So, why is their campaign not as strong? Are the European public that dumb to be duped by the anti-GM groups?

Keh then moved on to state that the situation in the US is different. GM foods are found by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to be “as safe as (that is, no more dangerous than) its ‘conventional’ counterparts.”

Ok, but should not Keh also mention the fact that the US proponents of GM foods are huge multinational companies – like Kraft, Monsanto and StarLink – that have easily outspent their opponents in lobbying the US government?

Still, Keh should be given credit for he later also chided proponents of GM foods for “tacking on too much hype to their research, even before tangible results can be obtained.” He added:

“Essentially, both sides (detractors and proponents of GM food) must share the blame for creating a most confusing and controversial situation over a field in which the scientific concepts and advancements are already complex enough. No wonder the public is confused.”

Keh also tried to assure H.P. that Malaysia also monitors the GM food processes to “ensure the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology”.

Kudos to H.P and Keh despite their differences or, more correctly, because of them.

What about the NST for running both letters? For the answer, let us first go back to mid-June.

That was when PM Abdullah Badawi took time from his vacation to attend the biotechnology convention in the US. Remember, the PM was all gung-ho about propelling Malaysia into the biotech industry? Also recall the media then, including the NST, had only good things to say about the biotech industry?

Why, the NST even despatched a couple of reporters to interview Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Dr. Jamaludin Jarjis. As we pointed out earlier (see entry on 23 June), the reporters asked only one question about the negative consequences of the industry and the minister rubbished the concern by saying that the consequences had stemmed from fiction promoted through books and movies on Frankenstein.

Well, in the light of the two letters above, what does the minister have to say now? Unlike the minister, both H.P. and Keh did not insult the public’s intelligence, and their arguments were logically made, backed by evidence.

H.P.’s letter also points out a problem with the two reporters who interviewed Jamaludin. How could they have been so unthinking in their acceptance of Jamaludin’s Frankenstein comment in response to their question about negative effects?

It is hard to imagine that the editor of the NST could send two reporters out to do the interview without making sure they were knowledgeable about the issues surrounding biotech. Just as it is hard to imagine the two reporters so ill-prepared for the job as to not find anything odd with the minister’s Frankenstein comment.

Hard to imagine, which is why we believe the reason for the glaringly poor interview more likely lies elsewhere.

As mentioned earlier, the interview with the minister was published in the NST following the media’s high profile, uncritical promotion of PM Abullah’s interest in the biotechnology industry for further development of Malaysia. All we got from the mainstream media then were only the good things about the biotech industry. It was PM knows best.

It was in this context that the interview was basically a vehicle for the minister to promote the PM’s push for biotech post-haste. The reporters pushed on their recording mode and just listened and took down notes. Whatever the minister said, including the ridiculous Frankenstein comment, was unthinkingly accepted. A classic case of “government-say-so” journalism.

These two letters show that had the reporters not just accepted the Frankenstein comment and instead asked follow-up questions, they might have drawn a more responsible response out from the minister. And if the minister continued with the insulting remark, they would surely help the public to know what kind of a minister they have.

Meanwhile, as much as we appreciate the NST for publishing the two letters, we also wonder why both these views (especially those of H.P.’s) could not have been raised earlier by the NST back when the PM made biotech along with GM foods a hot issue.

Would it not have been far better to have the pros and cons of biotech and GM foods debated back then when the public’s attention was more focused on the topic? That way, the public would have ended up far more informed and in a sustained, meaningful way.

The true objective of developmental journalism would also have been achieved – namely, genuine consideration of the good as well as the bad surrounding an issue so that measures to tackle any negative impact could be made an integral part of official policies. This would help the public and the government to deal with such negative impact systematically and effectively where necessary.

Again, we cannot help but think that the NST was all too eager to serve as cheerleaders for the PM back in mid June. A case of PM-knows-best or “government-say-so” journalism.

So, back to the question posed earlier regarding the NST’s publishing of H.P.’s and Keh’s letters discussing the pros and cons of biotechnology in the past few days – what should we make of the NST’s coverage? Our response: thanks, but no thanks.