The mainstream media's Anwar dilemma

The sheer level of public interest in Anwar’s release has put the mainstream media in a spot and showed up their dilemma.

Prior to his release, the media had stuck to an unwritten code to marginalize or sideline any news of Anwar’s trial. This marginalisation began soon after the end of the first corruption trial, which had received much publicity and sparked public uneasiness over the bizarre trial proceedings.

The second trial (on the sodomy charges), by contrast, received less coverage. In the months that followed until his release on 2 Sept 2004, the name “Anwar Ibrahim” was almost taboo in the mainstream media.

Because Anwar received very little mainstream media coverage, some of these newspaper editors, mainstream political pundits and ruling coalition politicians mistakenly concluded that Anwar was no longer relevant and that the public had lost interest in him. Their sole gauge was the media coverage. The international media, to some extent, took their cue from the local media coverage, and they too fell for the line that Anwar was no longer relevant and did not generate as much excitement as he had during the heady days of reformasi.

So when Anwar was freed, the major newspapers were caught flatfooted. They had to choose which path to take. Essentially they had to choose between their own line – that Anwar was no longer relevant – and the reality that vast sections of the Malaysian public were intensely interested in what happened to him.

In the event, they chose the latter path – perhaps not surprisingly due to the increased newspaper sales and $$$ it promised – and gave plenty of coverage (but still short of the level and prominence of coverage the news deserved) to the dramatic release.

Journalists who had previously been running down Anwar in their reports were now scrambling to get their “exclusive interviews” with him.

Their newspapers still appeared to be uneasily trying to balance between the obvious newsworthiness of the latest developments and care not to displease their political masters.

On the day after his release, The Star’s V K Chin did not comment on the Anwar trial. The Star’s comment/editorial on Anwar only came two days after his release.

The informative ntv7 coverage of Anwar during its midnight news on the day of his release, which had been going well, was suddenly halted apparently due to “technical problems”.

On Saturday evening, some 5,000-10,000 reformasi-chanting Malaysians crowded KLIA to send off Anwar on his trip to Germany for vital surgery. That only merited page 4 treatment in The Sunday Star.

Yesterday, Monday, 6 Sept, the day Anwar was due to undergo surgery and the day the Federal Court was scheduled to sit and deliberate on Anwar’s application to have his corruption judgement reviewed, The Star strangely carried very little news of Anwar and related ongoing political developments. This at a time when the attention of the world was on Anwar and his plans. There was no attempt to discuss the altered political landscape and to enlighten readers as to what if any changes or reforms they could expect.

Is it back to the old style of coverage? It certainly looks like some of these papers are worried about upsetting their political masters through their increased coverage. On Monday, The Star front-paged the environmental deterioration in Pulau Tioman – a worthy and important story at any other time, but why at this time when the obvious story was Anwar’s arrival in Germany for surgery?

Then there was all that speculation about a “deal” between Anwar and PM Abdullah Badawi, which was much alluded to, hinted or suggested in the media, even though there was not a shred of evidence. A few of the alternative and foreign media writers were also guilty of such speculation without providing any evidence of such a deal. It’s fine to speculate, given the level of secrecy in Malaysia, but such reports should have made it clear that it was just that – speculation – and nothing more, rather than trying to pass it off as fact.

A couple of alternative media writers who were guilty of such lack of sourcing and the passing off of speculation as fact ended up with pie on the face when their errors and sloppiness were pointed out and they were forced to apologise. It’s a pity that those advocating reforms and change have themselves been found a little wanting in the practice of ethical journalism.