The official gatekeepers of the breaking news

Why did the local TV stations fail so miserably in reporting the tsunami? An article in the Sunday Star suggests that it was the lack of freedom or even nervousness to report a major breaking news story independently - without waiting for an “official confirmation” or cue – that was the main reason for the delay in breaking the news.

As we all know by now, local TV stations failed to cover the tsunami story soon after the giant waves hit Penang and Kedah on 26 December. Many were understandably disappointed and angry with the stations, which soon became the butt of jokes.

Lat’s cartoon in the New Straits Times a couple of days after Dec 26 says it all: while one panel depicted international TV as showing the death and destruction caused by the tsunami, the few other panels showed the local TV stations blithely giving us their usual Sunday afternoon song-and-dance entertainment programmes.

The Sunday Star’s Dzireena Mahadzir offered a report on 9 January to give the local TV stations a chance to explain. Though late, her piece was still welcome.

But the article leaves us with more questions than satisfactory answers. Some of the purported reasons offered by the TV stations reveal a lack of commitment to serving the public need for timely, important news information.

Zam breaks the news to RTM!

Let’s start with RTM. Apparently, it was first alerted to an earthquake by Deputy Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin. You mean, no one else in the country felt the quake apart from Zam? Did RTM really have to wait for Zam’s “alert”? Hey, people from the north to the south of the peninsula were running out of high-rise buildings, but poor RTM had to be alerted by Zam!

Apparently, when the information was confirmed by the Meterological Department at 11am, RTM began running news updates, including crawlers on TV, through to the late night news. But it sounds like RTM’s continuous coverage (especially during the first few hours after the tsunami hit) focused only on the earthquake rather than the tsunami in Penang and Kedah.

Dzireena also quoted Zainuddin as expressing unhappiness with RTM for not following his directive to break the news on the earthquake. Nonetheless, the Deputy Information Minister was also quick to excuse RTM for ignoring his directive, saying it “is not a news but an infotainment channel.” The difference? According to him, an infotainment channel has scheduled programmes, which would be difficult to cancel. Huhhhh?

Which TV station in the world does not have scheduled programmes? Even all-news channels like BBC and CNN have scheduled programmes. Where does it say that a station – infotainment or not and keeping in mind that RTM supposedly became a saluran infotainmen (infotainment channel) only a few months ago – cannot interrupt the regularly scheduled programmes with major breaking news? Does infotainment not mean “entertainment” as well as “information”? Are breaking news stories not part of information? Many stations around the world – whether focusing on news or entertainment - have been known to stop their news programming whenever there is breaking news of public importance.

Oh dear, TV3 “power-less” to break the news

Well, what about TV3? What did it have to say for failing to provide early coverage of the tsunami story? Dzireena wrote, “According to its CEO, Datuk Farid Ridzuan, a power failure had hampered efforts by its dispatched staff from the Penang bureau to send over visuals to its headquarters in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.”

Say what? What power failure? My, oh my - when was this and for how long? No back up generators? Dzireena did not say. Is it too much to ask those questions and provide the details? Leaving them out suggests that Dzireena was too quick to accept whatever she heard at face value without probing deeper, hardly bolstering public confidence in her report.

TV3 suggested that since the power failure disabled the transmission of visuals, it could not offer the breaking story. But as a lay person quoted by Dzireena stated: “... even if the stations can’t get visuals, they can get the public to call in with eyewitness accounts.” Sounds like ordinary folks know better how to do journalism or serve the public than this supposedly number one TV station in the country.

TV3 also went on about how “it is not a 24-hour news station and therefore has its constraints and is not able to continuously run news.”

We all know it is not a 24-hour news station. What the statement suggests is, forget TV3 as an outlet serving the public need for timely information because even in times of major disaster it is still interested in sticking to its regular scheduled entertainment programmes, which also means serving the need of advertisers who had bought air-time for their commercials. So even if aliens were to land in Putrajaya, TV3 will continue with its usual broadcasting because “it is not a 24-hour news station.”

All that TV3 has given for its lack of early tsunami coverage are just pathetic excuses.

ntv7, stymied by red-tape, waits for green-light

Over at ntv7, a different reason was given: red-tape and the need to get the green-light from the official gatekeepers of the news. Upon being informed of the earthquake off the northwestern coast of Sumatra, ntv7 CEO Shazali Ramly considered it a national emergency issue. The station thus needed to follow its “internal standard operating procedure, which is to first follow closely the breaking news from the Information Ministry and then Bernama (the national news agency) for the final confirmation.”

Interesting procedure, especially its willingness to take its lead from and to be out-scooped by Bernama. But Deputy Information Minister Zainuddin defended the procedure by saying it is to ensure that stations do not “sensationalise news just for the sake of ratings”. Is ntv7 not responsible enough to break the news itself without sensationalising it? Even if it had to wait for official confirmation, why was there such a long delay? What else was needed other than an eyewitness account of a tidal wave hitting the coastal areas and wreaking havoc, damage and destruction?

Strangely, in Dzireena’s report, TV3 did not mention anything about an internal procedure at all. Does that mean it did not have one? If so, why the discrepancy between TV3 and ntv7? How does this square with what the Deputy Information Minister stated above?

Distrust of press freedom the root problem

Dzireena’s report ended by suggesting that there is room for an all-news TV station in Malaysia. Come on, what good will that do if such a station still has to wait for clearance from the official gatekeepers of the breaking news such as the Information Ministry and Bernama before it can report major breaking stories? Where is the media freedom to report a major development occurring before our very eyes, without having to wait for the green light from these official gatekeepers? What role do these gatekeepers have in deciding what makes it to the news on a daily basis and what doesn't? Is this why all the headlines in the various media look almost similar everyday?

Having more stations, more advanced technology is just putting the cart before the horse. What needs to be addressed first is the monumental official distrust of press freedom and public interest journalism as well as the fear of losing control over the type of news that is disseminated.

Stations and technology are mere inanimate things. The issues as always are how human beings put them to use and whether journalists are really free to report the news as they see it.