The Great Malaysian Hiding Game

On 26 July, the youth wing of DAP or DAPSY was finally able to hold the debate on the Internal Security Act (ISA) between the BN’s Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz and the DAP’s Lim Kit Siang. This came after the police had earlier refused permission.

The event finally held was a first in Malaysia. Dubbed "The Great Malaysian Debate", it drew a 1,000-strong crowd, which spilled out of the packed Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall. This reflected the significance or controversy of the ISA for many Malaysians and not just those who could be present at the debate.

In short, here was (1) an unprecedented event (2) about a highly controversial law, that (3) attracted a huge crowd.

How then did the NST, theSun and The Star cover the event?

NST hides the story on page 14

Of the three, the NST showed the least interest in the story.

To begin with, it had the story on page 14 and at the very bottom of it. Even a story on a post-grunge band, Hoobastank (say what?) from Los Angeles coming to perform in Malaysia on 15 Aug got better treatment (it was placed at the top left corner of page 8). A picture of the band took up even more space than the report on the ISA debate.

To say the NST buried the story is a glaring understatement. More accurately, it was trying to hide it. To be fair, any newspaper would want to do the same when the content of the NST report is examined.

The NST also gave the story the shortest coverage compared to the other two English dailies. How short? Why, you could take your own sweet time to count the number of words and it would still take you less than half a minute. More precisely, at most, no more than 150 words.

And what did the report actually have to say? Of the seven paragraphs, four dealt with the basic information of what the event was, where it was held, who were the people involved. Of the remaining three, what Lim and Nazri said took up one and two paragraphs respectively.

Lim said the ISA should be abolished because we no longer live in a period of the emergency when the ISA was created as a tool to fight communism. Nazri said the ISA was still needed because there were other threats in the country now. He also argued that the people wanted it for the peace and stability in the country.

While we understand the media do not need to report on everything that was said, what the NST provided surely is woefully inadequate given that the event was a debate, and Lim and Nazri spoke for two hours.

The NST report also did not mention the size of the crowd that showed up for the debate or any kind of description of the audience.

Hmmm. All this makes us wonder: Did the NST actually send a reporter to cover the story? No bylines were given.

Lopsided Sun

Meanwhile theSun and The Star gave significantly more substantive coverage. The story took up about two-thirds of a tabloid page in each paper. Both papers also provided more of the views form Nazri and Lim from the debate.

The problem with theSun’s story was that it was lop-sided. Nazri’s view took up significantly more space than Lim’s. Even the headline came from Nazri, that parliament is not a place to debate ISA. It was a rather lame headline as well, as it is very much old news.

Star buries a newsworthy report

At least The Star’s headline - indicating a huge turn-out for the debate - was far more newsworthy. The paper also provided a picture while the other two papers did not. It was of Nazri and Lim shaking hands.

On the other hand, The Starsomewhat buried its report, which appeared on page 8, unlike theSun, which carried its story on page 2. Why could they not have given the story the appropriate treatment by front-paging it?

Sun puts Miss Malaysia contestants on front page

What did theSun have for its front page that day? There were two items: a story about the police giving National Service trainees a one-week respite for failing to show up for training as scheduled, and a picture of several Miss Malaysia pageant contestants surrounding an elderly man singing and playing his guitar at a home for the elderly.

Now, was it really important to have the picture of the elderly man on the front page that day? If the intention of theSun was to have a picture for the front page, why not a picture of something connected with the ISA debate instead (followed by the story on page 2)? Say, a picture of Nazri and Lim shaking hands?

Star frontpages Pak Lah with Spiderman and the Hulk

What about The Star? It had three items on the front page. One was on the government planning to review one-sided contracts given out earlier. Another, a Seremban salesgirl getting public and media attention for catching a snatch thief, thanks to her weight as she was able to sit on the thief before the police arrived. The Star was the only English daily to run the story about how she caught the thief a week or two ago. While we do not mind the paper trying to do a self-congratulatory piece here, surely it could have done this on some other page.

The third item on the front page of The Star was a picture of PM Abdullah Badawi visiting the mega sales carnival in Kuala Lumpur. The picture showed him with Spider-Man, The Hulk, and other comic super heroes!

Now, instead of this picture, would it not have been far more appropriate to have the picture of Nazri and Lim shaking hands? How often do we see these two men from opposing parties shaking hands? Would the picture alone not pique the public’s curiosity when they walked past news stands and get them to buy the paper?

Newsworthy criteria ignored

Above all, the debate story had three important newsworthy criteria going for it to be front page material. As mentioned earlier, it involved an unprecedented event, a controversial law, and a huge crowd.

On the other hand, the three major Chinese-language dailies–Nanyang Siang Pau, Sin Chew Jit Poh, and Oriental Daily--appeared to be far more cognizant of the news-worthiness of the debate story. They front-paged the story and accompanied it with pictures.

So, why were the English dailies, especially the UMNO-connected NST, trying to downplay the event?

No democracy in reality TV shows

The global phenomenon of reality TV has now hit our Malaysian shores with a vengeance. The latest craze is the singing-talent show genre - shows such as "Audition", "Who Will Win The Malaysian Top Star", "Akademi Fantasia" and "Malaysian Idol".

The mainstream media, especially following last weekend’s launch of "Malaysian Idol" on 8TV, have come out with write-ups about the apparent popularity of these TV shows. Nothing wrong with that, except when they started to get into loose talk about seeing democracy in action through these shows. This was especially the case with Hafidah Samat’s piece in the New Sunday Times on 18 July.

But what democracy? That the public can use their mobile phones to SMS their votes for their favorite contestants? Is this what democracy is all about?

To begin with, the contestants chosen to appear on TV were already picked by so-called experts or judges. What the public gets to eventually vote on and talk about has been vetted or chosen for them.

This can hardly be called "democracy at its most raw form" as claimed by a trainer on "Akademic Fantasia" in NST on 18 July. It is, at best, managed or nanny democracy.

Ok, so what if it is managed democracy? It still gives voters the freedom to exercise their right to vote for their favourite pre-selected contestants, does it not?

True, but only if democracy is reduced to nothing more than people who are entitled to vote exercising their vote. Back in 2002 before the US-UK invasion, Saddam Hussein gave every adult in Iraq the right to vote for the government. It was his way to show there was democracy under his rule. But, of course, we all know that the exercise was a farce.

There was only one opposition party running against Saddam, who, many believed, actually set it up for the occasion. No viable party dared run against him, just as the public feared reprisals if they voted against him. In short, just because the public gets the right to vote does not mean there is democracy.

We are not suggesting that what happened in Saddam’s Iraq is similar to the Malaysian public voting for their favourite contestants on the reality TV shows. No. Rather, something else is happening instead, that is, nonetheless, not quite the democracy as suggested by NST.

Excluded from voting

There is, to begin with, the fact that only people with mobile phones can vote. NST ignored it but it is not insignificant as quite a number of Malaysians are actually denied the vote only because they cannot afford a mobile phone. Or if they own one, they simply lack the budget to waste precious money on frivolous calls as voting for the contestants. In short, only those who have the money to throw can vote. Does this not smack of discrimination against the poor? Are the poor not entitled to vote?

Further discrimination is also present as far as "Malaysian Idol" is concerned. Those who happen to live on the east coast of peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak actually cannot vote even if they own phones or have money to throw away on frivolous calls. The show is televised on 8TV, whose signals are currently unavailable in those areas. So, are these folks also any less entitled to vote than those in the west coast of the peninsula?

Of course, things will change as 8TV is set to have its UHF signals available throughout the country soon. But, until then, newspaper write-ups should at least have the decency to point out the shortcoming to this so-called democracy in action. Instead, the writer of the NST article was all too eager to agree with the TV stations, producers and sponsors of the shows, and phone companies that the reality-show programming is nothing but a win-win situation for all concerned, including the public.

That a sizeable segment of the Malaysian public is excluded from this so-called democracy surely raises serious questions about the kind of democracy we are witnessing, if it is democracy at all. But the NST article hardly raised a pip about any of that.

Even Elton John was upset...

Something else can also be said about the voting done by those who can afford to do it. A month or two back, the US media reported that many who voted on "American Idol" actually did so with all kinds of reasons that had nothing to do with the singing talent of the contestant. These reasons included how good looking the contestants were, whether the contestants were from the voters’ hometown or from the same ethnic background, etc.

Remember, Elton John was so upset with the voting that he went public with his condemnation. He believed a few truly good and talented contestants were voted out even though they were far better singers than just about all the others contestants.

Ok, that was in the United States and so why should it apply here? Then, again, why are reality TV shows, which are popular in the US, also popular here in Malaysia? Just because they are two different countries does not mean that what happened in one country will not happen in the other.

Actually, the likelihood that the voting behaviour in the US will also be found here in Malaysia is strong. Why? Consider what the voters are asked to vote on and the circumstances in which they vote.

They are simply asked whether they like this or that contestant. It comes down to just their gut feelings of likes or dislikes. They are not asked by the shows’ producers to consider how well the contestants sang, performed or showed their charisma. They certainly are not asked about how well they enunciated the lyrics to the songs, controlled their voices, etc.

Indeed, the shows typically shy away from asking the voters to think about any of those criteria. The judges may have their views but the shows give the clear impression that those are just their opinions and voters should just go with how they themselves feel instead. The public is thus asked to vote based on just what fancies them even if it has nothing to do with what the contest is about.

Like choosing between Coke and Pepsi

The circumstances in which the voters make their decisions also do not encourage them to take time to reflect carefully on the contestants before casting their vote. They only have a short time frame to decide. And, of course, how well can anyone reflect on the contestants who are each given only a fleeting few minutes to perform?

This then is the upshot: whatever democracy being witnessed is nothing but voting based mainly on gut feelings. Thinking or reflection hardly comes into play, if at all; it is not required or encouraged. Rather, it is just voting for the contestant in pretty much a knee-jerk fashion based on one’s likes or dislikes.

What the reality TV shows are contributing to has hardly anything to do with what democracy is about, contrary to the suggestion by NST writer Hafidah. Rather, it is about consumer choice.

It is based on first whether you have want to buy (assuming you have the money) = or, in this case, to vote on - what has been pre-selected for you. It’s a bit like asking you whether want to buy coke or pepsi. It is also based on your gut reaction or feelings; nothing to do with taking the time to reflect on things carefully first (many know Coke and Pepsi are not nutritious and even unhealthy but they still consume them simply because they like their taste). It is all about having your interests instantly gratified. It is all about you, the consumer.

Democracy, on the other hand, is about people taking time to consider carefully the merits, platforms, issues of people or party that will benefit society. People in a democracy are considered citizens, not consumers.

Consumer or Citizen?

A consumer is one interested in promoting one’s interests or having them satisfied, the quicker the better. It is to maximize one’s needs with one’s means. It is to look out for oneself as number one. And if this means it has to be at the expense of others, well, so be it. It is what surviving and thriving in a market economy is all about.

A citizen, on the other hand, is as much driven to promoting one’s interests or having them met as making sure that this does not come too much at the expense of others. A citizen is open to considering the views of others with the aim that as many citizens in society can be served by well-considered policies that have been adopted.

People’s lives in a market economy are constantly immersed in the consumer culture. They are far more familiar with consumer choice than democratic choice. It is in such a culture that consumer choice gets confused with democracy. And marketers and advertisers have certainly contributed to this confusion through their loose talk of democracy.

More and more people, especially those of the younger generations, will be unable to comprehend what the fuss is about when asked to take time to deliberate carefully on the merits of candidates or parties in political elections so that democratic governance can be further enhanced. It is too much work. It is also so alien to their daily experience of the consumer culture, which is far less demanding on them because all they are asked to do is respond based on how they feel about this or that with no explanation needed.

Indeed, judging by the NST article on 18 July, this confusion is already evident in thinking of the writer and some of the people interviewed.

When a commentary is not a commentary

Does the Chinese press provide space for commentary? This question seems, needless to say, rather superfluous, for one will not fail to find a huge page of "reviews" or "opinions" in most of the Chinese dailies. A stringent test, however, reveals that the standards of these pages fall far short of acceptable benchmarks to qualify them as "commentary".

Many an article in the "commentary" sections can hardly be regarded as such, for it is no more than just a letter from the reader. Put differently, the so-called commentaries are nothing but the complaints and grouses of readers, pretty similar to what one gets to hear in kopitiam talk. Their views are repetitive and often miss the point. This is well below the criteria for a serious commentary.

To create a system of commentary monitoring, the Chinese press should put in place a set of strict criteria and basic benchmarks, so that all opinion pieces to be published will not fail to address the crux of the issues tackled. Real commentary must not simply be a piece to express one's complaints and grouses, but also be able to provide the reader with new knowledge, insights and perspectives.

This is not to belittle the importance of the daily complaints and grouses. What the Chinese press should have done is to help the reader differentiate between "commentary" and "letters to the editor". Because "commentary" and "letters" are often confused and lumped together, there is no improvement in knowledge to speak of, let alone an accumulation of new perspectives.

Free lunch for sections of the Chinese press

How much does it cost for a newspaper to carry a foreign article?

As far as some sections of the Chinese press in Malaysia is concerned, this is a non-issue. For years, it is believed that certain Chinese dailies in Malaysia have been lifting news and articles freely and excessively from their counterparts worldwide - especially from those in Taiwan and China - often, it is understood, without having to pay them even a penny.

Were these foreign media to take action and retrospectively bill those offending Chinese dailies, the total amount could be more than enough for Chinese-language foreign news organisations to station their correspondents here, and they could perhaps, after deducting costs, make a handsome profit out of it as well.

This violation of copyright and lack of attribution of their original sources suggest a lack of professionalism among some sections of the Chinese press.

Habitually and unashamedly, the offending editors are believed to cut features and articles out of a wide range of foreign newspapers and publications and pasting them onto their own.

While the names of the original writers and sources are often conspicuously absent, it is also not at all uncommon to see that many of the writings are edited beyond recognition just to make them appear as an authentic work of the very perpetrator. Editorial integrity clearly escapes these unscrupulous ‘media professionals’.

For those who read Chinese newspapers, it may be puzzling for them to come across some ‘prominent figures’ in certain local Chinese dailies.

Although the effort of the editor to profile a certain ‘prominent figure’ to the Malaysian reader is not to be dismissed, the exclusive interview with him or her is, more often than not, quite irrelevant in the context of Malaysia. After all, the ‘exclusive interview’ is most likely done by a mainland Chinese or a Taiwanese, devoid of Malaysian perspectives.

Paradoxically, with perhaps the largest Chinese media market in Southeast Asia, Malaysia has failed miserably to produce a credible Chinese daily that can match the standard of Lianhe Zaobao of Singapore, arguably the best Chinese newspaper in the region.

On the other hand, this cut-and-paste habit among some sections of the Chinese press reflects a severe dearth of cultural resources in Malaysia. Because indigenous works of high quality are scarce, the vernacular press is forced to source for articles from foreign media. The downside to this phenomenon, however, is the disrespect for copyright and a lack of attribution of sources, while the reader is kept in the dark.

In the past, such blatant behaviour received little attention from the reader because subscriptions to foreign publications were exclusive to a minority group of people. No longer. Today, foreign magazines and newspapers are easily available in some Chinese bookshops across Malaysia. With the advent of the Internet, these foreign publications and titles are also easily accessible online.

Without genuine respect for copyright, it is impossible to improve our investment in knowledge production.

Darren Kang's brutal murder: 3 different versions!

All four English dailies reported on 7 July the senseless murder of a Sheffield law student, Darren Kang. How did it happen? What caused it? The papers, believe it or not, came up with three different accounts initially.

Version 1

According to The Star and The Malay Mail, Kang was trailing behind his fiancee as they walked from a nightspot to a restaurant opposite. The girlfriend told Kang to keep up with her. He responded, apparently playfully, by saying that he would - if only she would say “I love you” to him.

It was enough for a group of youths seated at a table in the restaurant to make fun of the girl and Kang. The latter was bothered and confronted them. That sparked off a fight, leading to Kang’s death.

Version 2

Not true, according to The New Straits Times on 7 July. Rather, it began with Kang and his fiancee plus two other friends leaving a pub for a restaurant opposite. As they were seated at a table in the restaurant, the following took place, according to the paper:

“a group of eight youths, believed to be in their 20s, seated at the next table, passed remarks about his girlfriend’s blouse. Kang took exception to the comments and confronted the youths. It is understood that the commotion was broken up but a fight ensued later, when the group of youths got more help from outsiders.

"Brickfields police chief Najib Baharuddin said Kang was hit on the head with a blunt object. His two friends and fiancee were unhurt.”

Version 3

Wait a minute. That was not how it happened, according to theSun, which gave this account, instead:

“It was learnt that Darren (Kang), who was with his 24-year-old fiancee, had been to a pub opposite the restaurant with two male friends earlier.

"After they left the pub, Darren and his fiancee decided to have supper at the restaurant, where a group of at least 15 youths seated there began staring and whistling at the fiancee.

"When Darren walked up to the group and chided them, several of them stood and shouted vulgarities at him and began beating him up. When he put up a struggle, the rest of the group joined in.”

Where are the sources?

Unbelievable. All of it reminds us of the Japanese play Rashomon. The sad part of it, of course, is what happened tragically to Kang was no fiction.

How could three different accounts have come about? Also, a major problem with the accounts offered by NST and theSun is that they did not bother to identify their source of information. What has happened to this basic rule of news reporting?

The Star and The Malay Mail at least did the proper thing by identifying Kang’s fiancee as the source.

Had NST and theSun revealed their sources, they would have helped the public to understand the different accounts. Especially if the accounts had come from witnesses as they are known to differ. Identifying the source would even have helped the papers. They would not come across as doing a shoddy job and confusing the public as a result.

Back-tracking

A day later on 8 July, the media reported that the police had apprehended a group of suspects. NST ran the story in its front page (a second story on page 3 focuses on Kang’s fiancee). But guess what? It has conveniently forgotten about its account of the events leading to Kang’s death given a day earlier. Instead, it ran basically the same account given by The Star and The Malay Mail from the very beginning.

So, why the change, NST? Looks like the paper or its reporters goofed in the initial report on 7 July. But why then no apologies offered for the error? Also, what is the source of this second account?

As for theSun, it also featured a report on 8 July on its front page. But the focus was on the picture of the group of suspects handcuffed to one another. The brief write-up stated, among other things, the same account as first given of the events leading to the Kang's death.

So now, we are down to two different accounts.

Has it become too much to expect the media to get their facts straight and identify their sources?

Sex and Sensationalism: Pandering to baser emotions

For the past few weeks, theSun has been publishing a Weekend edition on Saturday. It typically carries a number of analyses or opinion pieces. Nothing exceptional about that. Other papers also carry them, especially on Sundays. The Star, for example, has been doing that for some time now. However, there is a difference.

On the whole, theSun has provided more critical, balanced analyses or commentaries than the other English dailies. They are also unafraid to take on the government. For example, it was the only English paper to directly criticise Deputy PM Najib Razak for having the Air Pollutant Index (API) come under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) to prevent the haze reading from being ‘distorted’ by the foreign media and damage the economy.

At other times, theSun also took on state or local authorities. A good example was the Seberang Perai Municipal Council paying RM1.5 million for flowers to beautify its compound. After a news report followed by an editorial that (rightly) slammed the Council for the extravagance, the Council agreed to terminate the deal.

The paper has also expressed unhappiness with Parliament. It dismissed as trivial the Speaker of the House, under the initiative of the BN government, referring Karpal Singh to a disciplinary committee. Karpal had objected to the BN MPs not raising their hands during the oath-taking ceremony when Parliament had its first sitting on 17 May following the 21 March general elections.

theSun thus deserves credit for its critical, balanced analyses even if that means taking the government to task. It is doing something hardly seen in the other English dailies. We hope it will keep up the good work and set further examples for the other media to appreciate the meaning of publishing or broadcasting without fear or favour.

That said, theSun could still do better at times, like when it tries to analyse its or the media’s coverage of the Noritta Samsudin trial.

The article of 3 July offered a glimpse into the decision making on what headlines to use for reports on the trial. The writer indicated that reporters and editors often had disagreement. Some preferred to take the sensational approach while others did not, although the former appeared to win the discussion all the time. So far so good.

The problem is that the author concludes that because human beings are naturally drawn to the sensational sexually lurid headlines or content, there is nothing wrong with the press merely giving what the readers want.

To back the claim, the views of a former Health Ministry clinical psychologist were used. According to the psychologist, “those who complain of too much sensationalism are just hypocrites as this kind of news panders to their baser emotions... Let’s face it the newspapers are catering to the average person-not a saint or priest or nun on the Himalayas.”

What a ridiculous, irresponsible argument.

No one would disagree with the good psychologist that people as human beings have their baser emotions. But the point is not whether we have them or not. Rather, does that mean that it is for the press to exploit them to draw more readers?

The psychologist seemed to think so. So did the writer, who appeared to think that, in order to draw more readers, newspapers have to give them what they want, including pandering to them.
Going by their ridiculous logic, they would thus be happy or okay with exploiting women as sex objects to sell whatever the product may be. After all, ordinary men would want that because of their baser emotions. Why be hypocritical by fretting over how the exploitation would lead to the stereotyping of women?

Human beings are also prone to lust. Well, let us pander to this baser emotion as well. Come to think of it, why hit out against people who commit rape? Is this behaviour not a manifestation of our baser emotions as well? Why be hypocritical by denying this baser emotion?

Young children, especially boys, also like to watch violent movies. It is also part of their baser emotions. So why restrict movies and TV from any kind of violence and prevent the media from giving what the young audience wants? Instead of hypocritically restricting such content, allow the media to provide as much gory violence as possible to draw as many viewers as they like.

Instead of challenging the public to become more enlightened and, yes, civilized as human beings considerate of one another, the media should be allowed to exploit our baser emotions because it works – and succeeds in selling more papers. Never mind the means, it is the result that matters.

And if, in the end, we all end up acting like animals - well, so what? After all, it is that kind of existence rather than a saintly one that many human beings are inclined towards.

Forget about the history of human civilization and spirituality that has lifted the life and soul of human beings from baser emotions throughout the ages.

Shame on the psychologist and writer of the article for such a ridiculous, irresponsible argument.

Much talk about Razaleigh - but no newsreports...

The Star on 2 July provided the following blurb to a report on the possibility that Tengku Razaleigh will challenge PM Abdullah Badawi for the post of president of Umno:

“It's the most talked about topic in Umno but is probably the least published except for some Internet news websites and Harakah, the PAS newsletter, for obvious political reasons.”

In other words, the most talked about topic in Umno has been the least published in the mainstream media. The most troubling aspect of the report is that the paper did not find anything remotely odd or remiss about it.

The blindingly obvious question is how come this “most talked about topic in Umno” has been the least covered by the mainstream media.

Does that not say the mainstream media have not been doing their job, including The Star? Even though it finally ran the story, the topic is actually stale news now as it has been around for at least the past couple of weeks.

On the other hand, over the past couple of weeks or more, the paper and the other mainstream media have been replete with stories like:
whether there should be a contest for the top Umno positions,
which Umno members have expressed interests in running for the Vice Presidents' posts, and whether those Puteri Umno who no can longer remain as puteris should immediately go for top Wanita Umno positions.

All these topics have been allowed to hog the media limelight even though, by The Star’s own admission, they have not been the most talked about topic in Umno.

Is not how much interest or talk a topic has generated one of the criteria of newsworthiness?

Where was the paper with the story at least two weeks earlier?

On the other hand, consider The Star’s coverage of how much talk and interest the paper itself claimed its supplement, The Star Euro 2004 Special Edition, has generated among Malaysians. The paper saw it newsworthy to run not just one but at least four reports on it. Never mind that the newsworthiness was actually a very flimsy pretext for shameless self-promotion and congratulation, as we noted earlier (see entry on 24 June).

In finally coming out with the story on the possibility of Razaleigh challenging Abdullah for the top Umno position, The Star also took a dig at PAS. It said the story was published in Harakah much earlier for "obvious political reasons" i.e., presumably to portray disunity in Umno.

Well, there is little doubt Pas had political motivations in running the story earlier. After all, what is Harakah but its party organ or newsletter.

But what is The Star’s excuse for not covering the story earlier or in a more timely fashion, which is a cardinal principle of the press? And what is the excuse of the other mainstream media for still blacking out the most talked-about topic in Umno?

One cannot help but think that their refusal to cover this most talked-about topic in Umno altogether or in a timely fashion suggests they too have their political reasons, in this case perhaps to project a united Umno or a well-liked Abdullah as Umno president. In other words, these media are masquerading as newspapers practising journalism when they are little more than BN newsletters.