Three against One on TV1's Debat Perdana

TV1’s Debat Perdana (Premier Debate) series has been a welcome change from the lacklustre forums that used to grace RTM’s regular programme schedule in the past.

The series is one of the rare occasions when opposition politicians have been allowed to appear – and to actually speak – on television. For this alone, credit should be given to RTM. The opposition speakers, however, were up against great odds.

The 'live' debate last night on the topic "Racial Interaction Enhances Unity" featured two opposition speakers in a panel of four - comprising a DAP MP (Chong Eng), the PAS youth head, the vice-chancellor of UiTM, an UMNO MP - as well as a moderator. Sparks flew and the audience was held enthralled.

The debate, the third in the series so far, is supposedly aimed at raising public awareness of the need to nurture the spirit of unity from a young age and to promote ethnic integration. The series is a joint effort by the Information Ministry, the Education Ministry, the Higher Education Ministry and the Prime Minister's Department.

For a forum that was discussing racial integration, however, the composition of the panel yesterday was disappointing. There was only one non-Malay (the only woman) out of the five people involved (including the moderator).

Otherwise, on paper, the panel looked okay. One ruling coalition politician, one academic, two opposition politicians, and a moderator.

In practice, however, the “debate” turned out to be three against one – the moderator, the UiTM vice-chancellor (who came off sounding like an UMNO politician), and the UMNO MP ganging up against Chong Eng. At one point, the UiTM vice-chancellor appeared so gung-ho that it prompted Chong Eng to comment that he seemed pretty adept at politics.

The moderator was far from neutral. He repeatedly grilled Chong Eng like she was in the witness box, interrupting and cross-examining her statements as well as demanding “Yes or No” answers to his interrogative questions.

At other times, when Chong Eng raised what appeared to be valid points, she was interrupted or side-tracked. For instance, when she highlighted the bumiputra/non-bumiputra dichotomy and its effect on national unity, the moderator moved on to other issues. Hardly the role a moderator is supposed to play.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe you could argue that the moderator wanted to extract Chong Eng’s real stand on the issue of vernacular schools and racial integration via national schools. Maybe you could say his questions were aimed at following up on Chong Eng’s earlier statements. Fine.

But the question is: why did the moderator not apply the same critical and adversarial approach when dealing with the other speakers? For instance, the UiTM vice-chancellor, who appeared to be visibly irritated with Chong Eng's views, was hardly cross-examined or grilled the same way Chong Eng was.

While RTM should be commended for the series’ concept, it is obvious that the programme last night was stacked against the opposition politicians in a number of ways – mainly via the moderator’s lack of impartiality manifested in his interruptions of dissenting or “sensitive” views from Chong Eng and through his cross-examination of opposition politicians who raise views that are not in line with government thinking. Contrast that with the kid gloves’ approach used when dealing with speakers articulating establishment views.

RTM needs to look into this seriously as this gross bias in handling the “Premier Debate” – a commendable concept on paper - risks turning it into a farce. Unless of course, this bias was purposely introduced into the programme to ensure that the government’s view prevails during the 'live' telecast.

One story, different angles - and it's all about $$$

A most instructive example of how media’s interest influences news coverage can be clearly seen in the way the forum on "The Truth in Readership Data" organised by Media Specialist Association was reported by The Star and The New Straits Times on 22 September.

Before examining their coverage, a little background is in order.

About a month ago, the NST came out with the story about how some of the newspapers were unhappy with the way AC Nielsen was doing newspaper readership research in Malaysia.

The NST extensively quoted the Group Editor-in-Chief of theSun, Ho Kay Tat, who, among other things, attacked the methodology of A C Nielsen and was troubled by Nielsen’s monopoly of the business.

The NST pretty much agreed with theSun.

The Star, however, did not respond to the topic when contacted by the NST. Why? The NST did not say but one did not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it. The Star was happy with Nielsen because the Nielsen numbers showed it had the largest circulation and paper sharing among the English dailies.

A few days later after the NST first reported the story, PM Abdullah Badawi launched the new daily, KOSMO. At that time, the PM was asked for his views regarding the dissatisfaction that some newspapers had with Nielsen.

The NST and theSun filed the story in very much the same way. That is, although the PM were somewhat reluctant to comment initially, both papers gave emphasis to his remark that the people at the newspapers needed to sit down and work out the issue together.

NST Editor-in-Chief Kalimullah Hassan even devoted quite a bit of space in his paper opining about how important it was to have readership research carried out properly because of the large sums of advertising revenue involved. He also appeared interested in having another readership research agency instead of just Nielsen.

The Star, not unsurprisingly, gave a different focus. While it also gave coverage to the PM’s remark about the newspapers coming together to address the issue, its emphasis lay elsewhere. The story led with the idea that the PM was bemused at being asked the question about the dissatisfaction with Nielsen’s readership research.

NST blacks out forum speaker

And that was the last we heard from them about the issue until the forum by the Media Specialist Association on 22 September.

This time the NST and The Star differed sharply in their coverage.

First, consider their headlines. “New Methodologies Needed to Collect Data” blared the NST. “Do Own Research, Media Told” thundered The Star.

The NST ran the following as the lead paragraph:

“Media planners at a forum on newspaper readership said today that the way readership data is collected may have to be changed amidst disputes by publishers over numbers provided by the country’s sole provider of these figures, Nielsen Media Research.”

The Star gave this:

“Newspapers should conduct their own research on what readers want to complement findings from the sole media research agency in the country, a forum called The Truth in Readership Data was told.”

What was particularly interesting was how a couple of speakers at the forum were covered.

The Star played up Henry Tan’s view most prominently, setting the overall tone of the paper’s report.

Tan is the managing director of Mindshare, a media planning agency. He slammed newspapers blaming Nielsen for giving unfavourable findings of their readerships. He also opposed having more than one reader research agency because that would only confuse advertisers (nothing new here as the NST a month earlier quoted Nielsen on it and theSun rebutted by saying advertisers deserved more credit than that.)

What about the NST? It did not have anything on or from Tan. Not a word!

Instead, the paper gave the most prominent coverage to Tan Sri G. Gnanalingam, who reportedly “ poked holes” in the readership studies by Nielsen.

Gnanalingam echoed the view given earlier by the NST by criticising Nielsen’s methodology and monopoly. He reportedly said the present controversy happened because Nielsen numbers were so "fantastic" and unaudited.

The Star did not completely ignore Gnanalingam. But it gave him only about half a dozen sentences, unlike the NST, which gave twice as many.

What was most interesting, though, is the way the papers referred to him. The Star merely identified him as Executive Chairman of Westport Berhad. The NST, however, also recalled his past as “one of the country’s doyens in advertising and marketing.”

The differences between the two papers’ coverage clearly reveal their sharp differences based on their respective interests.

What about the public and newspaper content?

As interesting as all that may be, what is most important here is not revelations of the papers’ bias. Rather, what has it got to do with the public relying on the papers for their daily news information?

Advertisers obviously are interested in the story but only when the top dollars they pay a paper to advertise is not getting the kind of readership the paper claims to be getting. Hard to imagine they would give a hoot if the particular paper is actually pulling more readers than they paid for.

No, instead, it would be the specific paper that would cry foul then.

The whole thing is obviously all about money and which paper should have the lion’s share of it.

Does it have anything to do with the general public or readers? Only if they owned shares of a newspaper company. The issue has nothing to do with the content of the newspapers – how balanced, fair, informative, intelligently covered the story is, etc - things that the general readers care the most.

Imagine if the newspapers are just as seriously concerned about how well they cover their stories.

Better yet, imagine if we have papers reporting on issues reflecting the many different political positions in the country because different papers, each reflecting a different political position, are allowed to exist and circulate freely in the market. Contrast that with what we have now: newspapers that are in one way or another mouthpieces for Barisan Nasional politics.

Some insist that we already have many newspapers, each reflecting various political positions, freely circulating in the country. They continue to equate political organs like PAS’s Harakah to the NST, The Star, and theSun. Such a view comes from people who either are interested in misleading the lay person or are so firmly brainwashed by the Barisan Nasional’s ideology as to render them incapable of telling the difference.

Sadly, some of these folks include those from the mainstream media like the NST, The Star, etc. Perhaps that explains why there is hardly any concern or debate among these media about the content of their political coverage. Instead what we have are newspapers echoing Barisan Nasional views - the only difference being how shrill or loud their views are.

Merry-go-round across the Penang channel

First they promised to widen the Penang Bridge a few years after it was opened in 1985.

Then in the late 1990s, they talked about building a bridge-tunnel Third Link (the First Link is the ferry system, the Second Link is the existing Penang Bridge), from the north of George Town to the mainland, north of the Butterworth town centre.

But then the route for the proposed Third Link was shifted to the south of Penang Island to Batu Kawan when they found out that the northern route would disrupt shipping.

More recently, there was talk of widening the Penang Bridge again. But wait, the original Penang Bridge plans could not be found. But then someone in Butterworth, who had worked in the construction of the Penang Bridge, said he had some of the plans. Ooops, now what?

Months later, it was back to new southern route for the Third Link again. “KL nod for link”, said The Star with a banner headline on Sept 14. This time the Federal Government had apparently approved the Third Link. This new link, the Deputy Works Minister said, had been identified as one of the projects under the 9th Malaysia Plan, which starts in 2006. Apparently, some 70,000 vehicles use the existing Penang Bridge daily, while its maximum capacity was 100,000 vehicles.

But wait, the Federal Government, in another about-turn, said it had decided to widen the Penang Bridge after all, according to Samy Vellu (The Star, 21 Sept)! (This time no talk of missing Penang Bridge plans thwarting such widening work!)

Apparently, the Third Link, which would cost more than RM2 billion, would be too expensive….

By then, Penang Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon had apparently seen the light and said that the state government was asking the Federal Government for funds to improve its public transport system. Finally! Indeed, what Penang badly needs is a vastly improved public transport system.

Ferry service slashed

In all the recent talk about building a new bridge or widening the existing bridge, The Star has studiously avoided discussing Penang’s famous ferry system. How many people know that the ferry service has been slashed since the 1980s? Why was it slashed? When the Penang Bridge was opened in 1985, about a dozen ferries served passengers and vehicular traffic. It was an excellent service with waiting time a matter of only a few minutes.

Contrast that with the situation now, when only some half a dozen ferries - often fewer – link the island to the mainland. At night, after 9.30 pm, the ferry service is reduced to a skeleton service even though there are long queues of vehicles on the Penang Island side still waiting to cross over to the mainland. After 12.30 am, no more ferries until dawn.

Because of the reduced frequency, many car-owners have just given up on the ferries and turned to the Penang Bridge, further clogging up the Bridge. Why have our newspapers not highlighted the poor ferry service? Is it not politically correct?

Wouldn’t it be far more economical to drastically improve the ferry service as an immediate measure? More ferry terminals could be built in different parts of the island and mainland so that more ferries can transport vehicles to various parts of the island/mainland, thus by-passing and easing the jams on clogged roads on the Island.

If at all a Third Link is necessary, wouldn’t it better to have a public transport link e.g. a rail link from the mainland to the island, which could then be integrated with other modes of public transport on the island and the mainland?

"The state government should takeover the management of both the ferry service and the Penang Bridge," said one inspired ferry-hand, gazing at the long queues at the ferry. "That way they can use the profits from the Penang Bridge to subsidise an improved ferry service as a public service."

Such thinking is beyond our mainstream media and this is where they have failed us. By not exploring and discussing all the options especially state government ownership of the Penang Bridge, an expanded public transport system, a new rail link and an expanded ferry service, they have narrowed the range of options. They are content to confine themselves to the limited options the government has presented to the public.

Perhaps our media are fearful of upsetting the powers-that-be who are known to favour certain options (preferably those with toll!) that may not necessarily be the most cost-effective or sustainable for Penang. Wonder which "lucky" firms get the multi-million ringgit construction contracts in the end. And we wonder if our media will bother to probe further.

The Star's Tioman crusade nudges out Anwar

For the past two weeks or so, The Star has appeared to be on a crusade. Not a day passed without it publishing two, sometimes even three, reports on the planned marina project that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) has given the green light for development on Pulau Tioman. And most of the reports have questioned or criticised the project.

Meanwhile, the New Straits Times and theSun have either ignored the story or given it an indifferent treatment.

The obvious question is why the big discrepancy in the treatment of the story?

While we do not or should not expect all media to have the same issues of concern or emphases, should the NST and theSun not have given the story more significance that it deserves? A RM40 million marina project was approved by the EIA and, should its construction be allowed to proceed, will change Pulau Tioman forever, very likely for the worse.

On the other hand, The Star has not just provided extensive coverage of the story but also appeared interested in blocking the construction of the marina project.

Several reports on the Tioman story featured people and groups that questioned or opposed the project. And, mind you, they included foreigners, from places such as Singapore and India.

The paper has also been running an online poll to find out whether people were in favour of the marina and whether the marina would boost tourism. As of Monday, 13 September, more than 90% who took the poll said no to both.

Pressure against the marina project further mounted when the Sultan of Pahang was reportedly unhappy with it as well.

One might reasonably ask: Is The Star biased by giving many reports critical of the marina project?

To say that it is would be unfair. It is not as though the paper has given only one side, the critical view, of the issue. The many more reports that questioned or opposed the marina could actually be seen as a reflection of the reality, i.e., many are not happy with the marina.

So, kudos to the paper for practising what can be called reality-based journalism. But wait, there's more...

Glossing over a rousing send-off

The real problem with The Star is thus not whether it is biased here. Rather, it has to do with the fact that it is inconsistent with practising this basic form of journalism, as it is missing where other equally important issues are concerned. Two examples would suffice to illustrate.

One is the coverage of Anwar Ibrahim at his departure for Germany for his surgery. Between 5,000 and 10,000 people were at KLIA for his send-off. Can anyone think of another Malaysian, let alone a Malaysian who was in prison for the past few years, getting such a response? Here was a person who had been written off by many - whose views readily found their way in the pages of The Star and other mainstream media - as no longer a factor in the Malaysian socio-political landscape especially after the very poor showing of Keadilan at the election in March - and look at the rousing reception he received upon his release.

But all that The Star could come up with was at best an indifferent coverage on page 4 of Anwar’s stunning send-off (as we had pointed out earlier). That the coverage fell short of what the reality was rightly suggests that the paper glossed over that reality.

One is tempted to wonder if The Star's sudden interest in Tioman was aimed at nudging the gripping Anwar story off the main pages and at distracting Malaysians from the euphoria surrouding his stunning release. Certainly, The Star's newfound environmental crusading zeal has come at just the right time to knock Anwar out of the main pages.

Spinning the anti-ISA campaign

Another issue that has long suffered a distorted reality as far as The Star’s coverage is concerned is the Internal Security Act (ISA) along with the people who have been detained under it. The typical coverage of it would suggest that only a few Malaysians linked to some NGOs or from the opposition oppose the ISA. These Malaysians were out of touch with most Malaysians who, as assumed by the media, supported the ISA because they had voted Barisan Nasional to power at every elections!

These out-of-touch Malaysians would also be considered as unpatriotic for their tendency to do the bidding of foreigners—in particular Westerners—associated with rights-based NGOs.

Such examples of inconsistency in the practise of reality-based journalism is what is so lamentably deficient about the The Star (and other mainstream media for that matter): they reveal the paper’s real bias.

Anwar vanishes along with crime wave

Anwar Ibrahim underwent surgery in Munich on Monday night (Malaysian time) as the world media looked on. The surgery proved to be a success and Anwar was able to walk a little after that.

But nothing much on Anwar’s condition yesterday and today in The Star, which only carried a small report today on the Federal Court decision allowing his appeal to be reviewed. That was on page 10, mind you.

By today, no report about the outcome of his operation – even though his successful op had hit the international news on Tuesday.

News of the boy with the bird flu-like symptoms being placed under quarantine in Kota Baru was relegated to page 6 today.

And what news item did the self-styled “People’s Paper” choose to place (with pictures) instead on its front page today? News of Vijay Singh replacing Tiger Woods as World No. 1 in golf.

Has The Star lost the plot completely?

Unlike The Star, theSun, to its credit, front-paged the news about the Federal Court decision on whether to proceed with Anwar’s corruption review. But it chose to play safe by relying on a report by national news agency Bernama.

It looks like Anwar has disappeared from the main pages of certain newspapers, just like the crime wave, which seems to have vanished into thin air as far as the papers are concerned. Crime wave? What crime wave? Even the regular updates on the sex/murder trials have disappeared. What seems to be highlighted now are "feel-good" reports of victims turning the tables on the baddies...or of cops successfully apprehending criminal suspects.

Hmm, wonder if these papers subscribe to the notion that “no news (or less prominently placed negative news) is good news.”

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.

Honey, I shrunk the NST

Reading today’s front page of the New Straits Times is like glancing through a history book. Two write-ups cover the whole page; they are written by no less than – in order of appearance from top to bottom – NST boss Kalimullah Hassan (along with a colour pix of him) and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself (with a pix of him when he was a baby seated on his grandfather’s lap).

Headlined “159 years… a small revolution”, Kalimullah’s piece essentially said that his newspaper, which he claims has been around for the last 159 years, is breaking with its tradition by publishing two versions simultaneously from today: a current broadsheet version and a new compact-size version (similar to a tabloid in size). It would have been nice had he introduced and justified this “compact concept” to the readers in a short-and-sweet fashion.

It seems rather odd that Kalimullah, like most journalists trained to write concisely and to the point, chose to beat around the bush before delivering his real message. He took the readers from the time the colonialist Portuguese came to this country, through to the Dutch era, and then to British rule, and, finally, to Merdeka with all its splendour. Sure, we are all in a Merdeka mood, but Kalimullah’s approach may well give some readers the strange feeling that the NST chief appears to be almost apologetic for having literally shrunk the paper.

Shrinking sales, shrinking paper

To give this “small revolution” its larger context – especially for those of us who have stopped buying or reading the NST or other mainstream newspapers - the NST is embroiled in fierce competition with the other mainstream dailies. For the NST, the compact version of the paper may well be the solution to its decreasing sales over the last few years – even though this may just be a case of form over substance.

As we all know, readership and advertising are the bread-and-butter issue for all profit-driven or corporate-based newspapers. They all need to increase, if not maintain, their respective readerships in order to attract a bigger pool of advertisers. In other words, these newspapers “offer” their readership to the advertisers in return for piles of advertising ringgit. This is why market research outfit ACNielsen Malaysia’s recently published readership figures have become a bone of contention for the NST and other dailies. The NST, for one, argues that the figures - especially those pertaining to its own readership - do not reflect the reality in the media industry.

The PM and his grandfather's story

The Prime Minister’s piece, “My Grandpa, Merdeka and I”, as the headline suggests, is about his own personal experience of celebrating Independence Day since 31 August 1957 when he was then a Form Five student. He brought the readers along the historical journey that this country went through. While celebrating the meaning of Merdeka, he, at the end of the piece, also cautioned readers and citizens not to “squander” our important heritage, i.e. independence and freedom.

The insertion of the prime ministerial piece only confirms, if at all confirmation is required, the close relationship that exists between the state and the media, in particular the NST. Of course, readers may be interested to know the experience and thoughts of the prime minister about Merdeka, but does it really merit front-page treatment? Besides, after 47 years of independence, pray tell us: who among us really has the “freedom” to gain access to the front pages of the mainstream press? And even if others, those outside of the corridors of power, did manage to get into the front page, in what manner were they presented by the dailies?

Kalimullah, in another piece about the controversial ACNielsen media ratings, “ACNielsen’s puzzling stand” on page 5 of the “Prime News” section, claimed that “Today, we (i.e. Malaysians) have the liberty to choose what we want to read, see, eat, and experience.” Oh yeah? Tell us another one. Since when do we have the freedom to read, see and experience what we want in the mainstream media?

Given the control over the media industry, the pattern of media ownership, and the curbs on freedom of expression, one is left wondering whether the only freedom Malaysians are left with is the freedom to eat what we want! Unfortunately, that’s not going to end our hunger for other freedoms – like the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Holy smoke! PAS makes it to NST's front page

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that Opposition leaders don’t often have the “privilege” of appearing on the front page of the mainstream newspapers in Malaysia. And if they do make it to the front page, it is only when they hit out at each other or they make political blunders. In short, their negative side - or what is made out to be their negative side – is what earns them the “ticket” to the front page.

Predictably, the New Sunday Times on Aug 29 ran a banner headline screaming across the front page, “Pas members slam Hadi”, accompanied by a huge photo of PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang captioned “Fending off the brickbats”.

The news published was about the opposition party’s general assembly where many of its delegates strongly criticised Abdul Hadi for what appeared to be his lacklustre speech to the party faithful. The tone of the news reporting implied that the party was in disarray and the party leadership clueless.

The PAS Youth wing was particularly forceful during the party meeting in its criticism of the party leadership. It said, among other things, that new strategies must replace rhetoric so that the party could come to terms with new political and global realities. It reminded the PAS leadership that there was a need for the party to re-invent itself so that it could remain relevant not only to the people on the East Coast but also and especially to those elsewhere in the country.

If, as is likely going by the NST’s record, the daily’s motive in placing this news item on the front page was to cast further negative light on PAS, it probably failed to a certain extent this time around. Why? Because such blatant attempts have possibly reached saturation point. In short, there has been media overkill. The opposition party has also experienced a reversal of political fortunes of late including its loss at the recent Kuala Berang by-election.

To hammer a political party that had already suffered a major setback is to be “exorbitant” and “extravagant” in the use of its editorial or journalistic discretion. If anything, this negative coverage may have backfired. Readers of this front-page news item might conclude that PAS as a party still has some democratic impulses (especially among its youthful members). Readers might also have seen PAS as a party that was keen on political rejuvenation and willing to appreciate differences of opinion.

Perhaps in this context, dailies such as the NST are the ones that urgently require intellectual and political rejuvenation. These dailies are so used to providing staid coverage of the general assemblies of the various Barisan Nasional component parties that generally do not encourage criticism of the party leadership.