How did Mahathir "save" Rafidah three times?

Shortly after landing at Subang airport on Sunday, he (Mahathir) told a close friend that he had “saved Rafidah three times” in the past, the implication being that he expected more respect from the International Trade and Industry Minister.

The above quote came from an article written by Joceline Tan in The Star yesterday about the confrontation between Mahathir and Rafidah over Proton and the Approved Permits. Neither theSun nor the New Straits Times had anything on the three times Mahathir saved Rafidah.

Tan’s cryptic reference is most intriguing. What did Mahathir mean by saving Rafidah thrice? What were the circumstances leading up to them? Saved her from what? How come none of that was brought up before, when Mahathir was the prime minister?

Rafidah has been dogged by allegations of corruption and nepotism in the past. Did the three times Mahathir “save” her have anything to do with getting her out of those issues raised against her? Or did they involve some other shenanigans?

Can we the Malaysian public expect the mainstream media to go look for the answers to enlighten us instead of just waiting for handouts as usual? Or is that another one of those things that is just too much to ask of them?

TV3-8TV-Channel 9 owner gobbles up ntv7

There is yet another disturbing and disgusting development looming in the Malaysian media scene, but trust the mainstream media to be ignorant of it or take the couldn’t-care-less attitude towards it.

Ever heard of Media Prima (MP)? If not, it is time you pay close attention to it. You see, it will soon own all the non-governmental free-to-air (FTA) TV channels in the country. It already owns TV3, 8TV and Channel 9 (which is scheduled to resume broadcast early next year). And before long, it will also gobble up ntv7 (together with wowFM radio station).

Mainstream press not bothered

What is most troubling about this home-grown version of media monopolisation is that the mainstream press is not the least bit troubled by it. None bothered to solicit reaction from civil society or NGOs raising concerns about it.

About the middle of last week, the mainstream media indicated that MP has secured the privilege of being the first to negotiate a purchase of ntv7. theSun and New Straits Times reported on 14 July that MP’s privilege resulted from its offer to help restructure the debt of Natseven, owner of ntv7. Just business as usual, and both papers presented the story as just another run-of-the mill business news.

It was also the approach taken by Errol Oh even though he offered the most coverage of the story in The Star’s BizWeek Section on 16 July. But even as merely business news, the story was glaringly one-sided.

Oh quoted Jason Teh of SSB Securities, who commented on the current situation of having four competing FTA channels for advertising – the two government owned channels of TV1 and TV2 channels, MP’s TV3 (together with 8TV), and Natseven’s ntv7. This, for Teh, has created an “unhealthy competition” as it “has adversely affected the profit margins of all operators.” Reporter Oh just left it at that as justification for MP’s move to gobble up ntv7.

Consumers will suffer

But what about the consumers? When MP ends up monopolising all private FTA channels, does that not give it the power to dictate advertising rates? How is that healthy for advertisers and ultimately the consumers? Keep in mind that advertisers pass on the advertising costs to consumers who pay for them through their purchases. MP’s monopoly of the private TV channels will mean higher advertising costs to advertisers and, in turn, higher prices of goods and services to consumers. Why is the negative impact on consumers not part of business reporting?

Furthermore, none of the mainstream media raised any concerns about how the MP’s impending purchase of ntv7 will mean the latter will have sole control of all the non-governmental FTA channels.

Hello?? Whether you are a journalist or citizen, does the situation not stir in you the slightest concern over the fact that Malaysians tuning into private FTA channels will receive TV news, views and entertainment from just one corporation?

Tremendous power

Just think. When MP bags ntv7 and controls all private FTA channels, it will wield tremendous power over the TV news, views and entertainment Malaysians receive. On top of that it also currently owns, among others, a 43 per cent stake in publisher The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd, radio broadcaster Max Airplay Sdn Bhd, content creator Grand Brilliance Sdn Bhd, event manager Tiga Events Sdn Bhd and outdoor advertiser The Right Channel Sdn Bhd. Is it healthy to have just one corporation controlling much of what we read and watch?

Yes, we also have TV1 and TV2. Yes, they are state-owned channels but the BN government has long made use of them to serve only their interests when both these channels should be serving all other groups and political parties as well since they are publicly funded. Besides, what is private about private channels when they will all be in the hands of one owner?

Freedom under threat

What is especially disturbing is that ntv7 is actually more willing to cover non-BN views than TV3 and 8TV. An analysis of their coverage of the general election last year showed that TV3 is a lot more biased than ntv7. The fairer news coverage promised by ntv7 is now under threat when it is gobbled up by MP.

Given that MP’s impending purchase of ntv7 did not bother any of the mainstream reporters, the question of governmental regulations regarding MP’s impending monopoly was obviously not raised at all. But should the government not draw up regulations to check and prevent the monopolisation of the media, on which the public routinely depend for news, views and entertainment?

Is it not important to have many different media owners so that there will be healthier competition for advertising, which will help prevent further increases in the prices of goods and services? Is it not important to have many different media owners so that Malaysians will have a better chance of receiving more diverse news and views to help them to be better informed and contribute to a more progressive, democratic Malaysia?

If all that is too hard for journalists to grasp, then how about this: does not having more different media owners help them secure more freedom from the media owners in order to do their work with more credibility and integrity? Or are the journalists all too happy to be told what to report?

Reluctant govt, bad press and approved information

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi recently advised government agencies not to be ‘afraid’ of negative publicity that often comes from the press. He added that such so-called negative reports should be seen as ensuring government accountability, and that the press was only doing its job.

‘Nice words’ that come from the PM are normally taken note of by the mainstream media, and, predictably, last Sunday (17 July 2005) the Sunday Star ran an editorial headlined ‘Don’t worry about bad press’ that echoed the premier’s sentiments. As expected, the editorial didn’t really discuss in depth the importance of government accountability, transparency and press freedom. What the paper did was to parrot what Badawi said, which was merely to focus on government agencies and civil servants with regard to accountability and efficiency.

A paper that cherishes its true editorial independence would have called for, among other things, the close scrutiny of cabinet ministers’ words and actions so that the weaknesses of sections of the government would not be conveniently and squarely blamed on civil servants. This is where the media have a vital role to play to ensure that, say, corruption in high places can be fought, and the culprits brought to justice. The wrong must be righted, and the big fish must be caught along with the smaller ones.

The local mainstream media cannot afford to play footsie with ruling politicians and the government under the guise of misguided press-government harmonious relationship. This is all the more crucial if and when ministerial misdeeds cause immeasurable damage to democratic institutions and untold misery to the poor, the weak, and the underprivileged.

Of course, in order for the media to be effectively vigilant, certain laws will also have to be expunged from the face of the land, such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Internal Security Act. Another, the Official Secrets Act, would require fine-tuning so that only information pertaining to national defence needs to be protected from public view.

Otherwise, Malaysian public can only obtain information of social and national importance if and when there is spat between senior members of the ruling coalition. Using a current example, we only got to know who the holders of the coveted and controversial Approved Permits (APs) are after a heated argument between Proton adviser Mahathir Mohamad on the one hand and Minister Rafidah Aziz and the Abdullah Badawi administration on the other. To be sure, the issue of APs has been in the public domain for a long, long time as a result of widespread public suspicion that the secrecy surrounding them could lead to abuse of power and unfairness.

Today we see the mainstream press going to town with the list of AP holders after the Prime Minister’s Department released it. But remember, such belated ‘revelations’ are not due to any intensive investigative work by seasoned journalists. As any journalist used to regurgitating official press releases would attest, this AP list is yet another official handout from the government; so, any newspaper worth its salt cannot and should not claim credit for such so-called exposes. Instead they should bow their heads in shame for not asking the right questions and digging up the muck much earlier.

The Star Saga, Episode III: Straight From The MB

This latest episode unfolded yesterday with The Star publishing a letter from the Selangor Mentri Besar. Well, the MB is of course free to write his letter just as the paper is free to run it.

But do not look for the letter in theSun because you will not find it there. Why not? The paper, after all, has given the story the most coverage. And especially when it has also questioned the MB’s concoction of ‘developed’ status for Selangor. What better place for the MB to have his letter published and take it directly to his critics at the paper, especially R. Nadeswaran? Or so one would think. Now, one may wonder whether theSun just did not care to publish the letter. That is, if the paper received it. But this seems unlikely for reasons that can be found in the earlier episodes of this saga.

Similarly, do not waste time looking for the MB’s letter in the NST because it was not there either. Curious thing, this NST; it has been quiet on the issue the whole time. Hmm.…

And so, back to MB’s letter in The Star. It is as though the MB could not just rely on his clone, The Star, to set the record straight for him; he had to take it upon himself to do it as well.

Problem is, if he wanted to set things straight, he would be disappointed. His letter raises more questions for The Star’s readers who do not read theSun (bear in mind that many places in the country simply do not get the paper). Since The Star has not mentioned anywhere in its reporting about the controversy surrounding Selangor’s “developed” status, its readers would be wondering just what the fuss was about. Why did the MB have to write a letter to the paper? Doesn’t he have more important things to do in running the state of Selangor? Why was he so worked up, even sounding defensive, in his letter? Is there an issue with his claim of Selangor as a developed status? If so, what?

What indeed, “People’s Paper”? And as for the MB, just what part of the following sentence do you not get? Selangor does not become developed just because you say so.

The Star Saga, Episode II: The Clones Push On

In Episode I, which was reported about a week ago (see 30 June entry below) after R. Nadeswaran of theSun started raising questions about Selangor’s claim of being a “fully developed” state, two things unravelled in quick succession.

One, the National Productivity Corporation (NPC), which performed a study that became the basis of the Selangor claim, told theSun that they did not come up with the claim. What’s more, theSun found out that the study’s link to a Swiss institute, as reported by The Star, was bogus. theSun also reported that the public was critical of the NPC study for falling short of the standards of sound research and lacking ethical integrity.

And two, despite all that, the Selangor Mentri Besar was not bothered. Rather, he said he took it upon himself to concoct the claim of developed status for Selangor.

This prompted Nadeswaran to chastise the Mentri Besar in his Citizen Nades column on 6 July. Just the same, the Mentri Besar still planned to go ahead with the celebration bash.

This was duly reported by The Star yesterday. Nothing wrong with that. But The Star failed to perform its duty in a socially responsible manner; it did not state anywhere in the report that Selangor’s “developed” ranking was an arbitrary concoction of the Mentri Besar. It, of course, also ignored public criticism made against the action of the Mentri Besar.

Furthermore, The Star ended the report by quoting the Mentri Besar as saying that the NPC would have to answer to any criticism of the NPC study because Selangor state had not interfered in the study.

Certainly, the NPC has much to answer for, a point theSun had touched on. But the paper also called into question what the Mentri Besar has been doing. This is unlike the shameless “People’s Paper” that continues to serve faithfully as a mouthpiece of the Mentri Besar even though the whole galaxy has come to witness how the latter has made a mockery of himself by saying that Selangor is a developed state simply because he said so.

And so The Star, as clones of the Selangor Mentri Besar, pushes on....

Advertorials and journalism-for-hire

We have often highlighted the notoriety of the mainstream Malaysian newspapers for serving as a mouthpiece of the BN government. As sickening as their lack of editorial independence or integrity has been, it is, unfortunately, only half the story. Just as sickening is the other half that sees them very much at the beck and call of advertisers as well.

Many of us might be thrilled to find the newspaper is a bit bulkier, heavier when we pick it up every morning. A worthy buy, we may think, as we look forward to more news for the RM1.20 we pay for it. But when we open up the paper we quickly notice that the bulkiness is largely due to advertisements.

There are the conventional ads in the form of classified or display ads (of varying sizes, e.g. full or half page). There are also the advertorials, though only sometimes mentioned when used. No doubt, these types of ads routinely take up a good amount of newsprint.

But as though all that is not enough to fatten their corporate bottom line, the papers have also insidiously engaged in another form of advertising. This comes in the form of ads that masquerade as editorial content, but the papers could not be bothered to clarify. Rather, they appear eager to make available their journalists for hire to advertisers.

Such ads often appear in the paper’s special pull-out sections that are available just about every day. These sections may promote beauty products, fashion, health supplements, private colleges or universities, hi-fi sets, or just about any commodity in the global market economy today. Among the English dailies, The Star clearly leads in this kind of journalism-for-hire business.

Buy one ad, get one write-up?

Consider then a typical example of such an ethically bankrupt practice.

It is a pull-out section published on 28 June by The Star, and was proudly titled Starspecial instead of, more accurately, Advertorials. The 16-page section offered 15 ‘articles’ – these were actually write-ups of products related to the themes of parenting and observing a healthy lifestyle.

Twelve of the write-ups carried content solely on the specific commodities featured. They couldn’t even be considered public relations pieces even though whatever distinction between PR writing and ads has become increasingly blurred in this day and age of hyper-commercialism.

All 12 write-ups directly promote the specific commodities (whereas public relations conventionally focuses more on the image of an institution or corporation to create public goodwill). No bylines were given although the 12 write-ups were generated by the staff of the paper. On closer inspection, it is clear that the display ads in the pullout section are related to some of the write-ups. It is almost as though the paper has offered a free (or otherwise) write up for advertisers who bought advertising space in the pullout.

These write-ups are another form of advertorials and are thus ads just the same – not unlike the 18 display ads that were also splashed throughout the Starspecial section. There simply is no excuse for The Star not to label the 12 write-ups as advertorials.

The remaining three of the 15 write-ups came with bylines and a statement to the fact that they were presented as a courtesy of the specific advertisers. This is much better than the other 12 write-ups as it attempted to make clear the involvement of the advertisers. Interestingly, the three write-ups do not promote the particular product or advertiser as blatantly as the other 12 write-ups. (Well, how low can the staff of The Star get for promoting the commodities even more zealously than people connected with the advertisers themselves?) Nonetheless, the three more subtle write-ups on the products were still ads and therefore it should have been stated clearly that they were ads.

Forget journalistic integrity?

Granted, as private businesses, the newspapers need advertising revenue to be able to function. But the above collaboration between media and advertisers shows something unhealthy is at work. The advertisers are having the papers at their beck and call. And the papers do not appear to have the self respect for their own editorial content; instead, they seem eager to make available their journalists for hire.

Such a development shows that the papers are not merely depending on advertising revenue to function. After all, it is hard to imagine papers like The Star running short of revenue from carrying classified ads, display ads and even advertorials. What is happening, instead, indicates the papers are more interested in fattening their corporate bottom line. They are consumed by greed. Forget journalistic integrity or ethics. Which also means forget the readers too.

Now and then the media have reported on how the public was duped by advertisers. Well, can we really blame them when newspapers themselves are eager to bend over backwards for advertisers by having ads masquerading as news information?

We also wonder about the newspaper journalists. Do they not have a set of professional values or ethos so that they can use it to defend their editorial integrity to the people in suits or are they only interested in pursuing an ever-fatter bottom line? Is the power so heavily tipped against them that they risk being sacked should they go against corporate greed? Or are the journalists themselves just as eager to get into this ethically bankrupt business of journalism-for-hire?