Positive vs negative journalism

Spotted this Bernama report in the Daily Express yesterday:

Foreign newsmen advised against negative reporting

Kuala Lumpur: Media practitioners, especially journalists, must be sensitive to the sensitivities of a country in their reports, taking into account the feelings of the Government and the people.

Deputy Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin said lopsided and inaccurate reports of a country would have a negative impact on the journalists who wrote the report.

Besides being mindful of the sensitivities, he said, journalists should also understand the people's culture and current developments in a country so that they would not write negative reports merely from brief visits to the country.

"Even though visiting or staying in a democratic country, journalists and the media must respect the sensitivities and be sensitive to developments in the country," he told a press conference after meeting 10 senior journalists from India who are visiting Malaysia under the Asean-India Journalists Exchange Programme here today.

Zainuddin said journalists' sensitiveness could help enhance government-to-government ties besides promoting bilateral relations to a higher level.

Zainuddin said negative reports written by foreign journalists about a country after visiting the country only briefly showed they did not value the bilateral ties and purposely wanted to create a misunderstanding.

Zam has raised some valid concerns about "parachute journalism". Some foreign journalists may indeed write about a country without sufficient background knowledge, though it is doubtful that there are many who intentionally want to create a misunderstanding and upset bilateral ties.

Zam should also be concerned about local journalists who view the world through rose-tinted glasses. These "positive" local journalists fail to report on serious shortcomings in government policy such as the failed privatisation policy, which has led to so many bailouts. Nor do they seem concerned about human rights violations such as the continued detention of ISA detainees in Kamunting. They omit anything that may seem inconvenient to the government and instead come up with fawning reports, which read more like propaganda material.

How about if we just forget about labels such as "positive" and "negative" reporting and try - to the best of our ability - to report the truth in all areas of national life? Is that too much to ask?

Chua Jui Meng "buried" by The Star

Now that nominations to the MCA elections have been made, “officially” kicking off the campaigning, how has the MCA paper, The Star, covered the politicking leading up to the elections starting today? Have things improved since our blog entry of 9 August 2005, when we found the paper failing its readers and basic journalism miserably?

Well, they have not. In fact, its coverage has become even worse in yesterday’s report of Chua Jui Meng, who is taking on Ong Ka Ting for the post of MCA President.

Both the New Straits Times and theSun each gave a report to Chua’s press conference at Corus Hotel. And both led with Chua’s complaints about the current MCA, calling it “undemocratic”, among other things. Both papers also touched on why Chua had to call for the press conference and what he thought of the three-page “report card” issued jointly by Ong and Chan Kong Choy following nominations.

The NST gave more attention to Chua’s reason for calling the press conference. He was reported as saying that he was forced to do so as he had no other avenue to get through to delegates and explain his stand. He said he believed the delegates were told to avoid him.

Chua also said he knew who instructed the delegates to avoid him but he apparently did not say who it was; both the NST and theSun did not mention any names.

Meanwhile, theSun gave more emphasis to Chua’s view of Ong and Chan’s “report card”. Chua reportedly said that he was “flattered” by it because it was actually based on his manifesto, issued early last month, soon after he declared his intention to run for the presidency.

Indeed, soon after Chua came out with his manifesto, Ong was asked whether he would also issue his. Ong reportedly said he did not see the need for it. Chua took a swipe at Ong’s change of mind in coming up with the report card with Chan a few days ago.

Blacked out

So, how did The Star cover the above issues? It deliberately blacked out important relevant facts, thereby skewing its coverage.

Chua’s press conference was mentioned in one of the three election-related reports today; but it was obviously buried. It took up the last four paragraphs of a 11-paragraph piece entitled “Candidates in last dash campaign before polls”.

While there was mention of Chua’s manifesto, it was skewed only to show him saying he was prepared to spend a lot of time working on it to deliver on his promises. The report blacked out Chua’s contention that Ong and Chan’s report card was based on his manifesto.

Furthermore, The Star had a statement on Chua’s claim that delegates were told to avoid him, but not about how Chua said he knew who had been issuing the instruction. Instead, the paper immediately stated that Ong and Chan had told delegates they were free to meet any candidates.

The Star also ran an analysis (as opposed to news report) by Wong Chun Wai (a news editor) entitled “VP race results hard to predict”. Of the 22 paragraphs, only paragraphs 14 and 15 deal with the race for the posts of president and vice president.

Wong was confident that Ong and Chan would win their respective contests. Then, he abruptly stated that Chua (and Ting Chew Peh) had held a press conference—but nothing on any of Chua’s controversial claims reported by the NST and theSun.

Given Wong’s confidence, it would have made some sense - or at least it would have made his writing less glaringly deficient - to state why Chua had the press conference. But then again, that would probably get in the way of his paper’s apparent intention of blacking out certain facts.

Quite clearly, The Star’s coverage reflected its own “cai dan” or preference for Ong to fill the top MCA post. While it is acceptable for any paper to have a preference, they should also strive to be fair to all the candidates. They should restrict their stand only to their editorial column and try their best not to let it skew their news reporting of the different candidates.

And so, by deliberately blacking out certain pertinent facts, The Star continues to fail its readers and basic journalism miserably…

Who is responsible for TV3's news?

Ever wondered who is responsible for TV3's news?

According to TV3's website, Datuk Kamarulzaman Haji Zainal was appointed to the Board of Directors and Management of Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Berhad (TV3) on 15 October 2003.

In addition to his appointment as a member of the Board of Directors of TV3, Kamarulzaman also assumed the position of Director, News and Current Affairs Divison in TV3.

The website said that Kamarulzaman has served for more than 10 years as the Press Secretary to Abdullah Badawi.

His appointment to the TV3 Board came just half a month before Abdullah Badawi took over as PM.

When newspapers suffer from amnesia

Two weeks ago, on 31 July, The Sunday Star carried a three-page profile of tycoon Francis Yeoh Sock Ping.

The spread basically extolled Yeoh's rise to prominence in the corporate world. It proudly mentioned that his five listed YTL companies had a combined market capitalisation of around RM20 billion. YTL was also the first Asian company to be listed on the Tokyo stock exchange. The feature also devoted much space in examining Yeoh's religious faith and the role it played in his success.

But not once did the writer Kee Hua Chee talk about the independent power producer (IPP) licence that the Mahathir-led government had issued to YTL - a licence that has enabled the firm to earn lucrative profits. Was this an unintentional oversight or a case of amnesia and selective memory?

Consider this extract from an Asiaweek report in 1996:

(Tenaga Nasional Bhd's) earnings have been eroded by increasing competition from IPPs. Also, it was forced by the government to buy power from five of the biggest IPPs at rates higher than its own production cost. Tenaga is able to generate electricity at an average of just 3.4 cents per kwh because, unlike the new IPPs, many of its plants are fully depreciated. But in order to meet demand, Tenaga has to buy power from the five IPPs for 5.4 cents to 6.2 cents per kwh.

Further, Tenaga is obliged to buy up to 72% of the power generated by YTL Corp., one of the two biggest IPPs, even if the power is not distributed. YTL managed to secure a lucrative 21-year take-or-pay deal as it was the first IPP in Malaysia and also because the firm's managing director, Francis Yeoh, is a tough negotiator known to be close to the prime minister. The four other IPPs that have agreements with Tenaga are paid only for the electricity that is distributed. Still, the utility is required to pay them a capacity charge, which is compensation for the fixed costs of power generation.

Why didn't "The People's Paper" mention IPPs in their feature? Why didn't it discuss Francis Yeoh's "close" relationship with Mahathir (which Asiaweek had alluded to) and ask on what basis YTL was awarded such a lucrative deal? Why didn't it discuss to what extent Tenaga has lost out because of the deal? Maybe all this would have been a tad inconvenient to mention in such a glowing feature about Yeoh - so best to leave it out?

theSun puts Star's MCA election coverage in the shade

So the MCA elections are barely two weeks away. But those who read only The Star would be excused if they could not tell whether any of the positions have seen any politicking or electioneering for votes from party delegates. While the paper does not totally ignore the elections, its zombie-like coverage, marked by deadening formality, has failed its readers and basic journalism.

Several discrepancies or omissions can be observed when comparing its coverage to that of the New Straits Times and especially theSun. Here are a few of them:

Debate between Khairy and Chua on the NEP

Remember the debate between Khairy Jamaluddin and Chua Jui Meng on UMNO youth’s call to continue with NEP? It was on 29 July on TV 3’s business programme, The Exchange. The Star did not cover it. Neither did theSun.

Was it because the programme came on the air late at night? But why was it that NST could cover it? Did the omission have to do with Chua running against Ong Ka Ting for the post of president of MCA and The Star, ever the status quo paper, deciding not to give too much publicity to Chua?

Rules proposal by Chua and Ting

Both theSun and The Star reported on 3 August that the MCA Central Committee approved a few rule changes governing the run-up to the MCA elections. Among them is the elimination of the controversial “cai dan”, which means restaurant menu or, in this case, a listing of candidates set up for block voting.

Several MCA members had expressed unhappiness with it because they thought it was not democratic as the menu of candidates had been predetermined by incumbent leaders in the party. Both theSun and The Star reported on Ong announcing the changes at a press conference.

However, theSun added that the changes had been proposed by Chua and Ting Chew Peh, who is contesting Chan Kong Choy for the deputy president’s post.

The Star did not carry a word on that. Could it be the paper got it right and not theSun? That is unlikely since no one came forward to correct theSun. So, why the omission by The Star of such a vital piece of information?

Tai’s candidacy for deputy chair of Wanita MCA

Kepong MCA Wanita assistant secretary Tai Sim Yew announced on 26 July that she would run against Chew Mei Fun for the post of deputy chair of Wanita MCA. (Chew had earlier declared her candidacy after incumbent Tan Yee Kew was suspended by MCA for improper conduct.) Both theSun and The Star carried Tai’s announcement the next day. But what a world of difference in coverage.

The Star’s zombie-like report showed it was only interested in going through the formality of covering Tai’s announcement. In its short four-paragraph story, the paper highlighted some of Tai’s resume and stated the following for why she decided to run: “(Tai) told a press conference here yesterday that she was doing so because the post was vacant, and she hoped to bring changes to the movement.”

What did she hope to change? The paper did not say. It also made Tai sounding loony by saying she ran because the post was vacant.

theSun, however, ran a 10-paragraph piece. It stated why Tai decided to take on Chew for the post: “The 46-year-old lawyer (Tai) said the "cai dan" culture of negotiations and distribution of party posts had dissuaded many capable members from engaging in fair contests.”

The paper also gave a good idea of how Tai planned to bring changes to MCA by indicating she had unveiled a four-point election manifesto—to bring vitality, spirit and new ideas to Wanita MCA; defend the democratic right of members to elect their leaders; make a stand against favouritism in party elections; and make the Wanita wing relevant to the Chinese Community and Malaysian society.

It was truly mind-boggling to see how The Star left out so much of substance in its coverage.

But that is not all. The day after Tai’s announcement, the Kepong Wanita MCA chairperson said that Tai had been sacked as the assistant secretary for poor performance. theSun had the story but not The Star. Again, truly mind-boggling.

Ling Liong Sik, MCA Youth and Team A vs Team B

On 8 Aug, theSun ran a piece on former MCA president Ling Liong Sik’s attempt to regain control of MCA Youth. One of its paragraphs stated: “A party central leader told theSun that grassroots are not only seeing an extension of the Team A-Team B fight in the wing, but also the protracted attempt by former party president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik to regain control of the MCA Youth, via his eldest son Hee Leong.”

The Star had hardly anything on Ling’s attempt to influence MCA Youth through his son, let alone Team A-Team B. It is symptomatic of its pattern of coverage: merely going through the formality of mentioning the up-coming elections but leaving out the politicking or campaigning that entails.

The Star has far more resources than theSun judging by the larger amount of ads it routinely carries. It is also an MCA paper, suggesting easier access to MCA members and issues. Why then its abysmal coverage? Shoddy journalism? Couldn’t care less about the elections? Or having its own agenda or ‘cai dan’ that prefers the status quo?

Whatever it is, the paper has failed its readers and basic journalism miserably. It can largely be blamed for the popularity of rumour-mongering and believability of rumours in Malaysia.

Why people prefer to believe in rumours

On 1 July 2005, The Star carried a banner headline "What increase?". Below the headline was a rider, "PM denies fuel price increase".

The opening paragraph of the report said: It's not true. There will be no fuel price increase just yet, said the PM.

"Rumours are never correct," he said, when asked by reporters on talk that petrol prices were going up by as much as 20 sen. (He was referring to a rush to petrol stations by hundreds of motorists who were anticipating price hikes.)

Why did the paper report this without asking critical questions about Petronas and worries over global petroleum reserves. Why is there no analysis of the Peak Oil theory? Why is there no call for conservation of fuel? Why is there no call for much improved public transport?

A month later, petrol prices were raised once again. So the rumours were only out by one month! But again, there is no serious analysis to explain why petrol prices should be raised when Petronas has posted a 50 per cent jump in net profit. There was one piece (written a few days before the price hike) by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mustapa Mohamad which raised more questions than answers.

Is it any wonder that people choose to believe rumours than reports in the mainstream media? Is it any wonder than the credibility of the mainstream media has sunk?

Malaysian Idol, Akademi Fantasia and "Asian values"

Here we go again — the concern over Asian values. This time it surrounds the hugely popular reality shows on TV such as “Malaysian Idol”, “Akademi Fantasia”, “Mencari Cinta”, etc.

The New Straits Times reported on 3 August that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak complained about how the reality shows lacked Asian values. Even though these are local/Malaysian versions, they, according to him, “borrow extensively from Western culture which he feared could threaten Eastern values and lead to moral decadence.” Never mind that Akademi Fantasia was based on a programme from Brazil.

But what exactly are the Asian/Eastern values that were lacking? All Najib was reported to have said is that “the stations must also take into account the aspiration to build a country and people in their own mould.” But what is that mould that supposedly embodies Asian values? NST did not appear to think it was important to ask that of Najib. No examples were thus given to illustrate Asian values.

Muddled thinking

But that did not prevent Information Minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir from telling private TV stations to pay serious attention to Najib’s comment.

Neither did it deter the spokespersons of private TV stations to respond. Among them was chief operating officer Ahmad Izham Omar of 8TV, which carries “Malaysian Idol”. He reportedly said that the show “portrays racial harmony as Malaysian of different races and backgrounds take part in it.”

Say what? What then about the US version of the show, “American Idol”, which boasts of Americans from even more races and backgrounds competing?

8TV’s ridiculous response is an indication of how muddled the thinking on Asian values is. But this is hardly new. When Mahathir was the prime minister, he had made a sport out of hitting out at the pervasive Western culture. It probably scored political points for him with many Malaysians.

Mahathir's inconsistency

Remember, how he exhorted Malaysians not to allow Asian values to be corrupted or replaced by Western values? But then he hardly gave examples to illustrate Asian values other than to point to two stereotypical traits. He would like to say that Asians like Malaysians have an affinity for authoritarian leadership because unlike Westerners, they are not individualistic and they operate by consensus rather than confrontation.

But, if so, how much of an Asian is he then? Did the media not always show how he would always do things his way, and he would even pride himself to be au contraire? His confrontational, combative style is well known not just within but also outside Malaysia.

This inconsistency obviously cast doubt on his view of Malaysians as having an affinity for authoritarian leadership. One could not help but conclude that it was a way for him to justify his iron-fist rule.

But, of course, none of the above views of Mahathir’s was questioned when he was the prime minister. (And even though Mahathir is no longer the prime minister, as Lat’s cartoon on 30 July aptly portrayed, he can still be noisy and act like the prime minister.)

Meanwhile, the Malaysian mainstream press should have known better by now than to just quote politicians spouting vague references about Asian values. It is high time that they ask them for specifics: what are the specific Asian values or cultural traits that are lacking in reality TV shows? Only then will there be a healthy debate on the issue. At the least, it might have prevented 8TV chief operating officer from coming up with that ridiculous response to Najib’s empty rhetoric.