Unfair Coverage A look at the mainstream media's bias in the 1999 general election by Wong Kok Keong
A contentious issue of the 10th general election in 1999 was whether the Malaysian media was fair and independent. The Alternative Front (AF) did not think so, accusing them of acting as propaganda for the National Front (NF). The media denied or ignored it. Who was right? This was the basis of a study of which this report offers major highlights. Performed without funding from any source, it examined the coverage of The New Straits Times (or NST), The Star and The Sun from 12 to 29 November 1999. Although election campaigning officially started on 20 Nov, this study began on 12 Nov, a day after Prime Minister Mahathir dissolved Parliament, an act usually accepted by political parties and the public as the start of electioneering.
All three tables show that most of the news reports, opinions, and letters were favourable towards the NF (“NF +”). Table 1 shows “NF +” items were significantly more than balanced news items (“NF/AF”). Not a single opinion piece or letter was “AF +” just as none was “NF -” (Tables 2 & 3). Perhaps no readers wrote in with such letters. Or could it be that the readers could not be bothered because they had come to perceive the papers to be biased towards the NF?
One reason for the huge number of “NF +” items was the papers usually presented what the NF had to say unaccompanied by responses from the AF. The NF often accused the AF of lying, but the papers hardly looked into it. AF denials were rarely reported; when they were, they were not on the same day as the accusation but later without any explanation for the delay. Lack of Independence
Why not carry Keadilan’s response the very same day as Doss’ criticism the first time? If they could not do it because of press deadlines, they could have stated that. Or, if Keadilan or Chandra was unavailable or unwilling to respond right away, they could just as easily have mentioned that. This is the standard practice of most papers in the world—at least those that strive to be fair. Not doing it showed a lack of professionalism. Emphasis on Doss’ criticism and rebuttal also revealed the papers’ bias. The papers’ lack of independence could be seen in their coverage of NF’s accusation of foreign embassies supporting the AF. The story first broke on 25 Nov that the embassies were “actively giving financial aid and moral support” to the AF. The embassies denied it, but that was mentioned in the same reports only in The Star and the NST. What about the AF? Only the NST ran a rebuttal response from the DAP on the same day.
As for the AF receiving financial support, Mahathir mentioned the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) giving funds to the DAP. But Sweden was not one of the foreign countries first accused. And how was the SAP part of the Swedish foreign embassy? The three papers offered nothing. The Star (29 November) reported the DAP denying Mahathir’s accusation and saying the funding was for a study tour of Sweden before the election and such tours were commonly made even by NF members. Again, the papers did not follow up to confirm one way or another. Given Mahathir’s well-known criticism of the western media, the NF predictably accused the western media of supporting the AF. The NST, Star and Sun played it up at every opportunity. On 19 Nov, the NST chastised western reporters for looking at the election in a different way than that proffered by the NF and accused western media of conspiring with Malaysian “pseudo intellectuals” who were really supporters of the AF. It did not see anything amiss in accepting only the NF’s definition of the election and the issues. And were not the editors and lead writers of the many NST articles (e.g. Nov. 20: 6) spinning on behalf of the NF “pseudo intellectuals”? The NST was not alone in lacking fairness and independence. On 29 November, The Sun (as well as the NST) reported an exchange between Mahathir and a Daily Telegraph reporter. When asked whether Anwar had damaged his popularity, Mahathir retorted:
“I won’t answer such a stupid question... What you are saying is that even if I win, Anwar has damaged my reputation...that is not a question...that is a statement being made by you because you already have this in your mind...” The reporter denied it and continued with the question, to which, Mahathir finally said “no”. The Sun headlined the story “Question on Anwar gets journalist a ‘headache’”. But how? It was Mahathir who appeared to lose his cool and belligerent; the reporter seemed unfazed. Political promises are part of any elections. Whether they are delivered is another issue. But in the 1999 election, several long-standing NF promises would suddenly materialise during the campaigning. Many new ones were also made and sometimes delivered within that short period: building of new schools and bridges, installation of new school facilities, approval of housing permits, compensation to fishermen for loss of income with the development of a port, compensation to victims of fires that broke out before the election campaign. Were they not efforts at vote buying? The papers duly covered these NF photo opportunities, but not one questioned the ethics or fairness. Chandra once tried to do that. The NST (Nov. 23: 9) headlined it “Approval of school questioned,” and the first two of three paragraphs stated:
... Chandra Muzaffar today questioned the approval of a Chinese primary school ... claiming it was a political gimmick. But in the same breath, the (keADILan) deputy president welcomed the approval of the school... However, he questioned its timing.Whether a result of deliberately fudging the issue or bad writing, the presentation made the ethics or fairness of it ambiguous and a non-starter. All three papers have more to do if they truly aspire to be fair and independent. This involves providing more space for political parties and views other than those of the NF and undertaking more verification of claims made by whichever groups. This would benefit everyone, including the NF because it would encourage more feedback from the people. Of course, restrictive press laws must also be repealed. But, above all, there must be the will to commit to a vision of the press as serving the interests of the people and the country, not just those in power.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nonetheless, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar later said the NF had “substantial evidence” as proof. But what the NF had to support its claim was that embassy members had attended AF “ceramahs”. The embassies said this was normal practice to familiarize themselves with the politics of the host country. True or not, the papers did not verify.