Mahathir And CNN’s “Dirty Tactics” PM so used to being mollycoddled by the local media by Wong Kok Keong
When he was in the United States in May 2002 to re-establish friendly relations with the Bush (war-against-terrorism-at-any-costs) administration after frosty ties with the Clinton administration that had criticised Anwar Ibrahim’s incarceration, Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was, predictably, a focus of the major US media. Instead of basking in the media limelight, he came away with a bitter aftertaste—that the media had done him wrong. And he let it be known to the Malaysian media the minute he arrived back at KLIA.
One might dismiss his latest attack as hardly new, for hasn’t he spent the better part of his 21-year rule making sport and perhaps even scoring political points out of condemning the western media? But what is revealing was the specific way he did it this time.
According to him, the US media employed dirty tactics by disallowing him the “opportunity to give proper answers”. He said their approach “was to make a long statement accusing us of this and that and then put forward a question which was unrelated to the earlier statement. This is to make it seem as if we are in agreement with the statement made.”
In the past, Mahathir chastised the Western media for colluding with and promoting the interests of his critics and opposition parties by way of peddling western influence and hegemony in Malaysia. This time he found the press interviews manipulative, saying the media were interested in giving only their views on issues, not hearing his.
Long Statements
This article has two aims: (a) to examine the veracity of the prime minister’s accusation, and (b) to get a glimpse of the kind of mindset he has towards how the press should perform. Mahathir was reportedly unhappy only with interviews on Malaysia’s domestic development. This then is the area of focus from his interview with CNN’s Zain Verjee on May 16.
It is true Verjee tended to make long statements prior to her questions. But hardly any of her statements could be seen as unrelated to her questions. Otherwise, she would look dumb and viewers (and the people at CNN) would know without having Mahathir to say so.
Occasionally, it was quite clear Verjee merely wanted Mahathir’s reaction to issues she raised. For example, after indicating that CNN had located Malaysia as the host of a Web site that posted pictures of Osama bin Laden and videos of the last moments of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Verjee asked: “Do you know anything about this? And if you do—if you don’t, what’s your reaction?” Another example began with Verjee quoting a few criticisms of Mahathir from human rights group and the Committee for the Protection of Journalists. She then added: “A fair amount of criticism leveled at you. Your response.” Far from being manipulative, Verjee’s open-ended questions not only were related to her long statements but also showed Mahathir could have addressed the issues any way he wanted.
This became quite clear when she started saying that the six ISA detainees had stated that Anwar Ibrahim was suffering from a serious spinal injury from brutal beatings. Mahathir interrupted by asking: “Of course. And you believe that?” Verjee: “No, I want you to respond to that.” Mahathir did respond to it by casting doubt on the seriousness of Anwar’s condition by saying “he’s still walking around” although a year had elapsed after Anwar requested treatment in Europe.
Verjee’s long statements could be taken as accusatory but the accusations were hardly new as they had come from elsewhere such as rights organizations and other critics of Mahathir. And she was careful to point out these sources. On one occasion, her effort inadvertently allowed Mahathir to undermine her source, and, by extension, her own credibility for citing it. She indicated that sceptics suggested that Mahathir had taken advantage of the crackdown on terrorism after Sept. 11 to discredit his opponents. After denying the need to engage in such a practice, Mahathir dismissed the credibility of the source by saying that because they were sc eptics they would naturally doubt whatever he said.
Nonetheless, Verjee’s tendency to make long statements before her questions is hardly an unusual practice among journalists. It is a way of setting up the context for their questions. Since Verjee approached it by citing her sources for the accusations and since she then posed largely open-ended questions, one wonders why Mahathir did not seize “the opportunity to give proper answers”. Where was the Mahathir known so well by our mainstream media to shoot from the hips?
Towards the end of her interview, Verjee said she sensed Mahathir took offence to some of the criticisms against him. Given the way the interview had gone, her observation was perceptive even though it was also a way to set up yet another question: “Why do you think so much criticism is levelled at you if there is no truth to it at all?”
Yes, she expressed a view based on her observation, but was it inappropriate? Was her question unrelated? Or was she merely interested in expressing her view? If Mahathir thought the question loaded, why couldn’t he have used his well-known bluntness to set her straight?
Elsewhere in the interview, Verjee was more direct with her questioning, dispensing with any context for her questions. The subject matter dealt with the ISA and the six currently being detained under it.
On the other hand, Verjee accepted Mahathir’s answer a bit too quickly, unwilling to push him with specifics.
Consider another example. Mahathir had said that lies had been told about him and his administration, and the example he gave was the accusation that “the press is controlled by the government”. To rebut it, he mentioned “The Asian Wall Street Journal” and “The International Herald Tribune” were allowed in Malaysia. From there, he concluded that “there are so many newspapers in Malaysia which condemn the government.”
What were the so many newspapers? What about foreign magazines like “Far Eastern Economic Review” and the now-defunct “Asiaweek” that were not allowed in the country now and then? And why no mention of the local mainstream media at all?
Obvious holes were left open but Verjee failed to raise them. Whatever the reason for her failing (not well prepared? lack of time?), the outcome was that Mahathir was let off the hook a bit too easily. Hardly could this be characterised as Verjee interested only in giving her views and not hearing his.
Dirty Tricks?
What then could be made of Mahathir’s baseless accusation of dirty tricks by the US media? Verjee was right to suggest Mahathir appeared unhappy with questions about the ISA and Anwar Ibrahim. But why should he? Those questions could hardly be unexpected and Verjee was not the first to raise them (except perhaps the one about Malaysia being the host of a Web site apparently supportive of Osama bin Laden). Was he not prepared for those questions? If not, why not?
More likely, he was not used to being posed these questions, especially by our mainstream media. If he were, a man of his capability could surely come up with ways to deflect whatever accusations embedded in the questions. Practice makes perfect.
This is not to say he had never addressed those questions and accusations before. But, typically, he would do so on his own volition by offering press statements in response to accusations from rights organizations or critics. It is not the same as having to deal with questions posed to him at an interview, during which the interviewer may pose follow-up questions if the answers received are dubious or less than satisfactory.
Therein offers a glimpse of his view of how the media should operate: they are to take whatever he has to say uncritically -journalists and interviewers are thus no more than stenographers. The press, in his view, are there to merely dish out what he has to say. They are his mouthpieces. Is it any wonder that our mainstream media has so many sycophants?
When the prime minister is so used to being mollycoddled by the media, it is not surprising that he would feel so disconcerted by media that are less than keen to be his cheerleader and blame them for using dirty tactics.
Journalists ought not to stand outside the closed doors of the powerful waiting to be lied to. They are not functionaries, and they should not be charlatans: ‘your sham impartialists’, as Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing, simpering loyally as they suppress’. They ought to be sceptical about the assumed and the acceptable, especially the legitimate and the respectable. (‘Never believe anything’, said Claud Cockburn, ‘until it’s officially denied.’) Their job is not to stand idly by, but to speak for ‘the true witnesses, those in full possession of the terrible truth’, as Primo Levi described the victims of Nazism. At the least they ought to be the natural enemies of the authoritarianism that Rupert Murdoch says ‘can work’.
John Pilger
Now tell us what you think. E-mail us.
|
||||||||||||||||||
