Howard Lee –
Let’s not mince it. Our politicians are protecting the local traditional media.
You can see it simply by counting the number of public statements made in attempts to increase public value of traditional media. In the past year or so, we had Zaqy, Lui, Shanmugam (make that a multiple for Shanmugam) and the latest being Lee Hsien Loong and Goh Chok Tong lauding TODAY on its tenth anniversary.
All these efforts always lead to an unchallenged (by this I mean within traditional media itself, and why should we be surprised?) defense of the quality and credibility of traditional media.
Really, for a country that prides itself on meritocracy and open markets, this level of endorsement is simply shocking, never mind that the statistics and examples used in each instance to substantiate their claims is often subjective and disputable.
Then, there is unabashed self-praise. I have lost count of the number of times when our traditional media effectively printed their own media releases about the awards and readership figures they have achieved. Again, these often go unchallenged even between the two major media companies. It is almost as if there is a tacit understanding between them – I won’t slam you for blowing your trumpet, you don’t do it either when I do a counter-blow with some other award and statistic.
If we take what they say with a pinch of salt, we will wonder if this self-praise is really necessary, since quality should speak for itself.
But what I really want to point out is that there exist in the closed circle of local traditional media a desperate effort to increase their public value, and this has gained the unwavering support of our political cadre.
The obvious question: Why? The tempting answer: Unwavering media support when the general elections come. But to assume so would really be too easy, and here, I wish to explore another dimension.
This support is different from what we have in other sectors where deliberate (e.g. power grid) or natural (e.g. public transport) monopolies form. These sectors are ring-fenced with regulatory frameworks that attempt to keep a check on citizen exploitation, say what you like about the effectiveness of such frameworks.
The media industry here has no such beyond the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and Broadcasting Act, and even these particular legislations are not about managing monopoly. If anything, they seek to further entrench monopoly, with the license to operate being the biggest carrot/stick.
Granted, the license is not exclusive to our local media, but that together with the constant prattle about the quality of local media, does. And such public discourse, propagated by the same channels that have every reason to propagate it, attempts to build an undisputed picture of our local traditional media to be one cut above “the others”.
It is a tiring effort. And if the end goal is to achieve political control, it is a lot simpler to reduce the presence of “the others” through selectively enforcing the Acts, to the point where our media environment is no different from a third world banana republic. And I mean really sterile media, where we have no news other than state propaganda as news. When that happens, we wouldn’t even know what hits us, much less make any protest about it.
But there is a reason for this preference and presumed faith to be built as a public “debate”. Yes, we cannot deny our need to remain open to the world, but more pertinent is that such debate actually defines the basis of quality, against which all media are then judged.
Any overseas evaluator would have to concede that traits often associated with our traditional media, such as objectivity, accuracy, balance and relevance are still the stalwart definitions of good, traditional, professional journalism. Never mind that, in reality, these traits are often bound by subjective interpretation.
Then there are the evidently subjective, or context-specific, qualities that our politicians often applaud our traditional media for – consensus building, racial sensitivity and respect for the rule of law. In other words, no monkey business. These traits are often cited in defense of why our media environment does not score well in international freedom benchmarks.
As such, rather than tighten control directly, we evolve through public discourse the perception of an open media environment, yet at the same time predefine the conditions that already sets out a pecking order for which media we should trust more.
We then go back to the issue of “the others”, when we consider what media we are encouraged to trust more in relation to. To some extent, it refers to foreign media based in Singapore, but these are bound by regulation and also adhere to the same objective rules.
Oddly enough, it is from TODAY’s two days of self-praise for its tenth anniversary, where we get a sense of who “the others” are. Two broad groups:
1) Online media – You’d say “of course”. But reread reports in just the past year, and you will realise that traditional media has persistently refused to clearly identify alternative news sources when making references to who they are better than. The fact that you could identify it does credit to the effective definition of the pecking order, which I indicated earlier.
2) The thinking public – This one probably got you. Traditional media needs to suppress an intellectual society from growing. It is not just about creating the lowest common denominator to sell the most number of papers to. Traditional media cannot let go of their position of thought authority, or they lose their entire readership. If I can think, there is nothing that the papers can offer me, besides cold hard facts, which I cannot find in greater abundance elsewhere, be it online or within my own thinking circle of friends.
The growth of these two groups is indeed causing problems for traditional media. For all its bravado, business-as-usual talk, traditional media fear online media to the very core, but I do not believe they are very sure why. This is because their modus operandi is to control the thinking public, while that of online media is to embrace and encourage it. Indeed, the thinking public is the very reason why online news media and user generated content came into existence.
Open debate deliberately attacking online media, while common when blogs first became the rage in Singapore around 2005, has proven to be useless, if not goading the thinking (and curious) public further online for information. Hence, you see in recent years the change in tactics, sub-consciously or not, where self-praise on certain qualities unique to traditional media becomes the norm. The statistics and awards to prove this are easy weapons, since these are only given in the limited circles of traditional media.
So why political endorsement? Simply because traditional media has no one else to turn to, and the two are mutually dependant for their survival. John Katz, in Media Rants (1997) pointed out that the American media depended heavily on the soundbites of politicians, and in return have forsaken much of their freedom. You will not fail to notice that our own traditional media thrives almost exclusively on political soundbites. Feel proud – we almost have America’s free press, just that our reporters are less boisterous.
But back to the topic - If the response to this structured framing on the discussion of media quality is anything to go by, it would seem that the thinking public has bought it hook, line and sinker. You would have read many blogs in recent days, trying to tear apart the latest statistics and statements by Shanmugam to prove how unworthy our local traditional media is. Good effort, writers, but don’t waste your time. You never beat subjectivity by saying it is so.
If anything, arguing about the quality of our media in the exact terms that our traditional media wants us to evaluate them against is drawing us away from the real issue of how “the others” are sidelined, and further entrenching their presence in public awareness. At the very worst, we can only prove that they are not correct, but not exactly wrong.
I would have liked to explore further how we can potentially break away from this structuring of public thought, but that would take too long and would probably end up being prescriptive anyway. Instead, perhaps let me leave you with three quick pointers on how we can reposition our thinking away from the structured public debate:
1) Objectivity is subjective, subjectivity is objective. If you don’t believe it, that’s your opinion, and I will have mine.
2) Readership numbers does not equate quality, and it sure as hell does not equate to your reader’s trust. The thinking public reads for many reasons, but they believe only what their gut tells them.
3) Form does not equate function, so better get cracking on function. We hear about how our local media companies are making forays into cyberspace. Old wine in new wine bottles is not sexy, it’s stupid. Ask me to drink it and you make me look stupid, too.
Do share this with your circle of friends, and celebrate some anarchy. It is time the thinking public starts claiming a bit of public space for ourselves.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I thought TODAY is distributed FREE?
I like your 3 pointers!
the singapoor 143th newmedias do not LIE!!! if they lied down..who is goin to publish/updates the OBITUARY sections?
mrs harrylee perhaps?
Simply put, tradtional media writes/reports what PAP likes to read and hear. Whereas new media, writes/reports real situations that Singaporeans like to know. Wow!!! what a vast differences.
1 phrase. Empty vessels makes the most noise. Why will they produce so much claims and self praise when if they are really that good, people would know it without having to hear from them
It has been said that “A liar MUST have a good memory”. It IS for covering up of their lat lie and also any other related lies before that one!
but then, LKY himself, his pappy-puppies which includes his msm such LOUSY liars. For, even as they know that more and more are aware of their scam MSM, they must be seen to be praising thier COMPLAINT MSM for the sake of the ‘FT’ new Citizens and PRs that they have brought in!
This is for brainwashing those bew foreigners who have yet to experience LKY cum PAP’s blunt instrument of proclaiming Singapore AS AN “Open AND Inclusive Civil Society” by LHL as PM as a result of his apapa LKY! Until they experience the pains and neglect in this arena, they will likely be like of father’s anf forefathers, deem LKy as the only man who can and has developed Singapore into a “nation” of COMPLIANT people as PAP’s ‘will and call in a cowed envronment”! And when that SINKS into these new foreigners one day, they just pack up and go back home or elsewhaere like The USA where IT IS TRULY AN “OPEN AND INCLUSIVE CIVIL SOCIETY” TOTALLY UNRESTRICTED by a coward administration government that cannot even accept the MIDLEST form of disagreement by the ‘governed’… since the AP got into parliament by unfair and unjust means anyway! It is thus very much A POLICED state born from the very “LKY-papyism” of totalitarism?
And oh, BBC World Service Fm Station 88.9MHz just had UK’s PM David Cameron that his government and other governments should move away from just GDP or “Gross Domestic Product” which is actually a Consumer Spending Driven economy to a GWB or “General Well Being”!
LKY-papyism is ONLY about familee’s and cronies’ Genral Well Being or is there another about? You decide!
Correction… the last word in the previous post should be “totalitarianism?” Sorry for the mispelling.
Is it the job of the multi-million dollar ministers to promote local traditional media (as objective)? Trying to wrap fire with paper. Did they chant abrakadabra?
It would be the last straw if the Education Minister joins in!
Why those hypocrites MIW praising Today paper for what?!? Don’t they know that Today caused much angst & hand-wringing for the old fart, such that Today was almost closed down by MICA in Nov 2003?? The founding & pioneer chief editor & deputy editor were “castrated” & walloped, so as to put Today back on the right path.
http://swordofdemocles.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-handling-brutal-truth.html
http://singaporeelection.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-behind-mano-sabnanis-resignation.html
http://singabloodypore.wordpress.com/2006/11/02/mano-resigns-from-today-the-real-picture/
Singaporeans should just stop buying the Straits Times.
Reasons why Singapore Media and Politics of today (with reference to Taiwan Political Review Shwo)(in Mandarin of course):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fddM2SYGwpY&feature=related
The 5th and 6th Clip directly related to Media and Politics. In order to get the full picture of past relationship between SG and Taiwan, view all 6 clips.
The only thing I used the ST for is for my dog to shit on it. I tried using other foreign papers and it refused to shit on it. I guess my dog like the politicians mentioned above knows quality when it sees it.
My dog is rather snooty. It won’t poo
on shit.
good and clear article howard. correct me if i’m wrong, but its interesting how you are implicitly suggesting that notions of the media have ostensibly evolved and on society should ideally move towards proposed forms that have only existed in theory thus far(media as fourth estate…etc).
good and clear article, howard. correct me if i’m wrong, but would you agree that beyond purely being a check and balance on political power, the straits times manages its other function pretty decently – entertainment (the failure of the media as a check on political power does make good entertainment as your piece so attests). Surely not everyone is as a thinker, and for these, it could well me that the traditional media is serves to be the opiate of the masses
because most singaporeans dare not say what is politically incorrect, we do not really know how many do not trust the press.
No body really knows the reality.
That is the problem.
I can’t agree more with point number 2 – Readership numbers does not equate quality, and it sure as hell does not equate to your reader’s trust.
Opposition only have 1 enemy.
1. Its not the PAP.
2. its not lack of issues.
3. its not lack talents.
There is only 1 problem and that is the People’s Mentality.
As long as you cannot solve this , you will never win. As simple as that.
Is there any main stream media in singapore that is not gonmin-related?
That speaks a lot right?
but its the people who accepted.
the opposition has no enemy , its not even yourself , its just the people’s mentality.
There is no need to redefine the media what is urgently needed is redefining the political landscape thru wise voting. When that happens the media the …. will all fit like a jigsaw puzzle.
pap voter(s) – I have always felt that the media being the fourth estate is not a matter of choice. And it is not based on theory. The press began historically as the voice of the people, and it is fairer to say that modernity has allowed it to evolve away from that position. I also cannot in good faith imagine mass media to be an opiate of the masses. The natural condition of human beings is to think, no matter how much or how little. So how can/why should the media possibly have that as a purpose? :)
Fugazzi – Can’t agree with your point. Political landscapes can change, but it does not mean to say we do not need to decide for ourselves how the media should act in these landscapes. In Sg, we are used to an environment where the media and party politics are conflated. But it is in the interest of the media to serve the interest of the people, no matter who is in political power.