Guest Writers, Main Stories, TOC Lite - Saturday, March 20, 2010 13:07 - 7 Comments

Celebrity scandal – transgression, media circus, spectacle

By Howard Lee, Guest Contributor

By now, Jack Neo’s fall from grace would stand a good chance at winning News Story of the Year.

The highly-acclaimed filmmaker and actor’s multiple infidelity has been well-documented in every major newspaper and broadcast network in Singapore. Online discussions were on fire with similar threads.

If you do not know Neo or the last name of his wife by now, you are probably not Singaporean.

Even politicians got to jab in. Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo gave his support to the besieged couple. Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew vouched for the media circus that surrounded the fracas generated by Neo’s infidelity.

“Acting Information, Communications and the Arts Minister, Lui Tuck Yew replied that the tabloids have been chasing the story as it’s of interest to many Singaporeans and foreigners. But there’s a distinction in the way tabloids and broadsheet papers carried the story.” (Satish Cheney, 12 March, CNA)

“”I know some of the tabloids have been chasing this. It’s of course an issue of interest to many Singaporeans and indeed also outside of Singapore,” (Lui) said. While the broadsheets’ onus is to report the affair in a factual, balanced and credible manner, “the approach taken by some of the tabloid papers is somewhat different” and similar to the way they have reported the “misbehaviour” of golfer Tiger Woods. ” (Neo Chai Chin, 13 March, TODAY)

So as not to raise your hopes, let me state upfront that I am not writing an exclusive expose. Neither do I wish to take any moral position on the issue. Rather, my interest is to explore the validity of the statement as it relates to media coverage, shed some understanding of media frenzy over the spectacle, and share what I wished responsible journalism have covered instead.

Neo’s four-minute circus

Perhaps the most climatic, or anti-climatic, moment of the incident came when Neo called a press conference to supposedly confess his transgressions and publicly apologise.

The media swarmed him with camera flashes as he made a hasty exit with his fainting wife, whereupon the exit became a physical contest between the media and Neo’s entourage.

Following the incident, he was lambasted yet again, with most reports lashing out at the perceived insincerity of his apology, with some suggesting that it was a fabrication to increase the drama points for the incident.

Admittedly, there could be some dumb crystal-ball reporting going on. What is less apparent, however, is the reason for doing so.

The press conference came at the peak of revelation, where women lined up to claim having an affair with Neo. The media was hungry for more news, not the requests by Neo and his wife to be spared the limelight.

It was a circus waiting to happen. If the horde of photographers was not telling already, the number of microphones on the table would be a clear indication that nearly every mainstream media was there to lap it up. There seems to be more resources committed to this than a single Budget issue. A four-minute tear-tinged plea was not enough – columns and airtime have been committed and have to be filled, and they were filled one way or another, regardless of whether Neo of the reading public liked the final read.

In that sense, Neo, for all his experience in the industry, has misjudged or misunderstood the effect of the press conference, both for that one incident and the nature of press conferences as a whole. Either that or his state of mind was simply not prepared to take it on. For all his personal transgressions, my view is that there is only one that needs a public apology – fueling a frenzy that only threw up more stupid, senseless news, whether he intended it or not.

Spectacle – by all, for all?

But that is a pointless jab on my part, and leads us away from a more meaningful question: Is there a distinction between the contemporarily-defined broadsheets and tabloids that Lui spoke of? Perhaps you can decide:

“Ms Chiew Han Joo, an online journalist with omy.sg, said that Neo’s apology was not effective because he “didn’t say that he will change for the better… and he didn’t really explain much about the situation”.” (Joy Fang, 12 March, mypaper)

“One can look at film director Jack Neo’s press conference as a short punchy film: beautifully directed and sincerely performed, the plot centred on infidelity… But viewers looking for some form of closure to Neo’s scandal had better look elsewhere… He did not even come close to providing answers to some important questions: Did you sexually harass the artists you signed up? What is your response to disappointed fans? What did you learn from this episode? Will you be less preachy in your future films, given your own personal failings?”  (Adeline Chia, 12 March, St Online)

Of course, there is also “How Jack Neo can stage a comeback” by Phin Wong of TODAY (13 March). While you might think twice about taking the BlogTV host seriously, his article was prescriptively insightful – that is, if I am Neo, or if I am an everyday reader planning to make it big before embarking on my own scandal.

Perhaps such scandals are hard to come by in Singapore, such that every opportunity is pounced on with vigor. But the attention given is more like a buffalo herd on a stampede than a leopard striking its prey – no finesse, no calculated angle of attack, just a storming hungry rage feeding on anything in its path.

Such is the risk that commercial media must face, to the detriment of their quality. Pressed to fulfill a deadline and a bottom line, commercial media, broadsheets and tabloids alike, have focused on squeezing every drop out of the story. If Neo won’t talk, ask an “expert”, never mind if that turns out to be another speculation.

As far as I can perceive, there is no difference in the reporting style between media – from sensationalised reports to moralistic commentaries, all were reveling in the spectacle, or milking it dry to fill the lines.

What matters socially?

My view and wish for our traditional media is to be more conscientious of what matters to readers, not what sells the news. The goal should not be just to write a more engaging read, but to add value for readers, rather than muddle the plot with moralistic swipes and wild conjectures.

Neo’s transgression is not totally irrelevant to us. However, the media, in their rush for coverage, has stepped beyond what is sensibly relevant. Should we care that Neo apologises? What for – are we his wives, or the women he seduced? Are those who judge vehemently so sure that they can stand up to the test? Why are we concerned, rather than bemused, that politicians should vouch for celebrities?

Unfortunately, this is one incident that I did not notice online media faring much better. Forums and blogs are alive with chatter berating Neo’s actions, moralistic opinions on whether it is him or his romantic liaisons who deserve their plight, and so on.

To draw on two examples that you might be familiar with, “Getting into bed with Jack” by Lee Song Kwang and Ravi Philemon, TOC (12 March) struck out at politicians who made allegedly biased remarks on behalf of Neo, already taking the view that Neo was wrong and any support by political figures characterises them negatively, too. The stand could be valid, but it had an unfortunate effect on readers, who immediately lashed out at with personality attacks.

“Gagged by the church – Foyce Le Xuan” by Sonia Suka, TOC (16 March) started as a mildly contentious piece about the involvement of City Harvest Church in the scandal. Two main camps started to build, one berating the church by assuming Suka was right, and the other discrediting her views as baseless and biased. It is reasonable to expect this in blog discourse, but a second glance would reveal that most comments made in favour of Suka had the same moralistic undertones that has been playing on traditional media.

For another case elsewhere, Hardwarezone carried a discussion post titled “Jack Neo and his apologies” that began with a mostly factual report of the press conference, and then proceeded to disqualify both Neo and Wendy Chong his mistress for, oddly, their professional ability. It would seem that adultery made you a lousy filmmaker and actor. Naturally, the subsequent comments carried the theme, and more rose to the challenge of taking potshots at Neo.

Admittedly, the reporting by traditional media might have fanned the flames too much in one direction, such that effect rubbed off more than it should online. But this incident would not go down in history as proof that Singaporeans could exercise reasonable effort to stay arm’s length from sensationalism.

The incident does have real implications. For instance, what is Neo’s future ability to produce another home-grown movie, given that potential female actors might begin to shy away from his offers? Or, is the prevalence of sexual favours in our filmmaking industry strong enough to dampen or promote our status as a choice location as a film hub for international filmmakers? Perhaps a review of the value of our national awards in the partiality they give to achievement versus professional conduct?

While the heat of the moment might not allow it, there is always more to the spectacle than the frenzy. As the excitement wanes, might there be a writer foolhardy enough to trod the path less taken, and do some real news reporting for a change?

_____________________________________________________