The Press Needs To Invest In Its Professionalism

Dr Cherian George has argued that the PAP government needs to invest in the credibility of the press. He pointed out that the government model of 'mass attention-on-demand through the mass media' is outdated and that its insistence on a 'crippled press' shows 'short term rationality', something that has 'hardened into dogma'.

George insists that it is in Singapore's long term interests to have a mass media can play an effective Fourth Estate role in ensuring good governance or at least to provide a unifying force a la print capitalism in constructing and maintaining the collective consciousness of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities. This portrayal is, of course, an ideal type; the mass media has often in the pocket of powerful interest groups, be they The Only Party In Town or Big Business. But even so, the ideal type has a powerful appeal, both to media consumers and professionals.

It seems that what underlies George's exaltation of a credible press as a social good are the norms of mass media professionalism - reporting that is not only factually accurate (whatever that means but at least it remains contested rather than settled or imposed) but also fair and balanced (ditto). This is the bedrock for a common body of social knowledge from which, presumably, the marketplace of ideas is founded on. And a vibrant marketplace of ideas positively feeds into politics, economics, society and so on.

George exhorts the PAP government to lift its deadening hand from the mass media, framing his argument within the ruling party's ideology and rhetoric of pragmatism: 'It's for your own (long term) good.' The assumption seems to be that once the state gives the press more leeway, all will be sweetness and light and Singaporean reporters can look their international colleagues in the eye once again.

But it is also well worth remembering how the current sorry state of affairs has roots deep in Das Partei's foundational history - the need to control the media with an iron fist was seared into the minds of the Old Guard by, believe or not, a Straits Times that was 'virulently anti-PAP' (p.297). I kid you not. The above quote, and those that follow in this paragraph, are from The Man Himself (The Singapore Story: The Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, 1998). MM Lee recalls 'flagrant bias' (p.298) in the differences in which rallies by the PAP and Lim Yew Hock's Singapore People's Alliance were reported, all due to 'British masters who owned the paper and who directed its policies'. (p.299) Marvellous to know how things have changed. And change it did. 'Now we were the government, they had to listen, and the English language press had to print what we said.' (p.310) Oh yes, revenge is sweet, who's your daddy now, ST? For the PAP senior leadership, a specific lesson has been inductively raised to an article of faith: the mass media must be kept subservient otherwise Bad Things Will Happen.

However the more serious issue, in my mind, is that there does not seem to be much indication that Singaporean journalists want to play the exalted role that George has in mind for them; they have been oh so nicely house broken already - witness the huge team that was drafted into putting together, editing and publishing the above-mentioned memoirs. After all, if the current milieu is so deeply damaging to their professional ethics, why are the cogs of the machine continuing to choose loyalty over voice or exit? Or that senior editors seem to happy to angkat the party-state's bola?

The credibility of the press is important. But what credibility means also depends on what role it is expected to play. Harvard political scientist Prof Susan J. Pharr provided a nice taxonomy of spectator (passively conveying), watchdog (independent, critical, serving the public interest), servant (running dog of the authorities) and trickster (unpredictable, build 'em up pull 'em down, cynical). That's what allows the authorities to say with a straight face that Singaporean mass media is credible; as they obediently serve and pleasure the party-state, they satisfy their designated role and are thus 'credible' in the eyes of the authorities. Others would beg to differ because they have different role expectations.

But if MSM practitioners give up the ghost, no longer believing in the norms of professionalism reflected in the watchdog role and surrender en masse to the immanence of power and plenty, then it's game over - regardless of whether or not the government bestows the leeway that the good Dr Cherian George is petitioning for.

Comments (8)

Notice: Each writer on Singapore Angle is in control over the comment threads associated with his own posts, to edit or delete individual comments, or to close the thread as he pleases.

Lee_David:

I remember clearly what Mr Lee KY said to Mr David Marshal, when Mr Lee KY was on the other side.

"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack.
All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface.

Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."
- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956

It was beautifully said and it is rightfully practised now. So ironical. We can write and write about the press standards of today. It always bring us back to the beginning of all things. This will be it.

Thanks anyway, again.

Posted by Lee_David | February 20, 2008 5:28 PM

Bart:

Ringisei,

Another good piece from you.

I would just go on a tangent a little. The main issue I have with ST is not that it is heavily biased towards the government (let's suppose that I accept that ST plays a 'nation-building' role).

The trouble with ST is the poor quality of reporting and writing. Some of the articles read like they have been lifted entirely from government press releases. In fact, reading the press releases directly from government websites might even be better since I cannot trust the journalists to repeat what the government says correctly!

Take the non-political sections, such as those in the sports or money pages. They are simply very poor compared to those found in the UK (the Guardian, the NY Times, Economist etc). Look at the Life section, the less said of a certain Sumiko the better.

I do buy the ST everyday, to read the obituary and classified ads, and to see which department store is offering discounts. I find ST so so frustrating to read.

Posted by Bart | February 21, 2008 6:58 PM

ted:

Heya, been a while since your last article. Funny and articulate as usual. Cheers!

Posted by ted | February 21, 2008 7:39 PM

Bernard Leong

Interesting piece. I have not read ST for a long time. Nowadays, unless there is an interesting piece of news such as the Budget, I won't be reading any much into the local media. Yet, for some strange reason, I find myself still reading Guardian (UK), The Independent (UK), Washington Post, NY Times, Xinhua News, Financial Times, Bloomberg and the Economist online. Two things I know why I prefer to read the articles in these printed media:

1. The reporter knows what he or she is talking about in the foreign media. A few encounters with local reporters have taught me a few things. They share very little propensity trying to understand what is really going on. Particularly, when they start doing science and tech news, you can obviously know when they cannot distinguish what is unique visitors and number of visits in web statistics determination.

2. Actually, I am alright with our media being pro-government, given the constraints they have. Somehow, I find that the mainstream press is unwilling to experiment sometimes. It's like this, if you don't try new things or upgrade your knowledge, you will be stale. It is that they have to be pro-government and not thinking. If they can at least be critical constructively, they would not have this problem of credibility. I am not saying that there are no journalists doing that in the SG mainstream press, but there are just too few and far between, with the rest of them fearing their rice bowls.

Posted by Bernard Leong | February 21, 2008 11:10 PM

ringisei

Lee_David, thank you for sharing that priceless quote. It seems that the press will respond to political power but those who hold it are not at all likely to encourage the ideal type.

Bart, we're relatively ah peh (LOL) so maybe reading the newspaper is a habit that we find hard to break. And I know exactly what you mean about going to the gahmen press releases directly! I wonder to what extent the issue of declining quality is related to a high degree of control? Could there be some sort of selection effect where those who subscribe to professional norms tend to be the types who will also produce high quality journalism?

ted, thanks for your kind words. :)

BL, I didn't mean to bash a Straits Times straw man or to tar all Singaporean journalists with the same brush but it's just too easy a trap to fall into. But perhaps the de facto monopoly/oligopoly over print and broadcast advertising revenue also means that there's less incentive to invest in training and retention? Likewise, lots of Western media also show flagrant bias, e.g. Fox News or The Telegraph for right wing reporting, but the diversity of the media environment overseas actually mitigates that since media consumers do have more choice.

Posted by ringisei | February 22, 2008 3:58 AM

sph security guard:

Maybe the real reason for the rot is no one good wants to join ST, as they keep censoring people? If you censor people, how to you expect to attract talent? flies can la, but talent cannot la, this applies to most things in life, including blogging.

Posted by sph security guard | February 22, 2008 4:34 PM

scholar:

Just to add to sph security guard in a light hearted way...How could the press have no good people? They offer scholarships with bond..I am sure some good ones are stuck here. And if not, they could consider offering some to bond some talents .. which very often, in my opinion, are more akin to skilled technicians

I wonder, in general, whether bonded talents are mere skilled technicians directed by authority from above.

Posted by scholar | February 24, 2008 12:39 AM

Manchuria:

As Bart has mentioned:

"I do buy the ST everyday, to read the obituary and classified ads, and to see which department store is offering discounts."

I have stopped buying the Straits Times on weekdays cos the amount of news in there..for that price.. just seems like a waste of money and trees to me. Personally, I find the Monday paper the worst of the lot.

Only the weekend editions seem 'worth it' for its property & job listings and ads.

Dont bother buying the paper just to find discounts. You can find the same information on online forums!

Posted by Manchuria | March 31, 2008 1:40 AM

Comments (8)

Post a comment

About this Post