Singapore media & responsible press freedom
Media Competition
Today was born out of the Government’s decision in 2000 to encourage more media competition. We liberalised the print and broadcast media industries to promote competition and a higher standard of programme and contents. Advertisers wanted greater choices and more competitive rates. Most people also believed that competition would lead to better journalism. Better products would in turn enhance our media's role in society and improve their business. This is important because our domestic media faces competition from foreign newspapers and TV channels, the Internet and other media platforms. Unfortunately, our domestic market is small, especially for TV. Though advertisers and the suppliers of foreign TV programmes benefited from the increased competition, the players’ competing strategies cannibalised each other and led to huge losses. The economic downturn following 9/11 aggravated the situation. Businesses were badly hit. The advertisement pie shrank. Losses became unsustainable.
Sensibly, both media companies, SPH and MediaCorp, decided to stanch the bleeding with a partial merger. Recognising the market realities, the Government agreed. However, the Government still believes that there is room for more than one general morning English newspaper. And I am happy that a competitive balance has now been established between Today and The Straits Times. Today is now in the black while The SPH Group has also become more profitable.
I still have the same thing to say: 3 years is too short for a commercial decision as such to be made. Profit-making motive has caused the quality of TV news to degenrate rapidly in Singapore. The same newsroom produces the news across the board for all the channels, news-gathering resources are reduced, we reduce on regional stations for coverage (esp. in Chinese news), most of the news lack depth, and news related to the government and GLC are especially friendly and on top of all that, we have news everyday about a Mediacorp stable of company.
Responsible Media
Do not get me wrong. I do not favour a subservient press. An unthinking press is not good for Singapore. But press freedom must be practised with a larger sense of responsibility and the ability to understand what is in or not in our national interests. Editors need to understand what their larger responsibilities entail and to demand them of their journalists. Editors and journalists must have high personal integrity and sound judgment - people who understand Singapore’s uniqueness as a country, our multi-racial and multi-religious make-up, vulnerabilities and national goals. By this, I mean that our editors and journalists must be men and women who know what works for Singapore and how to advance our society’s collective interests. I do not know what our young journalists learn in their university courses but having our media play the role as the fourth estate cannot be the starting point for building a stable, secure, incorrupt and prosperous Singapore. The starting point is how to put in place a good government to run a clean, just and efficient system.
Our editors and journalists must work for the public good in a practical rather than an idealistic way. They must report the news and present viewpoints with the aim to educate and inform without pursuing any personal or political agenda. Capturing readership is an important goal but to do so through sensational coverage is not the right way. Opinions and analytical pieces on salient issues are important for giving readers varying perspectives. However, editors should take a balanced approach so as not to allow the commentary and opinion pages of their newspapers to reflect only biased or partisan views. More importantly, news should not be slanted to serve a hidden agenda. The media is free to put across a range of worthy different viewpoints to encourage constructive social and political discourse. It should not parrot the government’s position. It would lose its credibility if it tries to be the government’s propagandist. A discredited media would not serve our national interests.
Reading Curran's "Media and Democracy: The Third Way", the Singapore model is violating all provision made for a democracy, yet we are told to be pragmatic. The ends, however, should not justify the means. Having a free media landscape may not do harm to the society as the ruling party may deem. Wikipedia, though unregulated, the society will act on its own for check and balance. Media is claimed not to be the forth estate in Singapore, why? Singapore's government is known for its transparency and clean slate oif corruption (right?) so what's stoppping them from letting a free media plays its role in a democracy (local version deemed as Asian-style).
Of course, the last thing that the government would want is a mouthpiece (as deemed by the public) because the government still needs it for its nationa-builidng role. Putting aside the examples cited for the context of the speech, we must not forget about the electoral stand that the media takes for the government (with the elections itself being a point of contention) Reporting "current affairs", afterall, is part of the media's job, isn't it? (Read: Up Close by CNA)
Last but not least, let's examine a quote:
I do not know what our young journalists learn in their university courses but having our media play the role as the fourth estate cannot be the starting point for building a stable, secure, incorrupt and prosperous Singapore.
Pretty interesting...won't you say. Is the government going to start scrutinising the syllabus for SCI? Will it limit NTU's autonomous power while trying to privatise the two universities? Let's wait...but if academic freedom is what Singapore claims to have (while arguing to save face when Warwick refused to set up campus here), then in light of a review article by Cherian George (Read
CALIBRATED COERCION), I do not see the subtle (to the general public) views being implanted subsequently by officials (high-ranking ones) with any available opportunity.
