bangkit.net

Shooting at election talk, can the real media please stand up?

Two people, Suwandi Abdul Ghani, 37, and Muhamad Azman Aziz, 21 suffered
from gun shot wounds as a result of the confrontation in Terengganu on
8-9 September at what was to be a gathering to talk about free and fair
elections. Fortunately for them, they are said to be doing fine.
However, a third victim, by the name of credibility of the media, is
still in critical condition, sustaining a more serious injury, and with
no fast recovery in sight.

The confrontation and its reporting by the mainstream media are
anecdotal of how newsmakers in Malaysia are constantly tested on their
professional and ethical standards. Coverage of this incident pointed in
one direction - bias towards the powers-that-be. Opposition parties PAS
and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) were largely implicated in the
mainstream media as instigating the incident.

The parties protested
loudly, with PKR demanding the New Straits Times to publicly apologize
within 48 hours or face legal repercussions. PKR complained that the NST
did not contact the party to verify the supposed violent acts by its
supporters.

Across dailies, this bias was glaring. Immediate reports about the
confrontation in the Star, theSun (which published a BERNAMA report),
Utusan Malaysia, Harian Metro, Berita Harian and major Chinese language
dailies were based primarily on statements by the Terengganu police
chief, Ayub Yaakob. He described it as a riot deliberately initiated by
opposition supporters and the police shooting was a forced measure of
self-defense.

It was only on September 13 that the newspapers made any mention of
BERSIH, a coalition of civil society groups, supported by opposition
parties for free and fair elections, who organized the event as part of
its public awareness campaign. BERSIH also submitted a complaint
regarding the media bias to SUHAKAM.

Although the various newspapers relied on the same source, the September
10 reports were peppered with inconsistencies, calling their
professionalism into question. Differences in the number of the
participants at the “ceramah”, the timeline of the incidents, accounts
of the shooting, and reasons for the police rejection of the permit for
the gathering. In the latter, the reasons cited ranged from the venue
being a tourist area (the Star); it was small and close to government
quarters (Utusan, Berita Harian, NST), and near the palace of the
Agong’s mother and a judge’s residence (Harian Metro).

From September 11 onwards, the opposition parties got more coverage in
some of the Chinese dailies. The Star, theSun, NST and Utusan published
comments by DAP leader Lim Kit Siang, who was not present at the venue,
but not the leaders of PAS and PKR. Lim called for an inquiry into the
incident. The focus in the media reports has since shifted to condemning
those who burnt the national flag, after a widely publicized picture
attributable to BERNAMA. The one-sided tone against the opposition
parties was still obvious.

The police themselves revealed the inconsistencies on September 15, when
they were reported to seek the public’s help in identifying nine men
believed to be involved in the violent acts, and released their
pictures. This time around, police backed down from relating them to the
opposition parties. The media too, without the certainty of the police,
refrained from further implicating the opposition, and expectedly, did not
pursue the line of doubt cast on the police.

The coverage of this incident shows that the media are still unable to
free themselves from the conventional bias prevalent at times of election.

Was the lack of fair reporting due to a lack of resources in terms of
reporters available to cover the story accurately? Is the media
satisfied with attributing their stories to a single source, in this
case the Terengganu police chief, as the only authority? Were the media
told to play up the “riot” but not the other side of the story? Would
some of the newspapers have settled for the official report because they
were under pressure? These are questions that are being floated.

The discerning public knows now where to look for the full story, and it
is not the mainstream media - it is the many online dailies and blogs
that offer more sides to a story. Whether they are credible or not is
besides the point. The point is that the mainstream media is not seen as
credible because they do not even abide by the fundamental principles of
ethical journalism - fairness, accuracy, right of reply and truthfulness.

The media cannot afford to continue with their current practices if they
hope to secure the trust of the readers, who are increasingly
knowledgeable, critical and tech-savvy. They have to start taking public
opinion seriously and improve the way they do their work. There is no
excuse not to provide fair and accurate reports, unless there is
government pressure against it. If the newspapers are serious about
their ethical values, they will be surprised to find many among the
public who will stand up to defend them against external threats. After
all, a free and fair media is the right of the citizen.