Flagrant case of journalistic misconduct

I refer to this ‘online exclusive' op-ed piece from the New Straits Times, "They got their Royal Commission of Inquiry but will they stop their lynching?", by Azmi Anshar, datelined July 27, 2009.

The general level of integrity and professionalism in our news media notwithstanding, I have to say that the article is as egregious a case of journalistic misconduct as I have ever come across.

Here is why: First of all, the writer made a significant error of fact, by claiming that the purpose of the Royal Commission of Inquiry was "to probe the chary [sic] death of Teoh Boon Hock [sic]".

This is untrue. PM Najib Tun Razak said: "The Royal Commission will be set up according to specific terms, which is to scrutinise and study the procedures related to interrogations that are used by the MACC. It will also identify if there were any violations of human rights during Teoh's interrogation."

The PM also made it clear that Teoh's death would NOT be investigated by the RCI, but by an inquest. He thus rejected the most critical component of what Teoh's family, Pakatan Rakyat leaders and civil society have been demanding all along.

Why is this error significant? Because the writer uses it to impugn the character and motives of Pakatan Rakyat and its leaders throughout the article, beginning with the headline itself.

A major thrust of the article is to show that even when their demands have been met, PR leaders (ostensibly for selfish political reasons), will continue to criticise the RCI. Without this ‘misinterpretation' of the facts, his thesis cannot stand.

The full import of the PM's statement should have been quite obvious to the writer. He has misrepresented Pakatan Rakyat's position, and till now, this remains uncorrected.

Secondly, The writer also used at least two of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in argument. He liberally, selectively, and without any supporting evidence, used emotionally loaded words.

For example, when referring to Pakatan Rakyat leaders, followers and their actions, he used phrases like "parrot his all-time favourite bellowing", "band of noxious supporters" and "brutish smugness".

On the other hand, when referring to the cabinet and government leaders, he writes things like "most pragmatic decision" and "strongly endorsed the setting up of the RCI".

He also attributed prejudices or dishonourable motives to his "opponents", again without offering any evidence in support.

For example, he wrote: "They were almost certain of getting a favourable cabinet response but the hyperboles and sly pre-emption that senior Pakatan leaders discharged seemed to have given the appearance that the goading provoked the cabinet into agreeing to the RCI. [...] But let's not be surprised that Pakatan would claim credit for their RCI ingenuity."

"But the Pakatan leaders' pressing for a RCI had a disingenuous purpose: [...] Now that the RCI on Teoh's death is going to be institutionalised [sic], how will this affect the investigations into the misuse of public funds?"

"Kit will find other specious means to further pile the burden of attestation on Najib to prove that the RCI is ‘absolutely independent' and will do their job fearlessly."

"Pakatan Rakyat minions will insist no less than a guilty verdict, that some MACC perp pushed Teoh out of the 14th floor to his death for no reason other than wanting to torture the young man."

Finally, the writer has obscured the truth by subverting the meaning of words. For example, he describes Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a former vice-chairman of Transparency International's Board of Directors no less, as a "sycophant", i.e. "a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favour by flattering influential people".

To be sure, Tunku Aziz is a member of the DAP, but has the writer any evidence to show that Tunku Aziz has ever attempted to win favour by flattering influential people in DAP, Pakatan or anywhere else?

If the favour of "influential people" is what Tunku Aziz sought, would the DAP have been the right party for him to join? One would have thought that there might have been much more ‘favourable' opportunities elsewhere.

One more example: the writer characterised Pakatan Rakyat's response to Teoh's death as a "lynching, Malaysian-style". To ‘lynch' is to punish violently or to execute, without due process, for real or alleged crimes.

Another definition is ‘to punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.'

It is a crime punishable by law in Malaysia, and it is what the writer accuses Pakatan Rakyat of doing to the MACC. Can he show how, and by what stretch of the imagination, can Pakatan Rakyat's actions thus far be construed as a lynching?

The irony is that the exact opposite may be argued, without any need for verbal obfuscation. Teoh was either a witness or a suspect in an alleged crime, and was, prima facie, in the custody of the MACC.

If the reports of Halimi Kamaruzzaman's, Tan Boon Hwa's and Dariff Din's experience of the MACC's interrogation methods are reliable, then there is probable cause to suspect that Teoh too, may have been the victim of high handed interrogation tactics.

Did Teoh's interrogators limit themselves to asking questions? Was psychological or physical violence used on him? Is it true that during his 10 hour interrogation, "officers dragged him to a window on the 14-story building and threatened to throw him out," as the Phillipine Daily Enquirer's website, quoting anonymous, "well-placed sources and officials close to the MACC", reports?

Considering the state of law enforcement and criminal investigation in Malaysia, with our history of suspicious deaths in custody, routine denial of access to counsel, allegations of politically motivated selective prosecution and our government's apparent inability to institute reforms (such as the IPCMC), isn't it reasonable for Malaysians to be asking those questions?

All this, plus the inescapable fact that whatever was done to Teoh was done in OUR NAME, makes it a moral imperative that we actively work to uncover the circumstances surrounding his death.

Asking our public servants tough questions, exploring the possibility that they have behaved criminally, and being very skeptical about the answers they give us, is not lynching, it is demanding that they be accountable to us.

By turning the very meaning of the word on its head, this ‘journalist' from the NST has insulted the memory of all who have suffered lynching at the hands of the powerful.

He has made a mockery of the idea that our government and law enforcement authorities are accountable to the Rakyat; he seems to have chosen to serve power, rather than be an independent monitor of it.

With Malaysia at the crossroads in the aftermath of March 8, advocacy journalism has become a 'weapon' in the political ‘war' to determine which path our country takes.

It is a genre of journalism that intentionally (and transparently) adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for a social or political purpose. It is certainly not new, and it is not disreputable per se; The Economist is an example of a publication that practices it quite well.

However, while advocacy journalists may justifiably eschew their newsroom colleagues' credo of objectivity (i.e. being neutral and not taking sides in their reporting), this does not absolve them of all standards of ethical journalism.

Here is the bare minimum that they have to meet (adapted from here and here):

1 They must acknowledge and declare their editorial position and bias up front. Doing so will inform readers as to where the writer is coming from and allows them to employ their critical faculties accordingly. Working to promote a particular point of view without disclosing one's true stance is shilling.

2 They must be truthful, accurate, credible and ensure that every statement they make is factual and based on evidence from neutral sources. In other words don't spread propaganda, don't take quotes or facts out of context, 'don't fabricate or falsify', and ‘don't judge or suppress vital facts or present half-truths'. Requiring that media outlets refrain from spreading untruths and falsehood is not too much to ask for, is it?

3 Even if they do not provide equal time for their opponents' views, they must at least understand and address their opponents' relevant points and criticism - they must never ignore, trivialise or distort them. They must be fair and thorough.

4 They must use honest arguments and never resort to the crooked thinking and dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments. Avoid slogans, ranting, and polemics. Instead, ‘articulate complex issues clearly and carefully.'

5 They must not allow their bias to turn into rose coloured glasses, or worse, a blind spot. They must not spare their own cause the tough, critical questions and scrutiny.

Without adhering to these most basic of standards, the resulting media ‘product' will be nothing more than propaganda, and bad one at that.

Had it come from a political party's media mouthpiece, the article might have been just bearable. After all, political propagandists and shills may rightly claim that they are not bound by any ethics, and are not obliged (or interested) to help citizens seek the truth.

They may thus abandon even the pretence of reasoned discourse and honest logic, and to please their masters, may be as chauvinistic and as partisan as they please.

However, coming from the New Straits Times, Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print which claims that "Our goal is to be the pre-eminent provider of news, information and entertainment and to achieve total customer satisfaction through our professional and highly regarded workforce that values quality, integrity, innovativeness and personal service", it is nothing short of an abject disgrace.

It stands to reason that the NST's lofty goal will remain out of its reach so long as its journalists (and editors) choose to behave like members of the oldest profession, and not as members of an honourable one.

Unfortunately, it also stands to reason that they will keep on plying their trade quite profitably, so long as we Malaysians keep availing ourselves of their services.