An Australian-Israeli killed while fighting with the Israeli army in southern Lebanon is a patriot. An Australian-Lebanese fighting with Hezbollah is a terrorist; his allegiance to Australia harshly questioned. Never mind that both shared the same mission - to fight for their distant homeland.

One's patriot is to another a terrorist. This was played out in the Australian media over the past few weeks.

Readers' letters have questioned the hero-status accorded to a dead Australian-Israeli soldier, who after living in Australia for most of his life, returned to Israel last month (July) to fight the Hezbollah.

A reader wrote: "If Asaf Namer (the Australian-Israeli soldier) had been Muhammad, an Australian-Lebanese killed while trying to drive invading Israelis from his parents' homeland, would he have received the same front-page publicity and the adulation of the Foreign Minister (Alexander Downer)? I think not and wonder why." (Sidney Morning Herald, July 30)

Is the Australian media habitually biased? Well, former Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad was tagged as a 'recalcitrant' in 1993. And his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, a 'reformist' in 1998.

Yes, the media is generally biased - but only to the extent that its contents do not reflect how we perceive and understand the world. Consider the Arab media reality when Islam and Muslims are killed by Israeli bombs; the American Fox News coverage of the US-Iraq war; or China's state media response to Taiwan's separatist politics.

Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and the Hezbollah-owned Al-Manar are understandably anti-American and anti-Israeli; while 'Western' media are pro-Israeli. This facile observation should come as no surprise.

Just as people are habitually swayed by entrenched values and ideologies in interpreting issues, so are the media and its journalists in framing their stories. Sometimes there are errors of fact. Most times they're different interpretations of what's seen and heard.

Reality package

The media cannot possibly be all independent and coldly impartial in their judgment of world affairs. Venture capitalists own the media. They call the shots when necessary - in some cases in cahoots with governments of the day. And, why not? Ultimately, media production is a business enterprise. We live with this commercial reality.

Yes, the media do take sides in political crises given the inextricable link between politics and economics. Because media 'bias' is inherent in the production process, the logical remedy is to balance the perceived biases by reading different perspectives and contexts from different media outlets. Realities come in a package.

Herein lies the deficiency of the Malaysian media scene - a lack of diversity in news coverage and commentaries, which is further stifled by the many do's and don'ts of reporting as defined by the state.

If, as the government implies, journalists are irresponsible and inclined towards fanning racial and religious animosity, how can we hold the media accountable? A strong public ethic - that's what we need.

Public pressures, if properly mobilised, can become a powerful commercial argument for the media to be first accountable to the people, not the shareholders. Alas, being the passive audience that we are, we merely rely on the few surviving media watchdog bodies to track journalists' sub-standard work and disseminate its findings on the net.

Many civil society groups, a microcosm of the public ethic, have assumed this role of monitoring the media. But their independence is often curtailed by lack of funds and expertise, their online information resources hard to access, and its mandate limited in scope. Structural barriers further limit their rigorous investigation into aberrant media practices and whatever sanctions it will be able to push. This is the reality of the Malaysian media watch-dogging enterprise.

Current dilemma

Expecting our journalists to report critically on national affairs knowing fully well the political consequences of such reporting would, perhaps, be nothing more than utopian.

The same can be said of totalitarian regimes where journalists are threatened, tortured, made to disappear, even executed. In these contexts, it would be more appropriate to condemn the whole system of governance than belabour media ethics and journalists' sense of social (ir)responsibility.

It is only in liberal democratic societies, where the media are seen to be independent in their functioning, that we can expect journalists to respect and uphold universal ethical standards.

Perhaps journalists who live and work under threat, oppression and fear cannot be judged for their ethical practices, or lack of it. Some may say it's unfair to expect our journalists to sacrifice their rice bowl just to uphold somewhat ambivalent moral and ethical beliefs.

We claim to be democratic in our Malaysian-style governance and institutional structures as declared by our constitution and statutes. If so, then there should be no reason for media institutions and journalists to be over cautious in criticising what's wrong and commending what's right.

How then can we understand the current dilemma confronting journalists - damned by the state if you report too critically, and damned by the people if you don't. A totally independent media system is merely an ideal after all - sought after but hard to reach.

This is where discussions on media ethics and social responsibility become complicated. Perhaps it's time for journalists to explain to their public what they are trying to do and why.

Malaysians are sufficiently mature, willing to listen, and happy to give credit to stories that have touched their lives, revealed what's wrong and made things right.

We need to believe in our journalists, or else it's all a lost cause. Which begs the question, do we have a reason to believe?

ERIC LOO teaches journalism at the University of Wollongong, Australia. He is also editor of the journal, Asia Pacific Media Educator. Readers who have opinions on how Malaysian journalism can be better may reach him at: eloo@uow.edu.au