In search of good journalism
BARE KNUCKLESPublished: Dec 21, 2000 9:43 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
It appears that the categorisation of Malaysia's press (and, by extension, mass media) into "mainstream" and "alternative" has pained a number of journalists, particularly those from the mainstream press, primarily because they feel that such a differentiation has unfairly painted them as necessarily "bad journalists".
But first, let's tackle the question of whether there really is such a thing as "mainstream" and "alternative" press in our social context as well as other societies. My immediate response: of course, there is.
The mainstream media in our country are by and large, as many of us are aware, controlled and/or influenced by the powers that be through corporate ownership. The media are owned and/or controlled by the partners of the ruling coalition concerned, or parties or individuals closely aligned to them. In addition, there are the restrictive laws, such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secrets Act, and Internal Security Act, to name but a few, that govern the media. These factors invariably help keep the media in line.
At the same time, we should also take cognizance of the fact that most of these media organisations are also business concerns that have profit maximisation as their guiding principle. In other words, they have to adapt to the market logic, build bridges and contacts with business houses, and also cater to the interests of their corporate shareholders. Incidentally, the "fruits" of these business endeavours also trickle down to the media employees - including "good" and "bad" journalists - in the form of handsome annual bonuses and salaries.
Much of the corporate revenue of these media organisations comes from advertising. This means that these organisations have to cater to the needs, and protect the interests, of the business clientele, a factor that can influence and help shape the kinds of news, information and entertainment fare that are transmitted by these media organisations.
Journalistic imbalance
What this all implies is that on one hand, the mainstream journalists' work may be hampered to some extent by the corporate philosophy and political ideology of the government-controlled media. On the other, the journalists may also have to work within the space that is constrained by commercial considerations of the media organisations concerned.
Hence, in the Malaysian context, much of the Malaysian press has concentrated, or placed greater emphasis, on news pertaining to the views and activities of the government as opposed to that of, say, the opposition and certain non-governmental organisations. There is, in short, a journalistic imbalance and the marginalisation of the Other.
As alluded to earlier, there also seems to be a situation where, particularly in certain major dailies, investigative journalism has given way to big business news and analyses, share market reportage, arts and pure entertainment coverage and fashion and food reviews. Thus, you invariably get elaborate sections on the property market, share market, consumer items, lifestyle, etc in the mainstream press. That is, the politically safe - and financially rewarding.
This is, of course, not to deny the reporting of, say, the squatters, the underprivileged, the minority in the major papers. But such a reportage is few and far in between. Besides, the underlying causes of the existence of these social groups aren't always addressed or adequately dealt with by the mainstream media because to scratch the surface would mean ruffling some political and corporate feathers.
The same goes with environmental journalism, to take yet another example. True, there are a number of mainstream journalists who have covered quite extensively the destruction of the environment caused by industrial and commercial activities. But, given the political and economic reasons above, this kind of reportage, too, has its limits, especially if it implicates business concerns that are close to the ruling elite or business clientele of the newspaper concerned. What could actually happen is that at best the report would be "toned down", or worse, the journalist is taken off the environmental reporting desk.
Social change
Given the political, economic, legal and institutional constraints that have been imposed on the mainstream media as a whole, and consequently on press freedom, an alternative to these mainstream media is not only logical but also inevitable especially when we take into consideration the importance of justice, fairness, freedom of expression and democracy in our lives.
The alternative press generally functions - out of choice or otherwise - on a relatively low budget. This means that most of these publications have smaller numbers of journalists, limited resources and few facilities, but, because of these factors, may be relatively politically and/or economically more independent.
But more importantly, the alternative press is generally committed to social change by providing space for dissident voices, and championing the cause of the marginalised, the downtrodden, and victims of injustice. Thorough investigation is often undertaken to unearth the root problems of these social entities so that their problems are redressed. Hence, a community of the aborigines, for instance, is not reported and analysed solely for the purpose of displaying concern in the run-up to a general election or in the preparation of a national day celebration.
There may also be other alternative publications whose primary objective is to cater to the needs of specific target groups such as urban squatters, underprivileged youth, factory workers etc. The rationale is to bring these groups and their problems onto the national agenda.
Internationally, alternative media constitute part and parcel of political and intellectual landscape. In the West particularly, many alternative press and broadcasting stations have sprouted with the primary aim at providing alternative news and information to their respective audiences. Some alternative publications have done exemplary work. For example, the New Internationalist magazine has won the 1998 Alternative Press Award for "Best International Coverage" six times in the eleven years since the awards started.
In fact, there's even such a thing as the Global Alternative Media Association (GAMA), based in Hannover, Germany, whose primary intention is to "strengthen mutual cooperation and exchange of information" among alternative and independent media concerned, and also "to further develop possible influence on mainstream media".
Different yardsticks
In the Malaysian context, one could argue that the alternative press generally tries to correct the journalistic imbalance and injustice that are found in the mainstream press. In a sense, the alternative press is to fill in the gaps that exist in the mainstream press, a room to maneuver in this direction. But this shouldn't necessarily mean that, as some would tend to believe, the alternative press is at liberty to run amok. What is suggested here is that the alternative press has the relative freedom to provide responsible reporting regarding the underside and the underexposed (by the mainstream media) of our society with the ultimate purpose of achieving adequate social reform.
This is, of course, not to assert that the concern for social justice and fairness are the sole preserve of the alternative press and their journalists. There are surely journalists in the mainstream press who are just as concerned. But the constraints in the major dailies are such that this human concern is often to be worn outside their line of duty as journalists with the mainstream newspapers.
This brings us to the issue of "good" and "bad" journalism, one that always haunts concerned journalists and students of journalism alike. In essence, it very much depends on how "good journalism" is defined, and by whom. Indeed, different people use different yardsticks to measure quality of journalism, and journalism awards conferred by different groups of people best illustrate the divergent definitions of "good journalism".
Journalism awards in Malaysia are conferred in government-sanctioned ceremonies to journalists, primarily from the mainstream media, who have been judged as having achieved a high degree of journalistic professionalism. In this regard, would a Steven Gan, an Ahmad Lutfi Othman or a Zulkifli Sulong, for instance, stand a chance of winning these awards? By the same token, would the top guns of Malaysia's mainstream press stand a good chance of qualifying for an International Press Freedom Award that is conferred by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists?
What this all indicates is that there may be certain elements in "good journalism" that are universal and applicable in mainstream as well as alternative media, such as journalistic accuracy, clarity, double-checking of facts, and responsibility. But these alone are inadequate to separate the "good" from the "bad" because they can also be applicable in the type of journalism that basically serves the interests of the powerful in society - and at the same time helps the weak to suffer from the full weight of injustice.
That said, however, one would think that "good journalism" is one that also steadfastly seeks truth, justice, freedom, democracy and human compassion even in the face of potential political persecution, physical harm, or social alienation. A journalist worth her salt would appreciate that this makes a qualitative difference.
Related letter
But first, let's tackle the question of whether there really is such a thing as "mainstream" and "alternative" press in our social context as well as other societies. My immediate response: of course, there is.
The mainstream media in our country are by and large, as many of us are aware, controlled and/or influenced by the powers that be through corporate ownership. The media are owned and/or controlled by the partners of the ruling coalition concerned, or parties or individuals closely aligned to them. In addition, there are the restrictive laws, such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secrets Act, and Internal Security Act, to name but a few, that govern the media. These factors invariably help keep the media in line.
At the same time, we should also take cognizance of the fact that most of these media organisations are also business concerns that have profit maximisation as their guiding principle. In other words, they have to adapt to the market logic, build bridges and contacts with business houses, and also cater to the interests of their corporate shareholders. Incidentally, the "fruits" of these business endeavours also trickle down to the media employees - including "good" and "bad" journalists - in the form of handsome annual bonuses and salaries.
Much of the corporate revenue of these media organisations comes from advertising. This means that these organisations have to cater to the needs, and protect the interests, of the business clientele, a factor that can influence and help shape the kinds of news, information and entertainment fare that are transmitted by these media organisations.
Journalistic imbalance
What this all implies is that on one hand, the mainstream journalists' work may be hampered to some extent by the corporate philosophy and political ideology of the government-controlled media. On the other, the journalists may also have to work within the space that is constrained by commercial considerations of the media organisations concerned.
Hence, in the Malaysian context, much of the Malaysian press has concentrated, or placed greater emphasis, on news pertaining to the views and activities of the government as opposed to that of, say, the opposition and certain non-governmental organisations. There is, in short, a journalistic imbalance and the marginalisation of the Other.
As alluded to earlier, there also seems to be a situation where, particularly in certain major dailies, investigative journalism has given way to big business news and analyses, share market reportage, arts and pure entertainment coverage and fashion and food reviews. Thus, you invariably get elaborate sections on the property market, share market, consumer items, lifestyle, etc in the mainstream press. That is, the politically safe - and financially rewarding.
This is, of course, not to deny the reporting of, say, the squatters, the underprivileged, the minority in the major papers. But such a reportage is few and far in between. Besides, the underlying causes of the existence of these social groups aren't always addressed or adequately dealt with by the mainstream media because to scratch the surface would mean ruffling some political and corporate feathers.
The same goes with environmental journalism, to take yet another example. True, there are a number of mainstream journalists who have covered quite extensively the destruction of the environment caused by industrial and commercial activities. But, given the political and economic reasons above, this kind of reportage, too, has its limits, especially if it implicates business concerns that are close to the ruling elite or business clientele of the newspaper concerned. What could actually happen is that at best the report would be "toned down", or worse, the journalist is taken off the environmental reporting desk.
Social change
Given the political, economic, legal and institutional constraints that have been imposed on the mainstream media as a whole, and consequently on press freedom, an alternative to these mainstream media is not only logical but also inevitable especially when we take into consideration the importance of justice, fairness, freedom of expression and democracy in our lives.
The alternative press generally functions - out of choice or otherwise - on a relatively low budget. This means that most of these publications have smaller numbers of journalists, limited resources and few facilities, but, because of these factors, may be relatively politically and/or economically more independent.
But more importantly, the alternative press is generally committed to social change by providing space for dissident voices, and championing the cause of the marginalised, the downtrodden, and victims of injustice. Thorough investigation is often undertaken to unearth the root problems of these social entities so that their problems are redressed. Hence, a community of the aborigines, for instance, is not reported and analysed solely for the purpose of displaying concern in the run-up to a general election or in the preparation of a national day celebration.
There may also be other alternative publications whose primary objective is to cater to the needs of specific target groups such as urban squatters, underprivileged youth, factory workers etc. The rationale is to bring these groups and their problems onto the national agenda.
Internationally, alternative media constitute part and parcel of political and intellectual landscape. In the West particularly, many alternative press and broadcasting stations have sprouted with the primary aim at providing alternative news and information to their respective audiences. Some alternative publications have done exemplary work. For example, the New Internationalist magazine has won the 1998 Alternative Press Award for "Best International Coverage" six times in the eleven years since the awards started.
In fact, there's even such a thing as the Global Alternative Media Association (GAMA), based in Hannover, Germany, whose primary intention is to "strengthen mutual cooperation and exchange of information" among alternative and independent media concerned, and also "to further develop possible influence on mainstream media".
Different yardsticks
In the Malaysian context, one could argue that the alternative press generally tries to correct the journalistic imbalance and injustice that are found in the mainstream press. In a sense, the alternative press is to fill in the gaps that exist in the mainstream press, a room to maneuver in this direction. But this shouldn't necessarily mean that, as some would tend to believe, the alternative press is at liberty to run amok. What is suggested here is that the alternative press has the relative freedom to provide responsible reporting regarding the underside and the underexposed (by the mainstream media) of our society with the ultimate purpose of achieving adequate social reform.
This is, of course, not to assert that the concern for social justice and fairness are the sole preserve of the alternative press and their journalists. There are surely journalists in the mainstream press who are just as concerned. But the constraints in the major dailies are such that this human concern is often to be worn outside their line of duty as journalists with the mainstream newspapers.
This brings us to the issue of "good" and "bad" journalism, one that always haunts concerned journalists and students of journalism alike. In essence, it very much depends on how "good journalism" is defined, and by whom. Indeed, different people use different yardsticks to measure quality of journalism, and journalism awards conferred by different groups of people best illustrate the divergent definitions of "good journalism".
Journalism awards in Malaysia are conferred in government-sanctioned ceremonies to journalists, primarily from the mainstream media, who have been judged as having achieved a high degree of journalistic professionalism. In this regard, would a Steven Gan, an Ahmad Lutfi Othman or a Zulkifli Sulong, for instance, stand a chance of winning these awards? By the same token, would the top guns of Malaysia's mainstream press stand a good chance of qualifying for an International Press Freedom Award that is conferred by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists?
What this all indicates is that there may be certain elements in "good journalism" that are universal and applicable in mainstream as well as alternative media, such as journalistic accuracy, clarity, double-checking of facts, and responsibility. But these alone are inadequate to separate the "good" from the "bad" because they can also be applicable in the type of journalism that basically serves the interests of the powerful in society - and at the same time helps the weak to suffer from the full weight of injustice.
That said, however, one would think that "good journalism" is one that also steadfastly seeks truth, justice, freedom, democracy and human compassion even in the face of potential political persecution, physical harm, or social alienation. A journalist worth her salt would appreciate that this makes a qualitative difference.
Related letter
View Comments0