Independent media

Posted on 4 October 2011 - 08:17pm
Last updated on 5 October 2011 - 09:27am

R. Nadeswaran

“FREEDOM of the press does not exist. As a journalist, you are subservient to the government, the shareholders or even to the editor who decide whether your work will be published. If you can’t heck it, you have to find another job.”
These are opening words I have used when addressing young journalists and those clamouring for this thing called “freedom” who argue that newspapers in the West are “independent”. But then, I have also advised them on how to work around the system to get the message across.
“Independent” – a maybe; “free” may not be accurate. Media baron Rupert Murdoch who broke the backs of print unions in the UK had always been pro-Conservative Party. He even embraced Thatcherism as he went about breaking the backs of print unions who at times, made unreasonable demands. His stable of newspapers including The Times, The Sun and the now-defunct News of The World had all nice things to say about the Tories, and whatever said of the Labour Party was critical. With the emergence of the “new” Labour under Tony Blair in the mid Nineties, Murdoch switched allegiances and the Tories became the whipping boy. Fast forward to 2010, and yet again, Murdoch’s newspapers dumped Labour and went back to worshipping the Tories. So where is the independence or the freedom? Who decided on the switch?
Therefore, reading news reports on the MCA president’s call to the prime minister to allow a “level playing field for the media” and that the “press should have the liberty to exercise self-control” must have set a few tongues wagging. Perhaps what he omitted to say was that political parties should wash their hands of news organisations.
For the sake of clarity, let it be assumed that the “press” that was referred to was mainstream newspapers and television stations. So who in the press will be able to “exercise” any control – self or otherwise – when political appointees are put in charge and dance to the tune of their political masters? We have seen that in Malaysia over the years, with each regime change. So do the editor and his key supporting staff.
I remember a game of cricket between the media and the police many years ago when a senior police officer nicked a catch to the wicketkeeper. When we appealed, the umpire – a young police officer – did not put his finger up despite it being obvious. After the game, over beers, he said: “Sorry lah brother. My Tuan was batting, so how to give him out?” So that’s being submissive, and it happens all the time with editors who are afraid of offending the “boss”. Even if the boss does not mind reading the truth (however unpleasant it may sound), the editor puts himself in the shoes of his boss and makes the decision to edit or spike the reports.
Newspapers and TV stations can be truly independent only if they are allowed to be run professionally by the best talents and not someone parachuted in to “control” for political suitability. No one can stop individuals and groups from owning and operating newspapers or TV stations, but then they will have to make the call and be answerable when confronted by shareholders. Any media organisation is judged by its circulation, readership, listenership or viewership. If you happen to dish out crap day-in, day-out, you are going to lose your audience.
It there is no readership, the bottom line is affected. If political appointees masquerading as editors are forced to turn newspapers and TV stations into a propaganda sheet like the Soviet-era Pravda on the instructions of political bosses, surely their shelf-life will be affected.
Let it be reiterated that freedom comes with responsibility – something that cannot be achieved unless editors are allowed to be professional and allow for healthy discussion and debate on matters of public interest. If because of political expediency, only one side is presented, then a policy of right of reply (which this newspaper advocates) must be put in place for opposing or dissenting views.
A Ukrainian editor whom I met at a conference in London two months ago told me that although his newspaper is not politically affiliated, politicians were running to the owner requesting that stories be suppressed. The owner, after a chat with the editor, found a righteous and honourable way to fend off such requests: “I don’t interfere with how the newspaper is run or its contents. I am an investor and I want to make money.” That has shut up many who think they can get help from the owner to suppress negative stories of their crooked deals and back-handers.
So if politicians and political parties leave editorial matters and policies in the hands of professionals, who then will be able to explain their stand for any act or omission on their part?
R. Nadeswaran has a daily dose of The Independent which prides itself on being free of any form of interference. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at citizen-nades@thesundaily.com