How free should a free press be?
Speaking at the fifth anniversary celebrations of the Today newspaper last night, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said he did not favour a subservient press, but freedom must also come with responsibility. This is an excerpt from his speech.
I REGARD newspapers as more than just the usual commercial products. The media disseminates information, news, analyses and commentaries. It influences and shapes public opinion. Hence ideally, its corporate interests should converge with the core interests of its home country.
The media also provides an important channel for the government and national leaders to communicate with the people. And by reporting key events as they occur, the media serves as an authoritative record of a nation's significant moments for future generations. The media, therefore, occupies a privileged position in society. Editors and journalists shoulder a heavier moral and social responsibility beyond that of CEOs and executives of other commercial companies.
Western liberals often argue that press freedom is a necessary ingredient of democracy and that it is the fourth estate to check elected governments, especially against corruption. But a free press by Western standards does not always lead to a clean and efficient government or contribute to economic freedom and prosperity.
An international NGO, Reporters Without Borders, publishes an annual Press Freedom Index. Singapore does not rank high in this index. When Singapore was first ranked in 2003, we were placed 144th out of 166 countries. In 2005, we moved up four places to rank 140th out of 167 countries. Still, nothing to be proud of. After all, the other four original Asean countries were all ranked ahead of Singapore. Indonesia was ranked 102nd - followed by Thailand at 107th, Malaysia at 113th. The ranking of the Philippines was a surprise. Having occasionally read extracts from the Filipino press, I have always been under the impression that the Filipino press is extremely free. But the Philippines was ranked 139th, only one position higher than Singapore. Also, to my utter amazement, I discovered that even struggling war-torn Sudan was ranked at 133rd, seven places ahead of Singapore.
Should we be embarrassed because we are near the bottom of the ladder in the ranking? Should we be worried that investors may be put off? Not at all. What then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in 1959 is still our position today. He told a foreign correspondent then: 'You are not going to teach us how we should run the country. We are not so stupid. We know what our interests are and we try to preserve them.' Mr Lee proved that he was right. By the time he stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990, he had transformed Singapore from the Third World to First. Not only that. Singapore has one of the cleanest and most efficient governments in the world.
Transparency International's 2005 survey of corruption perception for 158 countries ranked Singapore as the fifth least corrupt country. Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia, which had better press freedom ranking, were ranked between 39th and 137th in that order. Sudan was a distant 144th.
What about economic freedom and prosperity? The highly regarded US-based Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index gave us top marks. Singapore was ranked second out of 155 economies. Again, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines fell behind Singapore. They occupied positions between 70th and 121st.
As for economic prosperity, Singapore is way ahead of many countries with better press freedom rankings. My simple point is this: It has not been proven that having more press freedom would result in a clean and efficient government or economic freedom and prosperity.
I have taken the Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index at face value. It is a subjective measure computed through the prism of Western liberals. The index was compiled based on feedback primarily from 14 freedom of expression groups and 130 press correspondents. It lacks the careful research of hard data like the World Economic Forum's Report on World Competitiveness.
Also, press freedom does not equate to press quality. As Reporters Without Borders pointed out in its report, 'the index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the press in the countries concerned'. Unfortunately, I have not come across any index on the quality of the press. However, I have travelled to many countries and seen their newspapers. I dare say ours are comparable with many of the better foreign ones.
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as unfettered press freedom. Even the most liberal-minded person would acknowledge the necessity of some form of regulation or code to ensure responsible reporting.
Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th American President, once said: 'The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used right.'Newspaper editors must always be mindful of the powers wielded by their pens or, nowadays, keyboards. They have a greater responsibility to society than merely publishing a sensational story, scooping the news or turning in a bigger profit for shareholders. There are larger national and societal interests at stake. I suppose that is what Roosevelt meant when he said that the journalists should use their power in a right way.
Reputable international news organisations also face this consideration every day. Although their conditions may be different, foreign editors have also exercised restraint and censorship when necessary.
You would recall that about a year ago, an Al-Qaeda-linked group in Iraq kidnapped and beheaded an American contractor, Nick Berg. The editors of several major US news agencies, including CNN, ABC and CBS, were confronted with the stark dilemma of whether to capture viewership by broadcasting the unedited video of Berg's ordeal or censor it and risk being outdone by a competitor. The video was already circulating freely and widely on the Internet. Despite this, most networks decided to report the news without broadcasting the gruesome video. Others simply showed the initial seconds of the video when Berg was still alive. Broadcasting the full video would have served the terrorists' objective of sparking public fear and accentuating public opposition to continued US presence in Iraq. Contrary to concern that such self-censorship might diminish the standing of a network in the eyes of the public, the networks earned praise for their responsible actions. Even Al-Jazeera decided not to air the footage as it felt that to show the actual beheading would have been 'out of the realm of decency'.
Similarly, the BBC covered the July 7 London Tube bombings in a responsible manner. While others contributed to an atmosphere of panic by speculating on casualties and destruction in the immediate aftermath, the BBC exercised considerable self-restraint. Rather than telecast live images, it used mostly videotaped ones which could be edited. The BBC also injected calm by reporting on the speed of emergency services and the quick recovery of the London stock market. These efforts helped the city to regain its composure. In Singapore, our media too had played a positive role in past crises.
When Jemaah Islamiah members were arrested in Singapore in September 2002, our editors realised that they must not inadvertently portray the arrests as being targeted against a particular community. To avoid driving a wedge between the various communities, our media took the constructive approach of highlighting the combined efforts of our various communities in fighting the menace. For example, Lianhe Zaobao commentaries explained that the JI issue was not a racial or religious one but a national challenge requiring the concerted effort of all Singaporeans and communities.
Media coverage of the Sars epidemic is another example of strong government-media partnership. Unlike in some other Sars-affected countries, our media worked hand-in-hand with the Government to ensure that the public received accurate information in a non-sensational way. Our newspapers and TV stations produced special cartoons and programmes to drive home messages to promote public hygiene, increase awareness and dispel myths. The Sars episode was one of the most painful moments for Singapore. Without the media working with the Government, Singapore could not have pulled through.
I recount these examples to emphasise that Singapore needs a media model where the players practise press freedom in a responsible way. It is also to remind all of us that should a national crisis such as a terrorist attack or an avian flu epidemic occur, our media should not go for sensational reporting. It should exercise judgment and cover unfolding events sensitively and in a manner which informs, educates and unites, not divides, our people.
Do not get me wrong. I do not favour a subservient press. An unthinking press is not good for Singapore. But press freedom must be practised with a larger sense of responsibility and the ability to understand what is in or not in our national interests. Editors need to understand what their larger responsibilities entail and to demand them of their journalists. Editors and journalists must have high personal integrity and sound judgment - people who understand Singapore's uniqueness as a country, our multiracial and multi-religious make-up, vulnerabilities and national goals. By this, I mean that our editors and journalists must be men and women who know what works for Singapore and how to advance our society's collective interests. advanceThe starting point is how to put in place a good government to run a clean, just and efficient system.
Our editors and journalists must work for the public good in a practical rather than an idealistic way. They must report the news and present viewpoints with the aim to educate and inform without pursuing any personal or political agenda. Capturing readership is an important goal but to do so through sensational coverage is not the right way.
Opinions and analytical pieces on salient issues are important for giving readers varying perspectives. However, editors should take a balanced approach so as not to allow the commentary and opinion pages of their newspapers to reflect only biased or partisan views.
More importantly, news should not be slanted to serve a hidden agenda. The media is free to put across a range of worthy different viewpoints to encourage constructive social and political discourse. It should not parrot the government's position. It would lose its credibility if it tries to be the government's propagandist. A discredited media would not serve our national interests.
Let me emphasise that while times have changed, the context in which our media operates has not changed much. Our multi-ethnic structure and social fabric remain the same. So are the permanent vulnerabilities. Even though Singapore is now more developed and our population better educated, it remains crucial for Singapore to maintain our own unique and tested system of political governance and media model. They have worked well. We should improve them from experience and by learning from others. Accept what has worked and reject what has not, whether they are from the East or West. But we must be bold enough to evolve our own model of a responsible, lively and credible media. The results of a prosperous, vibrant, well-governed Singapore speak for themselves.
DIFFERENT TIMES, SAME CONTEXT
While times have changed, the context in which our media operates has not changed much. Our multi-ethnic structure and social fabric remain the same. So are the permanent vulnerabilities.
MEETING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
I have travelled to many countries and seen their newspapers. I dare say ours are comparable with many of the better foreign ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment