After seeing so much in the online social media of the beauty and strength of the unity of people in the Bersih 3.0 rally, snippets of brutality from the police crackdown, as well as the subsequent acts of brave resistance and retaliation from the common people, watch this piece of reporting by Malaysia's version of Channel NewsAsia. And you would start finding out how our own MSM could similarly give a totally different picture of what happened, the sentiments involved, and very skewed versions at that, to an undiscerning viewer.
Link: TV3 news on bersih3.0 - 28Apr2012
Link: TV3 news on bersih3.0 - 28Apr2012
What was reported may all be facts, but it is the angle taken, the omission of certain other facts, and the selective enlarging and downplaying of different aspects, that makes all the difference.
All media are biased; we cannot say that the online media is totally unbiased, but most of it would presumably seem more balanced, and more independent. Also, if only one side of view is allowed on the mainstream media (MSM, or mass media), with all channels and outlets running in the interests of one party/political side, what our mass public viewers are receiving would always be one-sided information; they would be exposed to only one side of the story, and a very biased one at that. And whereas the online and/or other "dissent" media are intimidated and supressed with the law or otherwise, on a systematic manner or otherwise, the "misinformation" by the government-endorsed MSM, of course, gets away with impunity (except for the people's humiliation and boycotts).
Now we must understand that true freedom of the press always comes with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and, free and fair elections, because these things exist together. When you have one party that insists on dominating (or even on being the only party in the House), that party would always make sure "their media" (MSM) is one-sided (to them).
That we want more online media presence and support to challenge the dominance of the MSM is only a start; to inform and educate more people. What we want to achieve ultimately, must be the freeing of the MSM, ie. the allowance of more than one perspective/political side to receive airing on national broadcast and print media. Then only our work is complete.
And by that, it does not just mean allowing the TV channels or newspapers more coverage of alternative views, but the entire permission to print and broadcast from an alternative perspective, ie. having pro-X and pro-Y media outlets. That means allowing many, and not one, biased reporting(s) to check on each other, so that the respective media outlets themselves produce fairer and more balanced coverage, and at the same time, contribute to a more balanced media coverage landscape for the general public. As meaningless as it gets for a media to be totally unbiased and view-less, biased reporting is in every democracy and every dictatorship; the only difference being that democracy allows many biased reportings, while dictatorships allow only one biased reporting. And as I have explained, the former is better as a whole (media scene, more representative and inclusive) and as a unit (media outlet itself, forced to become more balanced due to scrutiny by others).
For a clear example, the US has pro-Democratic and pro-Republican media, and both try to be as balanced as possible in their coverage, not hiding facts here and there (since others have reported, or would report them), not being blatantly biased (becuase people would find that irritating, misleading, and even deceptive) so as to convince the audience of their standpoints and views, through credibility. Same as in Taiwan, and understandably, in every true-blue democracy you can think of. And they do have a "really unbiased" public TV information channel, that does not take party political sides, but gives general information that is politically correct from the governement's perspective. Interestingly, on the one hand, you could say that Singapore's MSM resembles the public TV channel, since it is government controlled and gives "politically correct" information; on the other, since it is so politically skwed, it might not meet the mark and looks like a pro-Republican media, just that it is MORE biased, and is the ONLY biased channel allowed and available on the mass media scene.
So much for Mr Lee Hsien Loong trying to draw similarities between our media situation, and that in the US. I would say: free up the MSM first!
and published on TR Emeritus: http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/04/30/media-freedom-what-we-want-to-achieve/
No comments:
Post a Comment