"Pressing questions and the news" - Today

After a long break, I'm back at it again, here. It felt like a really beaten-to-death topic, so my response was easy - to some extent, even surprised that we still have to debate press freedom in Singapore.

Really grateful to Loh, who dropped me a note to nod his agreement. As always, feedback (good or bad) means that what I write is of some consequence to others and the topic is not written off yet.

Kinda nervy this time round, since I just changed my job and working in this new stat board felt a bit closer to the topic. Doesn't help also that the corporate media monitoring held my name...

But this is me, something I felt compelled to do. Actually, no; the following was really me, although the published was quite close.

* * * * *

It’s about pressing the wrong questions at all the right places

Today reported on the comments by one of Singapore’s leaders, when he mentioned about the need for the media to take an active role in “uncovering failings in the system” in order to keep our nation running clean and smooth.

If you think that these comments were made by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at the recent Foreign Correspondents Association session, think again. They can actually be attributed to President S R Nathan on Aug 24, 2005.

Less than two years ago, my sense of guarded expectation was not unlike Loh Chee Kong’s (“Inform, educate, entertain...expose?”, Apr 2) when I read the President’s comments, as was Loh’s when he read Dr Vivian’s. Would the media take up the gauntlet and press ahead with a more enquiring stand when it comes to news reporting?

Less than two years on, nothing much seems to have changed. Indeed, given the controversy that surrounded the start of the NKF case in 2005, you might have expected news reporting in Singapore to boldly take us were our media has never gone before, into the uncharted territories of investigative journalism.

However, if the words of the President himself did little to jumpstart this, it is of little surprise that Loh remains skeptical that the possibly-soon-to-be Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts could result in a change of policy that would make much of a dent.

But is the state of journalism in Singapore so entrenched in the old Singapore Broadcasting Corporation’s charter, or that editors face such insurmountable bottom-line pressures, or the impossibility of finding a speck of dirt on the People Action Party’s snowy-white veneer, or even the dangers of defamation suits, be strong enough reasons to write off investigative journalism as unlikely, uneconomic, unnecessary or suicidal, respectively?

Perhaps the more pressing question is: Do we need to wait for a change in policy before our reporters become actual journalists?

To begin with, too many people would comfortably associate investigative journalism with exposés. If that were so, then the scooter-riding photographers who chased down Princess Diana would all be labeled investigative journalists, not paparazzi. Assuredly, it is the act of investigation, of asking even the most pressing, disturbing and annoying questions to get to the bottom of the matter, which sets investigative journalism apart.

Singapore’s media players have taken great pride in a long tradition of accountability, sticking to the truth instead of resorting to sensationalising news to make an erotic dollar. However, our media cannot claim to be accountable, only accurate – to the tee, in fact, by following every single detail in a cookie-cut press release. Only by asking the difficult questions that would propagate a more discerning public, or perhaps lend a voice to an already discerning public, would the media force those who want public buy-in into their programmes and policies to reveal every detail that has a likely impact on the same public.

Indeed, this renewed and purposeful loyalty to its readership can only mean more business for media players, as greater trust is built between the news and the reader, who can see their desires and feelings reflected and championed by the media. If Singapore’s media players still hold to their ancient standard of informing, educating and entertaining the public, they would probably realise that “education” and “engagement” today have blurred lines. Even the Education Ministry might testify to that.

And while we all hope for a clean government for Singapore, forever and ever, might we or even the PAP be caught unprepared by the slow seduction of corruption? If no amount of policy or praying can guarantee that politicians remain clean, as historically played out in many countries, then our best bet must be a discerning public, hopefully supported by a querying media. Beyond holding hints of an errant government accountable to the people, a querying media would also be a bane to future old NKFs who would think twice about trying their tricks.

Should we wait for a policy change for all this to happen? It is for the media players to decide. While it would be ideal to have media policies and laws that empowered journalists, rather than let them be “told how to behave” by MM Lee (Mediacorp’s “Why My Vote Matters”, 2006), our media companies should remember that all this actually took a fledging start more than a decade ago, when a tabloid called Project Eyeball pressed the boundaries with the current set of regulations that we, more or less, already have.

Our reporters should note that it is of greater importance, to themselves and the public, that they start getting in touch with their inner questioning child and make more sense of the news, rather than wait for things to happen. N