Cooling Off?

I normally avoid writing about party politics. It is often a face-value topic that does little for your soul, and I never have enough time as it is. My interest remains in the media and how the intricacies of public discourse shape and is shaped by society.

But there are some of these moments in the news that draw my attention. The articles eventually make their way to my "politics and media" folder, and at times compel me to stay the night, just so to pen a few lines.

Such was the case of PM Lee's declaration of a cooling-off period a day before election polling day. The mere concept is fraught with an intricate relationship with media, since modern politics has always leveraged for its purpose. But first, let's do the time-honoured tradition of first taking the argument apart...

Not holding its own weight?

The purported argument that supports this soon-to-be legislature (let us not kid ourselves) is the desire for citizens to be given time to think through their votes and not be swayed by the emotions of campaigning.

Numerous online comments have already ridiculed this, but what is more intriguing is that this is backdropped by constant affirmations from the ruling PAP, at every election won, no less, that the people have voted on the issues and the track-record of the PAP. That hardly constitutes a passionate vote, nor gives reason to believe that Singaporeans will be less level-headed now, so the about-face here is stark.

The other argument for the need to prevent social unrest is even more difficult to swallow. In a week of campaigning, with rallies going on every night, if riots have not broken out, it does not make sense to believe that it would happen on the last day. Fever-pitch day would simply be moved forward by a day. Worse indeed, for if a party does ever intends to work up the emotions of their voters, they will then have to pack greater intensity into fewer days.

Media in the balance

Perhaps it would make sense for us to compare these reasons with, say, Australia's in implementing their election cool-off. But assuming that these are valid concerns in our local context, for the moment, let's examine the role that the media plays when the time comes for this power relationship to be played out.

For a start, the use of broadcast media to continue carrying election news on the last day, as a means of keeping voters focused on the issues, holds little ground. It would be presumptuous to think that factual reporting on what has happened in the past week will not lead to an emotional response. Would not reminders of any kind on the last day be just as likely to bring up the same emotions the days before?

In this case, a complete media blackout would have been more meaningful, with the exception of radio stations playing easy music to enhance the cooling-off effect. Unfortunately, the PAP probably has simply reinforced public perception, intentionally or otherwise, of their intent to give "exclusive" coverage rights to traditional media. It is not a surprising move, as the traditional media has always been declared as the "preferred and trusted voice". But this is party politics, and such a move would only stir up more questions about the impartiality of traditional media, especially since this preferential rule is mooted by the ruling party and rejected by the WP. It will only serve to further corrode public confidence in the impartiality of traditional media.

Even more unfortunate is PM's "suggestion" for blogs with a name to them to toe the line. Panopticon threats aside, this statement is in line with the preferential treatment given to traditional media, but does little more than to contradict recently-touted practices of the PAP to be more open to online media as an election tool.

Furthermore, while the role of traditional media is clearly outlined, the same was not done so for online media. By nature, blogs have archives, so would the cooling-off period also require bloggers to remove all political posts for the past week, or just not make new posts on the last day? Does it apply to blogs and portals owned by the traditional media?

If anything, the simple sidelining of online media appears to have only one intent - to designate it as the curve ball that has the better chance of flouting the rule, and hence by extension the less reliable information source during election. Seriously, I do not believe much thought had been given to this particular PM remark to justify this speculation, but local blog comments already allude to PAP's fear of online media and hence the desire to limit its exposure come election time.

Mediating through a new minefield

Perhaps the bigger question on the minds of many bloggers who have dedicated themselves to covering political content is: How do I work around/with/through this new rule?

I hesitate to advise, as I believe, or at least hope, that the final legislature would provide more details and greater clarity on how this is supposed to pan out for all media, traditional or online come election time.

But I'd allow myself two suggestions...

Stay true to course – A blog that receives a following will have to value that as far as possible and do justice to their readership within the environment it operates in. You cannot hope to comment on Singapore politics but take cover in the vastness of cyberspace when the flak flies. Nevertheless, your readers will appreciate your legal constraints, and will accept that silence in a particular time does not compromise your editorial objectives. They will also judge you on the consistency of what you delivered previously and remember the points made. Respect their thoughts, so that with or without a cooling-off/blackout period, your readers know they still have all the information to make their decision freely.

Do it professionally – No matter what you read about in Malaysia or the USA, media does not determine politics. Media is the conduit of information. You honour your readership by staying away from party politics and sensationalism, and focusing on what matters to them. Because, honest to yourself, what makes you think you are the only source of information to them, much less a force capable of exerting an influence on their free will? N

Another way to see press freedom report

The following was sent to Today, and was never published. Somehow, I'm not really surprised. Saying that an MP is inaccurate is a sure way of getting booted by the local forum pages. :)

So here it is, for good measure...

* * * * *

I refer to the article, “Press freedom index: S’pore 133rd” (Oct 21, P6). I would like to offer an alternative interpretation to what was reported.

I would like to point out the statement made by Mr Zaqy Mohamad, who said that Singapore’s improved position in the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) ranking “underlines that our press remains credible especially in the face of challenges like the new media”, contains a fundamental inaccuracy.

While being 133rd is nothing to shout about, we need to understand that the RWB ranking focused mainly on the power relationship between the state and the media of each nation ranked. It does not necessarily reflect the quality or credibility of the media, which is mainly a relationship between the media and its readers that can be affected by other factors, such as inaccurate reporting.

Mr Zaqy’s suggestion that Singapore’s improvement in the ranking could be attributed to media diversity also needs to be reconsidered. RWB includes bloggers as part of the media pool – the report views online media less as competition to mainstream media but as equals caught in the same power position.

In particular, I am disappointed that Assistant Prof Eugene Tan would dismiss the report as irrelevant to most Singaporeans. If we believe a power struggle between politics and media to form the backbone of our media environment, how would that influence the way we read our daily news? For sure, Singaporeans will continue to “take their media outlets seriously”, but with serious misgivings or not, that is another matter.

To note, it might not always be political pressure on media that we need to be concerned about. Recent examples such as an interest for bloggers to declare their commercial affiliations and an editor assaulted by employers of foreign workers are very real concerns that we will all do well to be savvier about.

To end, I would offer that anyone who is interested in press freedom worldwide – or for that matter, anyone who ever reads a newspaper – first take a long hard look at how research bodies like RWB or Freedom House conduct their research, as differences in methodology can yield different results.

We might then wish to decide that a particular index or even sub-index, as a measure against a particular set of international standards, holds dearer to us. This might then become an assertion that puts us in a better position to interpret the news that we pick up everyday. N