SINGAPORES controlled media has come under criticism for the
way it covered the campaign leading to last Saturdays general
election.
While Singaporeans were still pondering on which party to give
their votes to, many had already cast a negative vote for what they
perceived to be biased, lop-sided press coverage.
A frequent charge was that the amount of space and time given by
the national press and TV in this election was overwhelmingly in
favour of the ruling Peoples Action Party (PAP). Some of it was
slanted to its favour.
Much of what the opposition candidates did or said, on the other
hand, was either ignored or under-reported.
The national media made little effort to project an even-handed
approach or treat both the ruling PAP and its political rivals as
equal entities.
There was hardly any mention of figures or photographs of the huge
crowds attending their rallies.
Already viewed as underdogs, the struggling candidates may have
benefited from a public backlash, a perception that they are
victims of media bias.
I am not interested in politics, but I dont like the media
reporting. Its Third World standard, similar to propaganda,
proclaimed an online letter.
Id like to voice my discontent at the way the Singapore media
reports the election. I am extremely disappointed by the way the
media does its work, another said.
It began on nomination day when the official Channel News Asia gave
such an overwhelming coverage to the ruling party that it prompted
some critics to name it Channel PAP.
Subsequent days were hardly any better.
Day in and night out, its all about the ruling party; some 80% or
more coverage was given to its side of the story, Grunt
complained.
More than 100 letters from readers, many of them believed to be
sympathetic to the opposition, have not been published partly
because of insufficient space.
Unlike other developed nations, Singapore has never been renowned
for objective journalism. Its pro-government newspapers and TV
rarely see the need to be even-handed in political coverage.
So why is the criticism so vocal this time?
For one thing, the slant was more than before, possibly because the
PAP was under the strongest challenge in 20 years.
But the main reason could be the changing electorate, younger
Singaporeans who see a fair media as crucial for democracy,
concepts not always shared by the government.
This has driven many people to hear for themselves what the
opposition parties had to say, adding to the huge rallies.
I have to go because the press is unlikely to report very much of
it, an undergraduate explained.
Many were also compelled to rely on the internet. This has been
described as Singapores first internet election.
It gave people who didnt attend the rallies information they
didnt have in past elections.
The PAP move to control the internet just before the elections
failed completely because it was ignored, an observer said.
About 40% of voters were born after 1965, the year of independence,
the vast majority being web-connected.
What The Straits Times and CNA did not provide, the internet did
citizens reports, videos and photographs of rallies were widely
available despite a ban on political weblogs.
Pictures of huge opposition rallies, which were published in
Malaysia, never saw the light of day in Singapores official media
outside the websites.
Two of the websites were started recently just to accommodate
photos and videos of rallies. Most of Singapores dozen or so
online forums and the political blogs reported a substantial
increase in visitors. In global search engines, the subject
Singapore election was among the top entries.
The press itself became an issue when voters were discussing fair
governance and political level-playing fields. It was accused of
playing up the government and putting down the opposition.
Years of control have affected Singapores image abroad. A survey
by Reporters Without Borders last year ranked the state 140 out of
167 countries in terms of press freedom worse than Russia or
Afghanistan. The government has dismissed it as not
important.
Some citizens appealed to the journalists and editors to make a
conscious effort to strive for world-class professionalism.
For those of you who still have a moral conscience, I suggest that
you quit and join a foreign publication ... to report on
Singapore, one letter said.
Others called for a boycott of the media.
I have cancelled my subscriptions and will resume buying only if
the newspapers regain their freedom, one web letter said.
The feared backlash by voters may have had some impact
temporarily.
Before the nine-day campaign ended, there was better coverage of
opposition speeches.
Tonights Channel 8 news was more favourable towards the
opposition. I heard some reporters had complained and threatened to
quit. The same thing is happening in the newspapers, a viewer
observed.
A reader blogged, I bought the Lianhe Wanbao (Chinese newspaper)
today; the report was fair with a lot of what the opposition had
said at the rallies. They are doing a good job.
A media insider has appealed for understanding and patience because
there is a rising awareness among young journalists about the need
for change.
They are the people best capable to push for it when the time is
ripe, he said.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has promised further opening up of
the society.
In 20 years, he said, Singapore would be a totally different
place.
Judging by the tone of many post-65ers, it could well be
sooner.
Note: Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the
information website littlespeck.com
http://www.thenational.com.pg/050906/column6.htm