Media
A lop-sided coverage
Its traditional pro-PAP slant raises heckles in this election, why
now?
By Seah Chiang Nee
May 7, 2006
Singapore's controlled media has come under criticism for the way
it covered the campaign leading to yesterday's 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 People's 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 People's Action Party (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 don't like the media
reporting. It's Third World standard, similar to propaganda,"
proclaimed an online letter.
"I'd 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, it's
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," explained an undergraduate.
Many were also compelled to rely on the Internet. This has been
described as Singapore's first Internet election.
"It gave people who didn't attend the rallies information they
didn't have in past elections. The PAP move to control the Internet
just before the elections failed completely because it was
ignored," said an observer.
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 Singapore's official media
outside the websites.
Two of the websites were started recently just to accommodate
photos and videos of rallies.
Most of Singapore's 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 Singapore's image abroad. A 2005
survey by Reporters Without Borders 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," stated one letter.
Others called for a boycott of the media. "I have cancelled my
subscriptions and will resume buying only if the newspapers regain
their freedom," said one web letter.
The feared backlash by voters may have had some impact -
temporarily. Before the nine-day campaign ended, there was better
coverage of opposition speeches.
"Tonight's 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.
The 10pm special TV coverage last week also had more opposition
content.