February 25th, 2009
There will always be a role for traditional media to present trusted, unbiased and informed opinions even if some may feel that the information generated by traditional media is rather tame compared to what’s online, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in an interview with Channel News Asia. CNA itself is needed to provide an Asian perspective on the news, he said – “not to put over an ideology or a doctrine but just present the facts less the western spectacles”.
February 15th, 2009
It’s been said that think tanks help society “think the unthinkable”. Journalists depend on the intellectual capital they generate. The bad news for Singapore journalism, though, is that the country is not yet regarded as a global think tank hub.
According to a survey by Foreign Policy magazine:
Singapore does show up within the Asian Top 25, with the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies ranked at 7 and the Institute for Defense and Strategic Studies (now the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU) at 10.
The study started with 407 institutions nominated by a panel of experts comprised of peer institutions, donors, directors of think tank networks, and representatives from intergovernmental organisations. The survey asked more than 5,000 organizations to select what they considered to be the top think tanks in the world, as well as by region and research area.
“Think tank wonks do more than churn out endless policy papers,” the report says. “Presidents and Prime Ministers seek them out because they are critical to the global ideas industry. They generate and fine-tune solutions to some of the most complex and vexing issues of the day. Leaders around the world need them to provide independent analysis, help set policy agendas, and bridge the gap between knowledge and power.”
You can download the full report at the Foreign Policy website: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4598&page=0
by
February 6th, 2009
These are anxious days for journalists, with the global recession tripping up a newspaper industry that was already reeling from declining readership. Like all generalisations, this one has its caveats and exceptions. In some markets, newspapers are still growing. And, even where they are not, there’s no evidence that they will disappear entirely: it’s more likely that they will find a new niche and a new equilibrium. Trouble is, this niche will be far narrower than newspapers have been used to for centuries, when they were practically synonymous with public opinion and the national agenda. Their new level will be much humbler than in the days when the business was equated with a licence to print money, and – this time without exaggeration – among the most profitable of all manufacturing industries.
This essay is an attempt to explore what may lie over the horizon for journalism. Some things may stay the same, some will get better, some worse, and some will just be different. Much of what has been written about the future of journalism has come from industry insiders, who tend to focus on the health of news organisations as businesses. This discussion leaves most citizens cold. After all, who cares about this quaint, centuries-old ink-on-newsprint product that is already becoming less and less important a part of people’s lives? But this reaction misses the point. While some, this writer included, consider good newspapers to be a key ingredient of a high quality of life, they are ultimately important not because of the reading experience they provide. They are important because they have always been the main institutional form supporting the work of large teams of professional journalists. You may not miss ink-on-newsprint much, but you may miss the service of professional journalists much more. The crisis is not that newspapers are sinking, but that we have not yet built a life raft for the journalism profession.
Unless we find an equally hospitable organisational framework for the employment of journalists, the decimation of newspapers would mean the decimation of a profession whose contribution to society is indispensable. If journalism dies, society may need to recreate it. Far more sensible, though, to ensure that it does not die, so that its positive traditions and norms continue uninterrupted.
This is not to say that everything that journalists do is either necessary or helpful. On the contrary, the shakeout that is ahead will probably devastate much of the terrain that newspaper journalists now consider part of their territory. Just as drama serials migrated from radio when television came along, so too newspapers will find whole genres of information, education and entertainment slipping out of its grasp as consumers find better ways to fulfill these needs. But, just as radio then found its niche in music and talk, so too newspapers and journalism will, through merciless competition, discover what they were really made for.
The current model has endured for more than a century. There are two key features of this model that we pretty much take for granted. First, it is a commercial “dual market” model that is really two businesses rolled into one: the selling of content to readers, and the selling of readers to advertisers. The great merit of this model is that readers are basically subsidised (massively, in mature markets) by advertisers. Second, the newspaper is a packaged product, bundling together various genres of content. The menu is surprisingly uniform across the globe: newspapers contain coverage of government, business, sports, lifestyle and so on. This bundling has meant that a newspaper does not need all its readers to be attracted by all its content. It just needs all its readers to like some of its content. Its breadth assures this: there is something for everyone, so everyone can buy a paper.
This model is under twin assault. First, advertisers are finding alternative – and usually more targeted – ways to reach customers. Professional journalism may be as necessary as it ever was, but it is finding it harder to get advertisers to subsidise readers. Readers, having never in history paid the full price of receiving the news, are not about to start now – especially not when the internet seems to provide a bottomless pit of free content. Second, the newspaper’s “department store” model is under threat from the boutiques of niche media. Why buy a newspaper for the world weather report, or for EPL news, or for movie reviews, when you get these from weather.com, goal.com or rottentomatoes.com. Niche media – together with mass media from previously distant markets that the internet has brought within reach – chip away at readers’ dependence on their local dailies.
THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM: CONTENT
There is no simple answer to how the decline of newspapers will affect society, because – to borrow the line from the Nokia N95 commercial – a newspaper is not one thing, it’s many. And each of these things will have a different future. For some of the roles that newspapers currently play, we will sorely miss their contribution. In other cases, we may get by just fine: either because we don’t really need professional journalists to do the job, or because the amateur or professional journalists can offer a viable service independently, without needing to be hired by newspapers. Here are some thoughts about various categories of content.
Parliament sittings. Without newspapers, citizens will lose their main source of news about Parliament debates, the most important forum in the land. Parliament itself may try to fill the gap. After all, Parliament as an institution needs to be seen to be working. Debates could be televised, either on the Parliament website or on a local equivalent of C-SPAN, the American cable channel that provides live telecasts of public meetings. Live telecasts are of course not a substitute for the detailed but distilled reports provided by a newspaper of record such as the Straits Times. Without the ST, Parliament would probably need to create its own news service – or, more likely, depend on a national state-funded news agency – to keep the public informed about its work. (An example of a professionally-run in-house news agency is the United Nations News Service.) Of course, no matter how professionally run, such an official agency will be less independent than the ST. Could citizen journalists compensate? They could certainly play an important role, but amateurs with day jobs will be unable to provide daily detailed news reports from Parliament.
Crime stories. Many crime stories have “human interest” value and enjoy wide readership. It’s doubtful, though, whether consumers really want or need this on a daily basis. They seem to be happy enough getting such stories as part of a wider buffet, but in the disaggregated news world that we are entering, it’s hard to imagine a market for a specialised “Crime News Daily”. Instead, the most compelling of these stories would probably be circulated on a less regular basis by non-journalist story-tellers, such as book writers and docudrama scriptwriters – which, of course, already happens. Another player is the Police, which could decide to expand its public communication to produce crime stories on a regular basis, as part of its crime awareness mission. It already does this in a limited way with its Crimewatch TV series. If newspaper crime reporters disappeared, the Police public communications branch could try to fill the gap, using the internet and radio. Check out the surprisingly readable work of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority’s press office: for example, “New Year Foam Party Goes Up In Smoke”.
Announcements. We depend on newspapers for a whole range of announcements that help us plan our lives: new regulations, road closures, festival openings and so on. If newspapers disappear, the newsmakers would still need to reach out to us; they’d just have to work harder – and spend more – to do so without the middleman. Indeed, newsmakers will miss professional reporters, who act as proxies for the public and ask questions that help newsmakers refine and clarify their announcements. Without this service, members of the public will be forced to go directly to the newsmakers to clarify what their frequently incomprehensible releases actually mean. On the other hand, life is already so full of announcements that only a small proportion of them are actually covered even in a thick newspaper like the ST. People have grown quite used to referring directly to the horse’s mouth when they need to know something: for example, visiting Sistic website for event listings or the Education Ministry site for school holiday dates, or just Googling when they’re not sure which website to visit.
Foreign news. This is the category that people are most sanguine about: the internet, together with international cable news channels, has reduced our dependence on local dailies for foreign news. Of course, if there’s a global decline in journalistic capacity, we could see our free internet sources dry up. This is unlikely, though. Even if several major global brands shrivel up, there will still be some left standing after the shake-up. The BBC is relatively immune to the current downturn. National Public Radio of the US is still growing its network of foreign correspondents – along with China’s state-owned media. Complemented by citizen journalism and various news aggregation services, our diet of foreign news may actually get richer and more diverse. The catch, though, is that these sources may not give you foreign news from a perspective that matters to you. That’s what a local paper does, and that’s what may be missed. Since states have an interest in promoting a national perspective on foreign news, we may once again see the government invest directly in such capacity. Think Channel News Asia, but better.
Sports, food, movies, music, fashion, consumer tech. There is a whole range of coverage for which newspaper journalism will not be missed, because equally good alternatives can fill the gap. The thing about areas such as sports and movies is that they have large constituencies of passionate fans – including talented amateur writers who would quite happily write reviews for free on their own dedicated blogs. Indeed, those of us who follow these areas closely would already know of specialised blogs and forums whose writers are even more knowledgable, and sometimes even write better, than the professional correspondents of the daily papers. Another thing about these consumer/lifestyle topics is that fans and/or advertisers are willing to pay for niche weekly/monthly magazines. Already, for example, IS Magazine provides a better guide to leisure and entertainment than ST or Today. As newspapers decline, more specialised websites in these lifestyle categories should be able to go commercial, perhaps employing the best columnists/correspondents who once worked for newspapers.
Investigative journalism. The decline of news organisations would pose a serious threat to journalism that requires dogged persistence in uncovering secrets, the access that comes with years of contact-building, uncompromising discipline in fact-checking, and the deep pockets to defend potential defamation suits. Citizen journalists do very little original reporting. However, it’s not inconceivable that even investigative journalism could sprout outside of news organisations, and even outside of professional journalism. Various civil society watchdogs could play a role similar to that of investigative journalists. CASE could expose consumer-related scandals. The Law Society could investigate and publicise lapses in the administration of justice. Green groups could do the same in the area of environmental protection. To do so effectively, civil society groups would need to boost their research and publicity arms significantly. As for lone-ranger citizen journalists, their role in Singapore is severely constrained by the lack of freedom of information laws that provide access to official information.
Commentary and analysis. Scan any serious newspaper and you will find that a high proportion of op-ed articles are not written by staffers or even by professional journalists, but by think-tankers, academics, public intellectuals, consultants, politicians and the like. These writers don’t generally do it for the money. They seek other forms of reward, such as influence and ego gratification. Or, they may be in the ideas business: writing may be part of their job description at the institutions where they work. If newspapers die, they would lose a key platform – but they won’t lose the incentive to keep writing. The same applies to the commentators who currently blog.
THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM: EDITING AND PACKAGING
A newspaper is more than the sum of its individual stories. There is also value in the way editors select and place those stories. The most obvious value is sheer convenience. In an age of information overload, news organisations do an indispensable service by filtering and selecting news for the reader. Indeed, readers’ desire to search and select their own news is probably exaggerated. Based on anecdotal evidence, it appears that few internet users bother to customise their chosen news portals even when such an option is offered. They are quite happy to let their online news provider tell them what it thinks is interesting or important. Beyond convenience, there may be another reason why news organisations’ selection and packaging of the news is in fact a valuable service. Newspaper readers don’t just learn what’s happening. They also learn what the newspaper thinks they and other readers care about or should care about.
To claim that such editorial judgment is valuable may sound awfully elitist. The point here, though, is that people are social beings. If for no other reason than to arm themselves with ammunition for anticipated conversations with friends and colleagues, most people do want to know what others know; and ideally that little bit extra as well. A well-edited mass circulation newspaper provides the common ground for a million conversations. Popular, tabloid newspapers do this mainly by predicting what readers will find interesting, even if not particularly important. More serious, high-quality papers highlight the issues that they judge to be important, and use their creativity to make the important, interesting.
The vitally significant social value of editorial judgment is under-appreciated by most readers. It’s not their fault. Through a mixture of arrogance, lack of accountability and carelessness about ethics, media professionals around the world have alienated too many readers for too long. I have no doubt, though, that if professionally-edited news media disappeared, they would be desperately missed.
Most likely, things would not come to that. The shake-out would leave some peaks of excellence standing. These will be the news organisations with clear-headed leadership and strong professional traditions; companies that have been uncompromising in associating their brands with reliability and integrity, resisting the temptation to ape entertainment media or pander to advertisers. They may shrink in size, but their brand names may be as strong as ever.
Brands will still matter. In fact, they will probably matter more. When confronted with too much information – the irreversible condition of the digital age – people will be in even greater need of short-hand methods to assess reliability. Even if they have the means, readers will have neither the time nor the motivation to cross-check every story they read against alternative sources, or to verify that every image is the real thing and not a photoshopped fiction. They will rely on brand-name intermediaries with a track record of taking extreme care in their choice of words or images. While it’s not possible to achieve 100% accuracy – even the Brahmins of the news business have had their share of plagiarism and fabrication scandals – news organisations will distinguish themselves by how seriously they deal with lapses. It’s like the food business. Food consumers have started using the country of origin as a short-hand indicator of food safety and quality. Similarly, some news brands will be trusted more than others – and the importance of that trust (and with it the value of the brand) will increase as sources of information proliferate.
It’s doubtful that this packaged, branded service will be needed daily in print form – and certainly not in such large numbers. Television, radio and the internet (including mobile devices) may be more than adequate for daily news. These would be supplemented by blogs and online social networks. The printed newspaper that most people want may be a weekly: a tightly and judiciously edited product, operating on the credo that – in a time-starved information-gorged life – less is more.
THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM: THE STATE
Brand-name news providers applying traditional standards of journalism will survive, because the demand for their judgment won’t disappear. But, their scope will probably shrink, either because others can do certain job better or – more worryingly – because people won’t pay the required rate for their service. Quality journalism has the attributes of what economists call a “public good”: like schools and libraries, everyone agrees that it’s essential for society but few are willing to pay directly for it.
We haven’t needed to confront this problem until now, because journalism has always been massively subsidised by advertising, concealing from the public the true cost of doing journalism. This cost has also been concealed by the bundling of the most socially important journalism with more trivial forms. As advertising dries up, and as the bundle of content traditionally provided by newspapers gets disaggregated by niche media, newspapers’ most important function – journalism – is suddenly left out in the cold.
Newspapers rose with nations and the very idea of the public. They formed the common spaces where people could get to know the strangers that they would never otherwise meet in their cities. It’s therefore been said that newspapers made nations possible, as imagined communities.
None of this is likely to persuade people to dig deeper into their pockets to keep troubled news organisations going. (Especially not when people have been conditioned to think that being entertained is more important than being informed – a process aided and abetted by newspapers themselves.) There is, however, at least one institution that will quickly realise that it cannot let the press die: the state. The modern state cannot function without the daily circulation of news and information that news organisations facilitate.
It’s inevitable that the government will build up its own capacity to do something akin to journalism. This will probably start with individual agencies boosting their publicity arms in response to the decline of newspaper companies’ ability to cover them. The next logical step would be the establishment of a state-funded national news agency. To do this well, it would help to have a strong tradition of insulating public institutions from the government of the day. Without this, a national news agency would be quickly reduced to a propaganda department, read by nobody but its political bosses. Wiser leaders would miss the good old days when independent journalists provided a credible national news service at no cost to the taxpayer. A few may even admit that they should not have made life so difficult for those same journalists.
THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM: PROFESSIONALS
There will continue to be work for professional journalists. The question is where. Many ex-newspaper journalists will become pseudo-journalists hired by the news and publicity offices of government agencies, private companies and NGOs, which I’ve predicted will grow. Indeed, public relations already employs more people than journalism and it’s been pointed out that “big news stories are in reality PR battles fought out between rival organisations” (see Simon Goldsworthy‘s article in the Independent). PR is a distinct profession with its own training and norms, but the PR industry has always valued talent crossing over from journalism. Journalists’ core craft skills – anticipating people’s needs and interests, and writing compelling stories – are valued by non-news organisations’ PR arms. Their work may resemble journalism, but is pseudo-journalism at best, because it would lack that one essential attribute of the professional journalist – a single-minded dedication to the public, and not the paymaster. But if members of the public are unwilling to be the paymaster, they can’t really complain if pseudo-journalism becomes the norm.
A more positive develop could be the teaming up of professional journalists to form self-governing syndicates. One such syndicate, Global Post, has just set up a worldwide network of stringers to serve news organisations that cannot afford their own foreign correspondents. Local and regional syndicates are likely to emerge, perhaps specialising in niche areas. Syndicated suppliers may be especially useful to the operators of new information platforms and portals that have no experience in journalism. For example, a mobile phone company that wants to offer subscribers a unique news feed as part of its enhanced services would probably prefer to engage a reliable wholesaler such as a syndicate than to try to get into the journalism business itself.
In rare cases, star journalists could develop personal brands. These would be nowhere near as profitable as the Oprah Winfreys or Martha Stewarts of the world, but could generate as much revenue as a newspaper job. An exceptionally influential sports writer, movie reviewer or stock market watcher, for example, could try to develop their own advertising-supported websites. Unfortunately, the “public good” characteristic of most public affairs journalism means that it’s unlikely to be commercially viable – except perhaps in exceptionally chaotic times. How to support such journalism is not just a problem for journalists but also a challenge for society at large.
In the United States, there is growing interest in the idea of foundation/endowment-backed journalism. This makes eminent sense. Call it a Civic Journalism Service (CJS), made up of 50-100 full-time professional journalists focusing exclusively on those genres of journalism that are clear cases of market failure: public affairs reporting, in particular. You will hear knee-jerk criticisms of such a model, mainly from commercial news media: how to ensure that a CJS isn’t influenced by its funders, for example. The truth is that there are enough best practices to learn from worldwide; it’s just that it has never been in the interest of the mainstream profession to highlight models that put their own to shame. Positive examples include the Guardian in the UK, published by a trust; the public-funded BBC; and the foundation-owned St Petersburg Times. They show that it is possible to institutionalise editorial independence far more effectively than most commercial publishers have been willing to.
In return for its guaranteed funding, a CJS should be based on a strong social compact. It should be required to state its mission clearly and publicly so that the public can hold it to account and so that its journalists aren’t allowed to forget why they are being paid. Models of such statements include the Committee of Concerned Journalists’ Statement of Shared Purpose and Citizens Bill of Journalism Rights. It should have an equally public code of ethics, like the UK editors’ code of practice or the exhaustive editorial guidelines of the BBC. It should establish meaningful accountability mechanisms such as the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, who is empowered to take to task publicly the organisations’ journalists and editors.
A CJS need not have its own medium beyond a website. Its products should be released to the Creative Commons as a free contribution to the civic life of the nation. This is not unprecedented, either. There are already issue-based news services that provide such free content. One example is the Panos Foundation, which specialises in Third World development stories. An outstanding single-issue news and analysis website that’s foundation/university-funded is Yale Environment 360.
For the future of journalism, a Civic Journalism Service run along these lines may not be the same as most of today’s newspapers. It has a real chance to be much, much better.
by
February 5th, 2009
This article is an edited version of Lui’s answer to a Parliamentary question on 4 February. Lui is the Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts.
We have not done any studies to assess the level of maturity and consistency of local netizens in entering a self-regulated regime. However, for Members of the House who have surfed the Internet, you would have observed that while there are some serious and objective postings, there is also a prevalence of noises, rumours and distortions in cyberspace. As AIMS has noted, while there were reasoned and critical views, there was also “a great deal of unhelpful commentary and discussions online”.
In fact, it would be quite apparent that the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be. Rumours and lies are prevalent in cyberspace. Flaming and cyber bullying are not uncommon. Unfortunately, this is the downside of the Internet, given the borderless nature of cyberspace and the cloak of anonymity that comes with it.
[When Yio Chu Kang Member of Parliament Seng Han Thong was set on fire last month] there were a small number of comments sympathetic to him, expressing condolences … praising him for the work that he has done. [But] the vast majority of the comments were unhelpful … a significant number were unkind … a small number were downright outrageous. It was disappointing.
I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens. It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime. But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.
To develop a responsible cyberspace, all parties need to play their role responsibly. On its part, the Government had in the past set up the Parents Advisory Group for the Internet (PAGi) and National Internet Advisory Committee (NIAC) to promote a culture of cyber wellness, especially among our young and their parents. Today, the Media Development Authority (MDA) works with the Internet and Media Advisory Committee (INMAC), the industry as well as NGOs such as the Touch Community to foster cyber wellness among our young people. In response to AIMS, the Government will set up an Inter-Ministry Taskforce on Cyber Wellness to coordinate national efforts and develop strategies and programmes on cyber wellness.
Significantly, netizens themselves have a major and critical role to play in developing a responsible cyberspace. Individual bloggers ought to be responsible and accountable in their postings. Website proprietors and the online contributors must be responsible and prompt in moderating the sites to ensure credibility, objectivity and balance in the content posted. Netizens can and should do more to establish and enforce the norms of acceptable online behaviour.
As the Government moves towards engagement in cyberspace, we hoped that the online community, as well as those in the real world, will contribute constructive and meaningful ideas and comments to help strengthen Singapore and better prepare us for the rigours of global competition.
Sources: MICA, Today, The Straits Times
Postscript, from Lui’s Parliamentary answers on 6 February:
I would also like to take this opportunity to address some comments on my reply to Ms Penny Low about self-regulation on the Internet.
They seem to have misconstrued my remarks as “a desire for more regulation on the Internet”. Let me say clearly that I am not advocating this position. In fact, self-regulation is what some bloggers themselves have asked for. In responding to the AIMS committee, a group had proposed for community moderation to replace the Government’s promised lighter-touch regulatory approach. It is for the online community to decide if there should be self-regulation or not. Likewise, it is for them to deliberate on how online postings could be self-regulated or moderated.
The Government will continue with its promised lighter touch regulatory approach, and will engage netizens in a constructive and beneficial way.
Source: MICA
by
February 4th, 2009
As promised, the Films Act will be liberalised to allow certain types of political films. However, the amendments that have been tabled in Parliament aren’t only about opening up space for free expression. The Government is also taking the opportunity to tighten the noose around civil disobedience.
Under the proposed amendments, recording of live events such as rallies will be allowed as long as the event itself “is held in accordance with the law”. This change is clearly targeted at Chee Soon Juan and the small band of activists who have been trying to highlight what they regard as unjust features of the political system by deliberately disobeying various laws.
These activists have been using video to magnify the impact of their civil disobedience campaigns. They film their illegal (but non-violent) demonstrations being interrrupted by police, then post the video to expose what they hope will be seen worldwide as the brutality of the PAP regime against peaceful protesters.
Examples are easily found on Youtube:
This simple tactic is routinely used by activists in Malaysia and elsewhere (blogger-turned-MP Jeff Ooi provided such media support for various protests in Kuala Lumpur). It now appears to be taking root here – but not if the Singapore Government can help it.
Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng had already revealed in an interview with The Straits Times last month that the Government was drafting new legislation to deal with civil disobedience. The Films (Amendment) Bill is the first salvo in the Government’s counter-attack.
The Government is not intending to ban all reporting of illegal protests. Exempted from these provisions are any film “which is made solely for the purpose of reporting of news by a broadcasting service licensed under any written law”. This means that mainstream media such as Channel News Asia or CNN can cover such protests.
For the activists, this exception provides little comfort. Mainstream media would probably downplay and contextualise such footage in a way that blunts its political impact – partly out of respect for the authorities, but mainly because protests in Singapore are hardly worth more than a few seconds of precious airtime since they appear to have minimal popular support.
On the other hand, the logic of civil disobedience means that the new regulations can actually play into the hands of the activists. Instead of only the protesters being arrested, the video guy would also be taken away under the amended Films Act, along with his equipment. The result: even more dramatic footage, assuming it can be streamed out before the police pull the plug. Thus, the amendments will raise the cost of civil disobedience, but won’t necessarily stop it.
More:
January 10th, 2009
The Government has rejected the idea of responding to citizens who try to engage it through blogs. Instead, mainstream media will continue to be the designated mode for such interaction. The Government has a long-standing policy of differentiating mainstream from alternative media: it replies to citizens’ letters published in the Straits Times Forum page and similar mainstream platforms, but does not post replies on independent blogs.
While acknowledging the shift towards online media, the Government is set on maintaining the distinction between mainstream and alternative even within cyberspace. It now says it will respond selectively to letters that appear in the online platforms of mainstream media, such as the Discussion Board of StraitsTimes.com. “Government agencies will … reply to online letters carried in the online letter forums of the local mainstream media,” information minister Lee Boon Yang said yesterday. “Not all letters posted to the online forums will get a response. The need for a reply will have to be assessed by the agency concerned.”
The Government statement said it was “not practical or feasible to respond to all blogs or forum postings”.
As for citizens who want to want to address the Government directly without going through mainstream media, the Government encourages them to use its official REACH portal. “We have decided to e-engage through REACH as this platform has an established online presence and has been pioneering the use of multiple new media technologies to reach out to Singaporeans for online feedback, consultation and engagement,” Dr Lee said. “Government agencies would also find it beneficial to ride on the experiences of REACH as they learn to e-engage. With experience and growing capabilities, we will explore other avenues for e-engagement.”
Some bloggers are disappointed at the Government’s refusal to dignify blog postings. Says Gerald Giam in TheOnlineCitizen.com:
“No one is expecting the Government to respond to all blogs. But this should not prevent them from responding to some blogs, particularly those of serious socio-political bloggers who make cogent and rational suggestions in their posts.… I sense that the Government’s fear is that responding to a blog that is critical of the Government will lend the blog credibility, when it is more interested in discrediting opposing voices. Another fear is that a response will generate even more opposing views, which the Government may not have a response to. This may make the Government look bad.”
by
January 10th, 2009
The Government’s latest stand on the Films Act has fallen short of hopes that documentary films on domestic political themes could be screened as freely as other films in Singapore. The ban on political films under Section 33 of the Films Act will remain, the Government announced in its response to the recommendations of AIMS, the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society.
However, the Government said that it will amend the Films Act to allow “certain types of party political films”: “Films that are factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture will be allowed under the amended Films Act. These will include factual documentaries and footages, recordings of actual events, and biographies or autobiographies.”
The Government has also accepted AIMS’ recommendation to set up an “independent advisory panel” to “advise the Board of Film Censors whether films are party political films and if they can be allowed under the amended Films Act”. It announced that the panel will be chaired by Mr Richard Magnus, retired Senior District Judge.
The Government’s statement represents a concession that the Films Act is currently over-broad. Although intended to stop the use of video in election campaigns, the Act defines “party political films” so widely that it could also catch documentary films in its net. An early victim was a 2001 documentary about the late opposition veteran J B Jeyaretnam, A Vision of Persistence, which was produced by Ngee Ann Polytechnic lecturers and students and targeted at film festivals rather than election campaigns.
The threat of action against A Vision of Persistence sent a clear message to Singapore’s growing community of talented filmmakers: take up controversial political themes and you risk losing your entire investment of time and money at the regulator’s whim.
The Government’s proposed fix to the Films Act’s over-breadth is likely to be viewed with skepticism. It says it will allow “factual and objective” films, and will only ban “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive” films that would compromise “rational and objective political debate”. These benchmarks are open to interpretation, opening up the possibility that highly emotional pro-government videos will be allowed while more probing and critical documentaries – even if they conform to the highest standards of factual documentary filmmaking – will be banned.
Only when filmmakers test the system and see how the new “independent advisory panel” plays its role will a clearer picture emerge of the new regulatory terrain. In order to test the system fairly cheaply, perhaps Ngee Ann Polytechnic’s School of Film and Media Studies could do us all a favour and resubmit A Vision of Persistence for public screening as soon as the new system is in place.
In practice, of course, even the current Films Act has not deterred a handful of activists such as Martyn See, Seelan Palay and Ho Choon Hiong from producing small political videos for online circulation. However, the regulations have meant that Singapore’s growing number of excellent independent documentary filmmakers have had to shy away from overtly political themes. The cost of producing a film for cinematic release, while much lower than before, still runs into the tens of thousands of dollars at least – too much money to gamble in a regulatory regime that could ban your film outright.
Singaporeans have thus been denied the chance to see more serious local documentaries on political themes. Whether the proposed changes will improve the situation remains to be seen.
More:
January 2nd, 2009
It’s too easy to recall the bad news that 2008 brought us, so to wrap up the year JOURNALISM.SG is remembering some of the good things that happened in Singapore journalism last year. Here’s our final list of five.
1) More space for filmmakers
For the past 10 years, the Films Act included a repressively broad ban on political films. At his National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong finally conceded that an “outright ban is no longer sensible“. Video will probably remain outlawed as a medium for political parties’ campaigns but, at last, independent documentary filmmakers should be able to tackle political themes without fear.
On the other hand: Until the amendment is tabled in Parliament, it would be premature to celebrate. After all, the outrageously broad ban somehow made it into the statute books in the first place, and not that long ago either. Concerned citizens and their MPs will need to scrutinise the proposed amendments.
2) The Online Citizen arrives
Online citizen journalism took a quantum leap in 2008 with The Online Citizen. Serious-minded and purposeful, it is emerging as the medium of choice in its chosen niche: alternative, independent analysis of Singaporean public affairs. It has also engaged in offline activism, strengthening its branding as a believer in active citizenship.
On the other hand: The Online Citizen, like other independent socio-political websites, has yet to crack the puzzle of how to incentivise writers to produce timely and thorough coverage of public affairs. Until then, mainstream media, with their capacity to hire full-time journalists, will remain the staple diet.
3) Ching Cheong is freed
After serving more than 1,000 days in jail, Straits Times correspondent Ching Cheong was finally freed in February. He had been accused of selling military information to Taiwan and organising a network of spies to sell state secrets to foreign powers. Ching Cheong has returned to work in ST’s Hongkong bureau. The paper had continued to pay his salary during his imprisonment.
On the other hand: Journalists continue to be victimised around the world. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 41 journalists have been killed in 2008; 125 were in prison as at 1 December – including 28 in China.
4) AIMS’ plea for MSM
AIMS, the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, said in its final report that to combat the “distortive” online material that the government fears, Singapore needs “a credible mainstream media”. Such warnings from within the establishment are welcome, because the government has the power to demolish the credibility of the mainstream press like Malaysia did.
On the other hand: Although it would speed up the exodus to unregulated online media and citizen journalism, the government may find irresistible the temptation to micro-manage the mainstream press even more tightly, precisely because no other medium can be controlled.
5) Tabla scores for print
In 2008, Singapore Press Holdings launched Tabla, a free weekly newspaper targeting the Indian expat market. Its apparent success suggests that there is still room in the Singapore market for niche print publications. Since print is still the main employer of journalists, that’s good news for the profession, as well as for readers who still love the look and feel of a good newspaper.
On the other hand: Tabla – like all those high-end lifestyle magazines – confirms that, in the eyes of the commercial news media industry, not all readers are created equal. It’s those who are valued by advertisers who’ll be best served. Another reason why strong public service media and alternative media are important.
by
December 10th, 2008
This article, marking the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, appeared in The Straits Times and Malaysiakini today.
Debates over freedom of expression have been at the centre of political transformation and turmoil in Southeast Asia. These debates have been almost exclusively domestic in scope, which is not surprising since all politics is ultimately local. Yet, there is something to be gained from keeping track of global developments in the area of freedom of expression.
While the particularities of each society may make its citizens feel that their situation is entirely unique, the impact of economic globalisation and new communication technologies has precedents and parallels elsewhere. The global debates on the opportunities and challenges of freedom of expression can provide guidance for a society that is trying to navigate the fraught choices before it.
Recently, we had the opportunity to be part of an international conversation on this topic. In September 2007, we were the rapporteurs for an informal seminar on freedom of expression organised by the Asia Europe Foundation (ASEF) in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Last month, we embarked on an ASEF lecture tour of Southeast Asian capitals, talking to fellow academics, students, civil society activists and other concerned citizens in Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Phnom Penh and Vientiane. These conversations reminded us of the astounding diversity of this part of the world, but also confirmed the common ground that we had observed at the 2007 seminar.
Indeed, one of the key conclusions from that seminar was the bankruptcy of the notion of an Asian-Western divide over the principle of freedom of expression. Instead, there is clear convergence. This is not to say that there is consensus among people. Controversies continue to rage over how to guarantee people’s rights to freedom of expression while minimising harmful effects of that freedom. However, these debates are probably as profound and passionate within each country and region – whether Asian or Western – as they are between regions or civilisations.
There are some key ideas that cut across national boundaries. First, it is clear to most that freedom of expression is not only an individual right but also an essential ingredient for societal progress. It is vital for development. The new global economic competition requires education systems that nurture open and creative minds – inconceivable without freedom of opinion and expression. It is also indispensable for democracy. Governments cannot be truly accountable to the people without the scrutiny of independent media.
Second, no freedom is absolute. It is legitimate to require the individual’s freedom of expression to be exercised in ways that take into account the rights of other individuals as well as the public interest. People have a right to protect their private lives and their reputations, and there is no right to incite hatred or violence. International standards allow restrictions on speech to uphold public order, public morality and national security.
Third, however, such restrictions are frequently misused by governments to suppress legitimate speech and protest. Around the world, journalists, bloggers, artists and others continue to be victimised for their work. Any restriction on expression should pass three tests. It should be based on law rather than arbitrary action. It should also serve aims that are recognised internationally as legitimate – which do not include the need to protect the position of those in power. Finally, any interference with freedom of expression must be necessary and proportionate, unlike the all too common tendency of authorities to engage in overkill.
Fourth, there is a global trend to combat governmental secrecy by guaranteeing access to citizens to official information. More and more countries in Asia as elsewhere are instituting freedom of information laws. The “right to know” supports transparency and good governance, and counters official corruption. Such laws have been introduced recently in Bangladesh and Indonesia. Even Britain, from which some countries’ secrecy laws came, has embraced the principle of open and transparent government.
Fifth, there is growing awareness of the limitations of the free market and the profit motive in providing the amount and quality of information and ideas that society needs. The dominance of media corporations needs to be balanced with government policies in support of media diversity, including independent public service media and alternative grassroots media.
Finally, there is recognition that freedom of expression does not mean removing the state from the equation. Quite the contrary: the state is needed to uphold the rule of law. In many parts of the world, including here in Asia, government censorship is not the only or even the most serious threat to media workers and artists. Unpopular but legitimate speech is routinely attacked by non-government interests – including angry mobs – that go beyond vigorous complaint and use violent means to silence those with whom they disagree.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – 60 years old this week – proclaims the principle that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
It is time to put that ideal into practice. While it is far from being realised, there is today a deeper understanding of its importance and of how this human right can be secured for all. There is no single formula, but our interactions across the region convince us that people everywhere believe passionately in their right to speak their mind.
– Kevin Boyle (kevin@essex.ac.uk) is Professor of Law at the University of Essex, United Kingdom. Cherian George (cherian@ntu.edu.sg) is an assistant professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication of Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
by
December 8th, 2008
Far Eastern Economic Review – For Singapore, 2008 has been a bumper year for legal actions and decisions against the international media and political opponents of the ruling People’s Action Party, underlining the government’s resolve to keep political comment and expression within tight limits. PAP political battles and system tinkering are shaped by the strategies of Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan. Mr. Chee may have been neutralized as an electoral force, but he exerts a growing influence on the political agenda of the PAP. Read more.
Garry Rodan is director of the Asia Research Centre and professor of politics and international studies at Murdoch University, Perth, Australia. For more of Prof Rodan’s writing on Singapore media, visit the Library link.
