Is engaging the mainstream media pointless? Part 1

At one point, around the time of the 2006 general election, it risked becoming a credo of socio-political bloggers that the mainstream media was beyond salvation. For some, the belief was that irrelevance was the only future in store for them.

I have never taken that view. I have criticised them, even bashed them on occasion, but I have been all too aware of the reach they have. To dismiss or ignore the mainstream media is fanciful conceit.

"They can't be trusted to quote you fairly," was another common complaint. And for this reason, many would rather not engage with the mainstream media even when, or perhaps especially when, they recognised their weight. The damage they can do is hard to repair. Low Thia Khiang is reported to have long favoured a policy of holding the media at bay, for the Workers' Party which he leads.

Today, I found myself quoted in three different articles in two newspapers, and I guess it's as good a time as any to explain why I believe in engagement.

 
The inevitability of change

If there is one constant in life, it is change. Even our government-controlled media will change. They have to because their operating conditions are evolving. I'm either going to do what little I can to prod that change in the direction I prefer, or I am going to sit back and be cynical. I'd rather be the former.

There will be times when it will be frustrating dealing with them, especially their scaredy-cat editors. There will even be times when the naysayers are proven right and a story, including my quotes, come out slanted against me. I have experienced such examples, most recently in the case of the Straits Times piece of 4 September 2008, titled "'Bloggers 13' want near free-for-all". That, in the view of Choo Zheng Xi (who is also one of the Bloggers 13) and myself, was a disgraceful attempt to paint our internet deregulation proposals as irresponsible. To begin with, none of us ever used the term "free-for-all".

However, the fact is that more often than not, the story comes out fair.

Last night, Kor Kian Beng of the Straits Times tried to call me, but as I was in the cinema watching the Korean thriller The Chaser -– you have to watch it, it's quite a ride -– I couldn't take the call. By the time I phoned him back, he said he had left the office already, but explained that he had wanted to check some old quotes with me.

"Oh, that's not necessary," I said to him. "I'm sure you know what you are doing."

I was a little surprised at myself to discover that I had that level of comfort. I've not always been at this level, but over the years, I have acquired an easy working relationship with most people in the media.

So how have the 3 quotes come out today? Was my confidence misplaced?

 
Hong Lim Pride

Two of the stories related to Roy Tan's plan to hold a gay pride "parade" on 15 November 2008 at Hong Lim Green, in the wake of the government's announcement that demonstrations would be allowed within that city park.

I had previously gone on record as unimpressed with the touted relaxation of the rules, calling it "tokenism". As I explained in the essay Demonstrations to be allowed in Hong Lim playpen:

The point about demonstrations is to garner attention for an issue. To be meaningful, they must be in a location that allows interaction with the public, and that allows the activists' placards to be seen and their voices heard. Quarantining them in the hot open field of Hong Lim Green is the opposite of what they need.

This move therefore is meant more to help the government's public relations than to truly permit greater freedom. It allows the government to say to its critics, "Oh, but we DO allow outdoor demonstrations in Singapore; we are not a police state," when in fact, there is no substantive freedom to demonstrate where and when one wishes to.

What did I think of Roy's plan? Both Kian Beng of the Straits Times and Andre Yeo of the New Paper wanted to know. My reply presented a bit of a challenge to the two reporters, because it was a nuanced one. Would they be able to capture its essence?

I said that while I thought poorly of the government's "liberalisation" and am skeptical how much effect any activity on Hong Lim Green would have on public opinion given its carefully circumscribed boundaries, I would gladly support anyone giving it a go. As I said, over the phone to the New Paper, "Somebody doing something, giving it a try, is far better than utter apathy." (Or words to that effect).

Now look at what both reporters wrote. Firstly, from the Straits Times:

Mr [Roy] Tan said he was prompted to plan the event by the comments of gay rights activist Alex Au on the Government's move to relax the rules at the Speakers' Corner.

[snip]

Mr Au had described the change as tokenism, arguing that citizens should have the rights [sic] to public speaking and demonstration beyond the park.

Said Mr Tan, who is a friend of Mr Au's: "By saying that, Alex implies he does not want to organise any gay pride parade at Hong Lim Park.

"I thought we should not give up this opportunity to set a precedent to make subsequent gay pride parades easier."

When contacted, Mr Au said he still regarded the recent changes as tokenism. But he was supportive of Mr Tan's planned activity, which he believed could be the first gay outdoor protest here.

Mr Au said: "Not everybody needs to agree with me.... I will encourage him to live up to his own aspiration and evaluation of the change."

--- Straits Times, 25 September 2008, First
gay protest at Speakers' Corner?

Meanwhile, in the New Paper:

Riding on the new, relaxed rules on protests at the park's Speakers' Corner, Mr Roy Tan, 50, is planning a gay pride parade. But the response to it has so far been uncertain.

Mr Alex Au, 55, one of the leaders of gay advocacy group, People Like Us, likes the idea but he questions if it should be called thus.

He said, "I am sceptical of calling it a parade if they can't walk down the streets. A parade requires linear movement."

-- The New Paper, 25 September 2008,
'Hong Lim Green' to turn somewhat pink

The Straits Times used more of what I said, and it came out accurately. The New Paper used less. In particular, it selected the one sentence that took issue with mere semantics. But what they selected seemed to fit the overall tone of the New Paper's story -– which was to suggest that even gay people were ambivalent about it. And to warn off foreigners from taking part. In its last sentence, the story weighed in: "Foreigners will have to apply for a permit to conduct or take part in any activity at the Corner." See my comments in the box alongside.

For this story, I sent my views to the reporter via email. This is what he took of them:

Activist and blogger Alex Au is not totally convinced by Dr Gomez's findings.

He said: "I think his argument is convincing in the short to medium term, assuming that the key features in Singapore's political situation do not change much."

"Online alternative news and political discussions represent 'potential' which can, for a long while, not demonstrate its effect. But the moment, say, a major scandal or prolonged economic adversity occurs, that potential can suddenly roar to life.

"Politics is never a smooth extrapolation of current conditions. There will be break points and so, I think Dr Gomez may well be proven wrong in the long term."

-- The New Paper, 25 September 2008,
Will Internet have effect on S'pore election?

Compare this with my actual reply to the New Paper, via email, which is shown in the box at right. Was the reporter accurate and fair?

Yes, I think so.

Does it mean that our mainstream media is ditching its old biases? Is it succeeding at being more reflective of genuine opinions in society, rather than merely a megaphone for government exhortations? See part 2 (coming).

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None