How social environment impacts journalism practices

 

 I’ve been thinking a bit more about how Malaysia’s rankings in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index fell this year.

It was a tremendous drop from 73rd placing to 107th. A recent report by local news portal Scoop stated that RSF Asia-Pacific bureau director Cedric Alviani said several incidents impacted Malaysia’s ranking.

Among them are the criminal defamation charges against journalist Clare Rewcastle-Brown and the deportation of Pakistani journalist Syed Fawad Ali Shah.

Most of these incidents happened before the Anwar Ibrahim administration. Other incidents Alviani mentioned include the blocking of websites that were deemed critical of the government.

These are things the current administration should look into. Aside from policies and practices, other things can affect and influence our standing.

One thing that comes to mind (pointed out by a fellow journalist) is the social environment journalists work in.

For example, if the public constantly makes police reports about everything that comes out in the mass media - without regard as to how it was reported or what the issues are - then the purpose of the media is defeated.

Right of reply

The media is considered the fourth estate in a democracy and acts as a watchdog for the people so that a checks-and-balances function exists to keep those in power accountable.

The news media practises what is known as the “right of reply”, meaning that all parties mentioned in a report are given the opportunity to explain their side of the story. This is so that the public has access to all information to make an informed conclusion or decision about the subject discussed.

However, if those in power choose to make a police report or take legal action without taking advantage of the right of reply given to them, how then is the news media supposed to play their role of informing the public?

Those in power choose to be in the spotlight and since they are usually elected by the people, or at least working for the people, they need to be held accountable.

Their first course of action should be to respond to what is reported in the news media. Of course, the response must be comprehensive and clear so the public can understand and accept it.

This is the right process when it comes to the fourth estate in a democracy. Issues are brought up, discussed and debated, resulting in a civil conclusion.

This is also something civil society should practise. The public should also not be so easily offended or defensive with issues brought up in the media.

Instead of filing police reports, they should perhaps take the time to read and consider other perspectives. One can look up social media or even the comments section of the news platform and provide their point of view and explanation (in a civil and mature way, of course).

A platform for discourse

At the end of the day, the news media (or media in general) is the main platform in a democracy for issues, ideas, thoughts and opinions to be shared.

Since Malaysia has over 30 million people of different races, cultures and beliefs, there are bound to be differences in opinions.

If we have a safe platform that can provide us with a healthy channel to discuss and debate these differences (or even similarities), our society can be a progressive and harmonious one.

Let’s all take advantage of the vibrant news media industry we have and make full use of what it can provide us, which is a platform to learn about ourselves and understand each other better. This will help improve society and the country as a whole. - Mkini

---

ZAN AZLEE is a writer, documentary filmmaker, journalist and academic. Visit fatbidin.com to view his work.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.