Never has a single letter of demand caused so much uproar and controversy. This week, inside the august chamber and along its corridors, lawmakers discussed, dissected, and dichotomised it.
Dated July 15, the 11-page letter which has since been reproduced on social media was related to the Human Resource Development Corp (HRD Corp) threatening legal action against The Edge and one of its writers.
This is for alleged defamation over reporting on the findings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the auditor-general.
Sent on its behalf by the law firm Amrit & Company, HRD Corp accused the media company of having “unfairly, deliberately, maliciously, recklessly published and in bad faith (malice) misquoted, sensationalised and misinterpreted the findings made by the National Audit Department” in two of its articles.
HRD Corp claimed the articles were intended to defame the agency and its officials, exposing them to public scorn and damaging their professional reputations.
The demand letter insisted on removing the articles, a formal written apology published in two English dailies and The Edge’s website within 48 hours, and sought damages for alleged harm suffered.
Defending the decision to publish the articles, The Edge’s publisher and chief executive officer Ho Kay Tat said there was no malice in their reporting and that it was prepared to defend any suit filed against it.
But on Wednesday, the issue took an expected course. First, PAC chairperson Mas Ermieyati Samsudin, condemned HRD Corp’s threat, declaring: “The PAC views this as an attempt to put pressure on the media to not publish the PAC report on HRD Corp.”
Then, the HRD Corp retracted the letter of demand on Wednesday following a directive from Human Resources Minister Steven Sim.
“I have instructed HRD Corp to withdraw the summon and it was done yesterday (July 16) before the PAC conducted their press conference,” Sim said.
Double whammy
It was some relief for media practitioners that the PAC and the minister had reacted and supported the cause of good journalism.
What has been more comforting was Sim’s stand: “I completely disagree with the decision to pursue legal action against the media, as I firmly uphold the freedom of the press. This has been my principle even before we came into government.”
What prompted HRD Corp to resort to the letter of demand? It was no afterthought because last Friday, there were attempts to stop The Edge from publishing the list of stocks in which HRD Corp had invested but these attempts were ignored.
What was untruthful about the news reports that quoted the PAC and the auditor-general? Almost all newspapers and portals quoted the PAC’s damning report.
Wasn’t HRD Corp aware that the media enjoys absolute privilege in publishing or reproducing reports made by government officials in the course of their official duties?
Wouldn’t a letter to the editor putting its side of the story suffice? Or was it an attempt to put the media on the backfoot when more worms came out of the can?
With its image in tatters after the double whammy - first from the PAC and then the minister - HRD Corp has retreated but it does not mean a big victory for the media as it continues to be under the spotlight for the wrong reasons.
In between, there were glimpses that one of our ministers tasked with communications has more to learn about news and understand how the media works.
Headlines
On Tuesday, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil (once again) irked the media by calling for “ethical journalism in the headlines” (whatever that means!) of news articles.
Referring to the discharge and acquittal as well as the RM60,000 fine for the founder and director of the popular convenience store chain over the sale of controversial socks, Fahmi said some media outlets had chosen to highlight the fine while others went with headlines focusing on the discharge and acquittal.
“These reports were referring to the same matter, but which is the truth?” he asked when officiating the Institute of Public Relations Malaysia conference on ethical and responsible communication.
Were the headlines wrong? How do ethics come into play? Both state the truth.
Fahmi answered his own question by saying the headlines that focused on the fine or the acquittal appeared to be correct.
But then, there was a rejoinder: “But what kind of message are we sending and for whom is the news written?” he asked.
The reality is people do not read the news but they read snapshots of news posted on social media which may not reflect the whole story, Free Malaysia Today quoted him as saying.
Fahmi may not be well-versed but it is not suggested that he get a quick lesson by using Google to help understand headline writing and appreciate the intricacies of putting a newspaper to bed.
If he spends time in a newsroom with his sleeves rolled up, he would get some idea of the thought processes involved.
He will then understand the concepts of “the reader comes first” and “write for our readers”.
Is it the fault of the media that social media platforms (because of space constraints) are just picking out the headline?
Can we conclude that the media continues to be the fall guy even when truthfully reporting what transpired in open court? - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.