When everyone has a voice, who gets heard?

 

Letter to Editor

MODERN communication has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. Information that once depended heavily on newspapers, television stations and other established media organisations can now be produced and shared by almost anyone.

Social media platforms have allowed ordinary people to communicate across borders almost instantly, making humanity more interconnected and informed than at any previous point in history.

Personally, I welcome this democratisation of media because it gives more people the opportunity to participate in conversations that were previously dominated by a relatively small number of institutions.

However, democratisation does not necessarily mean that every voice is heard equally. Giving everyone the ability to speak does not guarantee that everyone will receive the same attention.

On social media, certain opinions can become dominant simply because they are repeated more frequently, expressed more loudly or supported by accounts with larger audiences.

Algorithms may further amplify popular or controversial content because it attracts greater engagement.

As a result, an open media environment can still become unequal, except that the people controlling the conversation may be different from those who controlled it before.

This creates a difficult problem because returning entirely to conventional media is not necessarily the solution either.

Traditional media organisations play an important role in verifying information and maintaining professional standards, but they should not automatically be considered neutral.

Journalists and editors still make decisions about which stories deserve attention, which sources are included and how events are presented.

Personally, my declining faith in conventional media has partly resulted from what I perceive as recurring biases in the reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Different media organisations can report the same event using different language, images and perspectives, producing very different impressions among their audiences.

Therefore, the challenge cannot simply be reduced to choosing between unrestricted media and greater censorship.

Such a choice treats a complicated issue as though there are only two possible options. Complete freedom may allow misinformation, manipulation and powerful voices to dominate public discussion, while excessive control creates another danger by giving authorities or institutions greater power to determine which information is acceptable.

Media structures themselves can be weaponised when those with political, economic or social influence are able to shape the information available to everyone else.

For this reason, I believe the more important objective should be equitable media. Equity does not necessarily mean giving every opinion exactly the same amount of attention, nor does it mean accepting all information as equally valid.

Instead, it means creating a media environment where participation is not determined entirely by existing power, wealth, popularity or influence.

People should have meaningful opportunities to express their experiences and perspectives, while audiences should also be provided with sufficient context to evaluate the information they encounter.

This requires media literacy among the public, responsible journalism from established organisations and responsible behaviour from those participating in online discussions.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence makes this responsibility even more important. AI can now produce convincing images, videos, audio and written material that may be difficult for ordinary users to distinguish from genuine content.

Precautions are therefore necessary to protect the authenticity of information, particularly when fabricated material can spread globally within minutes.

However, these safeguards should protect the integrity of the media environment rather than become an excuse for reactionary censorship.

The purpose should be to help people distinguish genuine information from deliberate deception while preserving productive and civilised exchange.

Ultimately, the democratisation of media remains something worth protecting. Its greatest potential is not merely that more information can travel faster, but that people who were previously excluded from public conversations can participate in them.

Yet accessibility alone does not create fairness. If the loudest voices continue to dominate online spaces while powerful institutions continue to determine which perspectives are considered legitimate, communication may become more democratic without becoming more equitable.

An equitable media environment should therefore aim to ensure that people can participate meaningfully regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, ability, wealth or social status.

The future of media should not simply be a choice between allowing everything and censoring what we fear.

It should be about building a communication environment where differences can coexist, information can be questioned responsibly, and no single group possesses an unfair advantage in deciding whose voices deserve to be heard.

Asrul Farhan Hasran is an undergraduate student of Universiti Malaya, taking an elective university course entitled “Introduction to Journalism and Storytelling in Digital Age.”

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.