Straits Times throws media regulation to the dogs

Singaporeans have been implored by media regulators to “read the rights thing”, but that didn’t seem to prevent the government controlled Straits Times from writing a spectacularly wrong story about how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supposedly executed his own uncle by feeding him alive to starving dogs. The Straits Times’ prevaricating response to criticism of its decision to run a story pegged on an unverified event eloquently reminded readers that the truth can often be subjective and elusive. Yet the subjective reality which hinders the reporting of absolute truth brings many Singaporeans full circle, raising questions about the Media Development Authority’s apparent desire to regulate news websites for the accuracy of their reporting.

The ‘right thing’ and the truth

Government minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim’s notorious statement that Singaporeans should read the “right thing” (which he was kind enough to put into scare quotes for an interview with the BBC) shocked many observers. His “right thing” ultimately turned out to be a pursuit of accurate reporting – we know this because he went on to say so – “insofar as if there’s an event yesterday it is reported accurately”. The MDA helpfully clarified that a pursuit of accuracy was at least part of the motivation for last year’s muddled efforts to regulate news websites by stating that while criticism is allowed, articles must be “well-intentioned” and not “based on factual inaccuracies”. Reconciling the MDA’s aversion to factual inaccuracies with the Straits Times regurgitation of the lurid yet almost certainly false details of a politically motivated canine devourment is hard enough. But the Straits Times went on to justify their publication of that story in terms that will only have heads spinning at the MDA as well as at Dr Yaacob’s Ministry of Communications and Information.

Bertha Henson dissected the Straits Times justification of their story in some detail. A central theme was their reliance on the “fact” that the truth is not some objective verifiable reality (which can be legislated for), but is in fact a much more elusive concept. They wrote,

But the truth in media is as much a function of opinion as it is of fact. […] truth is often as nuanced as the currently proverbial fifty shades of grey.

The truth can be opaque in nations with an open media as well. Otherwise, the assassination of American President John F. Kennedy should no longer be a story that remains muddled and addled by the lack of “truth”, 50 years on. The only certifiable truth is that he was shot dead. The rest remains, well, opinion.
Straits Times. Fact, opinion and fifty shades of truth in the media. 13 January 2014.

If the United States media cannot separate fact from opinion in the assassination of a US president, then what hope is there for the Straits Times to accurately report on events in North Korea? But then what hope further for under-resourced entities like The Online Citizen or TRE, or even a blogger like Alex Au to avoid “factual inaccuracies” when reporting on local events? It would seem that local commentators face a Herculean task by comparison – a task which the ST seems to think will be impossible – and we should therefore be concerned that the MDA believes it reasonable to legislate for their success.

Can the government define the truth?

The Straits Times are certainly not wrong to describe the truth as “nuanced”, and this is precisely why we should be so skeptical of government attempts to legislate and sue over “facts” which are not black and white, but often come – as the ST says – in “fifty shades of grey”. Years ago the Economist wrote an article implying that Ho Ching’s appointment at Temasek Holdings was corrupt and had a “whiff of nepotism” about it. The government says she is “the best person for the job”. But which of these statements is actually true, and which are just shades of grey? Taking our lead from the government controlled Straits Times, the only facts are her marriage to the Prime Minister, and that she was ultimately hired. “The rest remains, well, opinion”. Which is why it is so worrying that the government sued the Economist over that article for hundreds of thousands of dollars – and won. Did the government case succeed on its merits, or because the rule of law in Singapore has been decimated to support the political interests of the ruling party? Again, shades of grey.

Similar arguments can be made about practically any contentious event. Did Woffles Wu get preferential treatment from Singapore’s judicial system because he was well connected? Was it alcohol or exploitation fueling the Little India riots? Did the town councils’ decision to sell their software to a two dollar shell company make good business sense? Some may be closer to white, some closer to black, but all of these are really shades of grey.

Getting to the truth may be difficult, if not impossible, but we should be free to try to get as close as possible, no matter how dark a shade of grey is the territory we need to explore. A government that shuts down inconvenient debates through the courts or the enumeration of OB markers does the intellectual progress of Singapore a great disservice. The government should step back from trying to regulate news websites for factual accuracy, not least because the government has a long track record of enforcing dubious and politically motivated definitions of the truth whenever that has been deemed necessary. Attempts to enforce versions of the truth which do not resonate with common sense only undermine the ruling party’s credibility, and when such efforts are deployed against foreign media, they only harm Singapore’s international reputation.


Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Straits Times throws media regulation to the dogs

    • Good question. I should try to write in more detail on that. The writer raises some valid concerns but the case is overstated and lacks some more detailed analysis. One thing which is interesting that he raised is the extent that the local economy is reliant on government building programmes to avoid recession. SG has been very close to recession in the last year (although local media would have you believe otherwise) and probably the only thing preventing that from happening was a lot of government sponsored expensive, vanity projects which generate little meaningful economic value. EG gardens by the bay, MCE, more malls etc. This is just continuing with Jewel, a new terminal at Changi etc.

  1. wimbrook

    Yes, I wonder who will shop in Jewel. Airport transit passengers don’t have the time and do locals really want to travel 30-40 minutes to visit yet another mall? It doesn’t make sense unless the real purpose of Jewel (as you suggest) is to keep the construction industry and the wider economy afloat through infrastructure spending. But the spending is starting to look desperate and the danger is that, as in China, money is being poured into unproductive or even wasteful white elephants. Better to spend that money on people, rather than things?

  2. J Hughes

    It wasn’t so long ago when many of the overseas newspapers were filled with holes where the censors scissors had been busy.

    My brother-in-law, who works for the government was always sending requests stating date, page, column and article title so that I could photocopy them and ‘smuggle’ them in for he and his friends to read.

    Seems not to much has changed other than the medium!

    P.S.: Here in VietNam, where I live these days, overseas newspapers were always readily available, on the day of publication at street vendors and completely untouched by censors.

    • I’m afraid this fear of foreign media influences persists to today, it is just controlled more subtly. Just look at how keen the MDA is to crack down on websites that may possibly be structured to perhaps recieve foreign funding at some point in the future…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s