By Shamala Suresh Kee

“A news organisation should be free to espouse any cause it wishes on the basis of that most fundamental of liberties, namely freedom of expression…..So, if a newspaper wishes to endorse one party, ideology or political alliance over another, that is its unquestionable right. On the readers’ part, they are free to accept or reject the newspaper’s position by choosing either to read its messages or not. This is simple enough a matter in a society that lives by time-tested democratic ideals.”

These are the exact words from the Sun’s editorial March 4 2008, written by the newly appointed editor, Chong Cheng Hai. One would expect a newly appointed editor to reach out to his audience and increase the readership of the publication as a response to the challenge posed by his chair. But, from what I read, the editor is rather unscrupulous over readership, according to him; readers can choose to read or not to read. Maybe it is because the Sun comes free, and people like me don’t have to fork out money for news, we are beyond consideration. I assume this came as a response towards the hammering received by the mainstream media over its slanted, one sided coverage of the election, that the The Sun claims that newspaper publication has the right to endorse one party, ideology or political alliance over another. That is its unquestionable right. As defiant as it sounds, it also sounds childish, and like a stubborn kid saying that it would have want it wants, and no one can say anything about it.

But, I’m afraid, that is not so with the Fourth Estate. Duped as the informal representative of the public in old British Parliament, the press has a responsibility, a social liability towards the public. Just because you own a publication, it does not mean you can choose to endorse or reject selectively, because the public gauges your credibility, the raison d’etre of your publication. And, are we really living in a ‘time-tested democratic ideal’, as claimed because, most international think tanks such as the Freedom House rates Malaysian media as an autoritarian one, heavily controlled and curtailed. I would say, the statement ‘living in a time-tested democratic ideal’ would a wee bit on the optimistic side of the spectrum.

If newspapers are only commercial industry, news reports would be commodities on sale, then who would look at the bigger picture, the bigger context of our politics, social and economics? Media does not exist in an ideological vacuum. The claim that ‘While media organizations can profess support for one party line or another, the other side on which reader’s rights lie-may not be possible to fulfill with matching enthusiasm’ shows the capitalist mind talking. Writings are based upon sidings, which side you take. Or rather, which side offers more gain than cost? Nobody wants to be on the losing side.

The purpose of media is definitely in question here. It does not mean, you do what you do because you can. Media should maintain a neutral standing, as the watchdog of the nation and take a dynamic approach of covering stories, rather than a static one that maintains status quo.

At the end of the editorial, the Sun claims that ‘a media organization that seeks to discredit a candidate or party it does not endorse should be ready to lose the support of readers who cannot accept its partisan attitude. That would only be fair deal, wouldn’t it?” Well, a fair deal means, the media does not endorse or support a particular party or candidate, rather, take a neutral stand because at the end of the day, readers are going to find that its better to go illiterate than read skewed reports.