Lord Puttnam

By Kirsten Han

In 2002, Lord David Puttnam – an established, well-respected film producer who has been behind hits such as Chariots of Fire – was part of a committee involved in the drafting of the Communications Bill, later passed as the 2003 Communications Act in the United Kingdom.

Back then the Internet was barely, if at all, considered. It was, as Lord Puttnam explained, shoved into the “too difficult” drawer.

11 years on, the Internet can no longer be ignored. Speaking before a small audience in SMU on Friday night, Lord Puttnam addressed the move in media consumption from television and print to digital devices.

With more and more people turning to the Internet and mobile devices for their news, considerations of media regulation have also had to move. Laws that apply to offline media should also apply to online media, Lord Puttnam argued, pointing out cases of defamation and hate speech online that have attracted the same legal repercussions as they would have had they been printed in a newspaper or broadcast on television.

Of plurality and parity

But there was also another point on which he put plenty of emphasis: the media’s “duty of care” to the social and democratic values of its country and its public. As journalists and content producers, the media has a duty to provide information that would allow citizens to participate in a democratic society.

The plurality of such media – offering different perspectives and takes on issues – is also important in fostering a well-informed citizenry. Plurality is key, he said, in preventing one particular group or media organisation from having too much influence on public opinion and discourse.

The plurality of media also prompts the issue of parity, particularly in terms of regulation and legal liability. Should online media be regulated the same way as mainstream media? And if so, how then can we regulate such a diverse and fluid environment?

Lord Puttnam speaks at SMU about New Media Regulation in the UK.
Lord Puttnam speaks at SMU about New Media Regulation in the UK.

The Internet has begun to establish its own integrity,” Lord Puttnam said when TOC put the question to him. He highlighted quality social networks such as Ted and Avaaz who he believes to be leading the way in ethical online activity, saying that such platforms show that the Internet is capable of seeking its own balance and integrity in a diverse space. “We’re going through a period of chaos,” he said, referring to the relative newness of online media.

Online users themselves can also be counted upon to regulate the Internet. “There are some egregious examples that we should all be jumping on, and not waiting for legislation,” he said.

Lord Puttnam was not against legislation, and acknowledged that it was necessary as a means for establishing parity between traditional and online media. He cited specific laws, such as those concerning defamation, harassment and hate speech, which in the UK apply to both traditional and online media.

The Singapore context

It is easy to understand the UK’s confusion and struggle with the acknowledgement and regulation of online media. Singapore, too, is faced with questions of how to manage the speed and volume of content posted on social media.

When it comes to the Internet, talk of professional standards and integrity can quickly seem meaningless. The Internet is different precisely because one does not have to be a ‘professional’ to get a chance to be published and have one’s voice heard. Any person with a connection and some basic know-how is able to set up a Facebook, Twitter or blog account, and begin engaging in debate and conversation with a potentially large audience.

In his examples of Ted and Avaaz, Lord Puttnam recommended for the Internet to seek its own balance. Such a view is somewhat at odds with that of Singapore’s situation, where the government has decided to use legislation and state regulation in an attempt to establish some form of control over online content and behaviour.

The licensing framework introduced in 2013 targeting news websites is one such example. Rather than wait for the Internet to “establish its own integrity”, the government has chosen to license popular news websites. Yet this move has failed to address the original question: How does one regulate such a diverse space, where anyone from anywhere could post anything at any time?

That is not to say that current legislation in Singapore does not already regulate online media. With the latest announcement made by the Law Minister, legislation such as defamation, harassment and hate speech already apply to both traditional and online media.

As such, there is already parity between the mainstream and online media in terms of the application of these laws; one could be sued for defamatory statements posted on a website just like one could be sued for defamatory statements printed in a newspaper. As such, the often-cited reason for the licensing framework – to establish parity between traditional and online media – can barely be substantiated, because these laws already apply to both.

Unfortunately, what 2013’s licensing framework has achieved is to place a burden upon fledging news websites, making it harder for them to carry out their work. Often, these websites are precisely the responsible, organised ones that we should be encouraging; the irresponsible rumourmongers and abusers tend to be anonymous and difficult to pin down.

As Singapore’s media regulations continue to impose onerous demands on websites, we find ourselves inadvertently destroying the very plurality of the media that Lord Puttnam highlighted as being crucial in the fostering of an engaged citizenry in a democratic society.

With media plurality already an issue in a landscape where our newspapers, radio and television stations are largely operated by two big corporations, the Internet is the best place for Singaporeans to find a wider range of perspectives and views. The information provided can contribute to a more politically mature conversation on Singapore’s direction. We should be careful that this potential is not stamped out in efforts to make sure that everyone “reads the right thing”.

Top image from the Official Website of David Puttnam, insert image courtesy of the British High Commission Singapore.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

WWF lists 10 most endangered rivers globally

From MSNBC GENEVA – Hoping to raise awareness about the state of…

How much do our politicians give?

  By Singapore Rat Race I refer to the Channel News Asia…

疫情未减缓民众警惕! 网络现“公审不带口罩者”现象

全球冠状病毒19疫情,自去年12月底爆发至今已近五个月,而各国也正积极抗疫。我国疫情自“阻断措施”以来,仍不断攀升,甚至在截至本月16日中午2时,本地新增728例冠状病毒19确诊病例,破单日最高增幅纪录。 随着疫情的加重、政府实施“阻断措施”,卫生部也推行出门即带上口罩,因此人们对于不戴口罩的行为更为敏感,一旦被发现出门不带口罩将会有网友将其拍摄或录影。尽管拍摄下来的用意是为了提醒大家,但却也在近日出现另一种声音— 拍摄者矫枉过正的心态。 日前网友Kavitha Haridas在脸书上上传一段视频,内容为一名印裔男子正气喘呼呼,脸上未戴口罩,拍摄视频的人怒气冲冲走到印裔男子前,先是质问你是否有口罩在身上,随后便大声斥责,为何在走路时不戴上口罩。 而被拍摄的印裔男子则低头表示,好的会戴上,但却仍无法平息拍摄者的怒火。拍摄者质问,“你是不是有受过教育?是不是不明白现在的处境?” 印裔男子则立马拿起手上的布遮住嘴巴,频频道歉。然而,拍摄者还得理不饶人,直呼“我们并不欠你 ”,视频也到此结束。 Kavitha认为,虽然印裔男子在出门后没有带上口罩,但从男子的装扮来看相信是正在运动中。即使不是在运动,但质问别人是否曾受过教育并不正确,对男子都是一种侮辱。 “我完全延误躲在相机后的人,你无权对另一个人这么做,请试想,如果这发生在你父母身上,你还会希望别人这么跟他说话吗?” 尽管疫情日益严重,戴上口罩是必然的行为,但似乎也开始出现矫枉过正的行为。目前体育理事会也鼓励新加坡人持续锻炼保持身体健康,加强免疫力。 因此,若个人仍能独自或与同一屋檐下的人外出运动,但在外出时,必须带上口罩。然而,若民众是跑步、慢跑、骑自行车或类似运动量较大的活动,则无需带上口罩,在运动完毕后再带上口罩。…