Connect with us

Media

Govt restriction on distributing press releases to accredited alternative media – borne out of fear?

Published

on

Just a fortnight ago, journalist Nicholas Yong of Yahoo! News Singapore shared his experience with receiving the short stick of the end of an “unequal access” to “the most important press releases, speeches and event invites” from government agencies, as a media practitioner from an alternative news outlet.

Receiving press releases hours after mainstream media outlets have broken a story and being told that certain high-profile events are reserved for “local media only” are not “unusual” for accredited alternative news outlets, according to Yong.

“On one occasion, when we requested an advance copy of the National Day Rally speech – probably the most important political speech of the year – we were given the runaround by senior government officials who all had the same excuse: “I don’t have it.”

“Meanwhile, MSM reporters had obtained the speech the day before,” said Yong.

The disparity between the treatment of mainstream media and alternative media is nothing new, as Yong had already drawn attention to the issue two years ago regarding his experience in a cramped Parliament press room where mobile phones were prohibited and speeches were rarely given in advance, contrary to Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp reporters who had access to a live feed of Parliamentary proceedings.

“In this day and age, why is the MSM still accorded first-mover advantage over other media outlets, thus enabling it to shape the narrative first?” He questioned.

TOC similarly observed a pattern where government press releases are either not given to licensed alternative media at all, and in addition to that, the full press release is not made available on the relevant ministry or agency’s website at the time of the mainstream media’s reporting.

Take, for example, the the Ministry of Education’s reply to the open letter issued by academics opposing the controversial Protections from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act – the MOE’s response was not published on the Ministry’s website, but was instead released exclusively via The Straits Times. A search regarding the Ministry’s response to the letter on the MOE website’s press release page yielded no results, as seen below:

While TOC is not an accredited media outlet unlike Yahoo! News Singapore, it is registered with MICA as a media outlet for monitoring purposes. We have tried applying for accreditation last year, but we were instead informed that TOC would not require press accreditation to report on news in Singapore, as evident below:

The MOE response published on ST was not found on the website given by MICA in the above email.

Why, as Yong has suggested, does the government appear to exercise such preferential treatment towards the mainstream media and places certain restrictions against even alternative media outlets that are registered with the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA) such as Yahoo! News Singapore and even TOC?

Ethicist and professor emeritus at California Polytechnic University Steven Mintz defines four roles of a free press:

  • Taking political leaders to task for their decisions in the name of accountability;
  • Bringing to attention crucial issues that affect the public;
  • Helping the public to make informed decisions regarding policies drafted and set by the government, and;
  • Sparking discussion and action amongst groups in civil society.

Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne’s Law School Andrew T. Kenyon, however, observed in his study Investigating Chilling Effects: News Media and Public Speech in Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia that the media in Singapore and Malaysia have been wielded as “an instrumental project of service to political owners”, as mainstream dailies appear to be owned either “either by investment arms of government political parties or corporate figures closely linked to prominent government politicians”.

The above form of ownership or influence results in what could be observed as self-censorship on the part of the mainstream media, as editors and journalists tread carefully when writing and publishing articles, avoiding overt criticism of said owners and those associated with them, Kenyon argued.

A summary of SPH’s company profile by Nikkei Asian Review indicates that it is strongly linked to the government. SPH’s current chairman Lee Boon Yang, for example, held multiple portfolios as a Cabinet Minister throughout his stint in politics, while CEO Alan Chan is formerly an Administrative Officer in the civil service. TOC have also recently highlighted a pattern among civil servants who have decided to join the mainstream media industry after leaving their positions in the government.

An opinion article by former journalist, editor and current Honorary Senior Fellow in Journalism at the University of Wollongong Eric Loo, published on Malaysiakini in Jun last year, reflects the repercussions of the mainstream media being utilised by the government as a political tool.

Loo wrote regarding the Malaysian mainstream press, in what appears to contain parallels with Singapore’s mainstream media: “The mainstream media practice of giving more news prominence to government sources has long undermined its credibility and betrayed the people of their right to fair, truthful and accurate reporting.

“With the apparent newfound freedom to probe and report since the May 9 election, and possible repeal of repressive media laws by the Harapan government, will we soon witness more critical reporting of public affairs?

“I’m afraid not. For too long have our mainstream journalists deferred to the authorities and accepted politically correct journalism as a legitimate form of professional practice.

“That’s the mainstream journalists’ ethical dilemma – to give more news prominence to the incumbent and hence be seen to be a government mouthpiece, or to lead with the opposition’s agenda and risk the story being rewritten or buried in the inside pages,” Loo observed.

Kristine A. Oswald in her paper Mass Media and the Transformation of American Politics suggested that the media, as the Fourth Estate, “have more power in setting the political agenda than the national government”, as the type of media coverage can either make or break legislative bodies’ chances of successfully passing new laws and policies.

Consequently, the media’s inherent power to shape public acceptance – or a lack thereof – will typically compel the government to exert control over the information it hands over to the media, which may involve shaping in advance the narrative through which the information is expressed, well before the media relays the information to the public, Oswald argued. This is perhaps one of the underlying reasons behind the Singapore government’s apparent “curation” of press releases by granting mainstream media fuller access to such press releases compared to their alternative counterparts.

With the previously discussed barriers imposed against alternative media outlets such as Yahoo! News Singapore – as illustrated by Yong earlier – and even TOC‘s own experience, coupled with the special access received by mainstream media in Singapore, what does it say about the government’s true aim behind carrying out such measures? Are such measures actually driven by a fear of an unfettered alternative media gaining the trust of Singaporeans, more so than the mainstream press?

If such is the case, what does this reveal – or rather confirm – about the government’s approach towards press freedom, whereby it is possible for such “filtering” by the government to be interpreted as abuse of power?

Additionally, what is also the mainstream media’s true role in disseminating information regarding public policies that affect the lives of Singaporeans and other residents? Will Singapore’s mainstream media outlets serve as the most established and trusted sources of information for its society, or will it be relegated to the role of a government mouthpiece primarily aimed at controlling public perception to its own advantage, subsequently diminishing any possible negative impact – and magnifying only the positive impact – of the policies put into place by the government over time?

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hong Kong

Former STAND News journalists jailed for sedition in landmark Hong Kong case

On 26 September 2024, former Stand News chief editors Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam were sentenced in a landmark sedition case. Chung received a 21-month prison term, while Lam’s sentence was reduced due to health issues. The ruling is seen as part of Hong Kong’s crackdown on press freedom.

Published

on

Chung Pui-kuen, former chief editor of the pro-democracy news outlet Stand News

On 26 September 2024, a Hong Kong district court sentenced Chung Pui-kuen, former chief editor of the pro-democracy news outlet Stand News, to 21 months in prison for sedition.

The case, which marks the first time a journalist has been jailed for sedition since Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, is seen as part of an ongoing crackdown on media freedom in the city. Chung, aged 55, had led Stand News during the height of the 2019 pro-democracy protests.

Chung’s co-defendant, Patrick Lam, who also served as a chief editor, received a sentence reduction due to serious health issues, with the judge ruling that a return to prison could endanger his life.

Lam had already spent nearly a year in detention and will not face further jail time.

The two editors were found guilty in August 2024 of “conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious publications,” under a colonial-era law that carries a maximum two-year prison sentence.

District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin, who presided over the case, argued that Stand News had engaged in actions that opposed the government rather than genuine journalistic work.

“They were taking part in the so-called resistance,” Kwok stated, pointing to the publication’s support for the pro-democracy movement.

He emphasized the influence of Stand News, which had 1.6 million followers at the time of its shutdown in 2021, claiming that the seditious articles had caused significant, though unquantifiable, damage.

Kwok maintained that prison was the only viable sentence.

International outcry

The sentencing has drawn swift condemnation from international rights organizations and foreign governments.

The United States denounced the convictions as an attack on media freedom, and the European Union called on Hong Kong authorities to stop prosecuting journalists.

Amnesty International’s China director, Sarah Brooks, noted that the ruling seems aimed at fostering a “chilling effect” on the press, discouraging criticism of the authorities both in Hong Kong and abroad. Brooks added that the situation reflects the growing repression of free speech in the former British colony.

Joseph Ngan, Chair of Hong Kong Media Overseas, expressed concern over the broader implications of the case. “This case, with its landmark ruling outlawing criticism of the government, makes clear that Hong Kong has come fully into line with laws prevailing in Mainland China,” Ngan said. He recalled that Hong Kong had been promised freedom of speech after the end of British colonial rule, a promise that, he noted, “is now a distant memory.”

The press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) echoed these concerns. Cédric Alviani, RSF’s Asia-Pacific Bureau Director, condemned the imprisonment of Chung and called for his immediate release.

He emphasized that both Chung and Lam were acting in the public interest by reporting on social and political issues in Hong Kong, and he urged the international community to increase pressure on China to secure their freedom, alongside other detained journalists in the city.

The rise and fall of STAND News

Stand News, a non-profit Chinese-language news site, was among Hong Kong’s most influential independent media outlets. At its peak, it had over 1.7 million followers on Facebook and nearly one million on Instagram.

The publication gained significant attention during the 2019 protests, offering extensive coverage of the pro-democracy movement.

In December 2021, the outlet was raided by 200 police officers, leading to the arrest of six journalists, including Chung and Lam.

That same day, Stand News announced its closure and terminated its staff after the government froze its assets, valued at approximately 61 million Hong Kong dollars (US$7 million). Around 70 employees lost their jobs as a result.

The prosecution in the case against Chung and Lam presented at least 17 articles published by Stand News between July 2020 and December 2021 as evidence.

These articles included interviews, profiles, and opinion pieces that the authorities deemed seditious. The trial, which ended in June 2023, saw the two journalists detained for nearly a year before being granted bail under strict conditions, including weekly reports to the police and a prohibition on giving media interviews.

Declining press freedom

In recent years, Hong Kong has seen its ranking in global press freedom indices fall dramatically.

According to Reporters Without Borders, the city dropped to 135th out of 180 countries in its 2024 World Press Freedom Index, a stark contrast to its position just two decades ago when it ranked 18th. Meanwhile, China remains near the bottom of the index, ranking 172nd.

Chinese officials in Hong Kong have rejected international criticism of the sentencing, maintaining that Stand News functioned as a political organization rather than a legitimate news outlet.

The government’s position reflects broader efforts to align Hong Kong’s governance and legal frameworks more closely with those of Mainland China, particularly in terms of controlling dissent and regulating the media.

The sentencing of Chung Pui-kuen underscores the growing constraints on press freedom in Hong Kong, further solidifying the city’s shift away from its reputation as a bastion of free speech in Asia.

Continue Reading

Media

Mediacorp to merge TODAY digital newsroom with Channel News Asia

Published

on

Mediacorp, a state-owned media company under Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings, has announced on Wednesday (28 Aug) that the TODAY digital newsroom will merge with Channel News Asia (CNA) on 1 October 2024.

This merger, which will effectively transform TODAY into a digital weekend magazine under CNA, is presented as an effort to consolidate resources and expand CNA’s reach both within Singapore and internationally.

As part of the merger, TODAY will shift its focus to producing long-form analytical features on current issues, in-depth news reports, human interest stories, and opinion pieces under its Big Read brand, which will be published every weekend. This content is intended to supplement CNA’s existing daily digital offerings, with the goal of increasing CNA’s digital traffic and deepening audience engagement, particularly on weekends.

Starting 1 October, the TODAY app and website will no longer be updated, with all new content being channeled through CNA’s platforms. However, TODAY will maintain its social media pages, which will redirect followers to CNA’s digital sites.

Walter Fernandez, Mediacorp’s Editor-in-Chief, framed the merger as a response to global trends, including increased news fatigue and active news avoidance, trends exacerbated by changes in social media algorithms that de-emphasize news content. Fernandez also cited a significant overlap between the digital audiences of TODAY and CNA as a key factor in the decision to merge the two newsrooms.

The merger will not result in job losses, according to Fernandez, as all TODAY staff will be offered roles within CNA. These roles will involve either working on the new weekend magazine or integrating into other teams within CNA, depending on their expertise.

While Mediacorp presents the merger as a strategic response to the evolving media landscape, critics might view this consolidation as part of a broader trend of centralizing media under state influence in Singapore, particularly given Mediacorp’s ownership by Temasek Holdings and the fact that SPH Media Trust, which runs The Straits Times and other vernacular publications such as Lianhe Zaobao, is funded by the Singapore government through a grant of S$900 million.

TODAY, launched in 2000 as a free newspaper and a rival to Streats, another English-language freesheet published by Singapore Press Holdings, quickly rose to prominence as the second-most widely read daily in Singapore. In 2002, TODAY launched a weekend version, WeekendTODAY, which was distributed to homes as a free newspaper and also sold at newsstands for 50 cents.

In 2004, Singapore Telecommunications pulled out of the newspaper venture by selling its 28.51 percent stake in the company for S$13.66 million, following SMRT Corp.’s sale of its 14.56 percent stake for S$3.5 million.

In April 2017, TODAY discontinued its weekend edition, publishing only on weekdays. Later that year, in September, it ceased print publication of its weekday edition, continuing solely as a digital publication.

Despite its achievements, including international recognition for its short-form video content and coverage of youth issues, TODAY has faced significant challenges, such as the controversial suspension of Mr Brown’s column in 2006 after he criticized the government.

The merger also raises questions about the future of media plurality in Singapore, where Mediacorp already holds a dominant position.

Chief Commercial Officer Jacqui Lim sought to reassure advertisers, promising competitive alternatives across Mediacorp’s network, which includes CNA, 8 World, Berita, and Seithi. Lim emphasized that the merger aligns with Mediacorp’s audience-first approach, aiming to provide innovative and effective media solutions.

The post Mediacorp to merge TODAY digital newsroom with Channel News Asia appeared first on Gutzy Asia.

Continue Reading

Trending