Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
For image info, go to https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Malaysia-falls-18-spots-on-press-freedom-index-as-ASEAN-languishes
Singapore loses out to Malaysia in press freedom
KUALA LUMPUR, March 19, 2024: At least the freedom of press issue is something more negative in Singapore than in Malaysia.
But, is Malaysia that much more better than Singapore?
The perception is that Malaysia’s media/press is much more independent than Singapore.
But, when it comes to social media or the internet, that is a totally different ball game altogether - far more bolder than the mainstream or print media.
No News Is Bad News reproduces below a news posting on Singapore’s state of mainstream/print media and a report on Malaysia's plan to regulate social media platforms:
Carlos Ramirez NunezDEMOCRATIC SINGAPORE
Personally, I feel that our Mainstream Media in Singapore is simply a mouthpiece for the Government.
I used to diligently read the Straits Times every day in the past. Sadly, nowadays I just don't bother to waste my time and money on what I feel is just a propaganda machine trying to brainwash me into following the Government's policies.
I want a newspaper that looks at Government policies with a critical eye and is unafraid and makes a stand to contest and protest what it feels is not right !!!
I want to see righteous debate and differing points of view.
A real newspaper does not need to be paid by the Government. It will thrive on readership and advertising revenue alone.
‘Of course, there is self-censorship’: Former editor Bertha Henson ‘flabbergasted’ by ST editor’s comments on censorship.
MUSTSHARENEWS.COM
'Of course, there is self-censorship': Former editor Bertha Henson 'flabbergasted' by ST editor's comments
‘Of course, there is self-censorship’: Former editor Bertha Henson ‘flabbergasted’ by ST editor’s comments on censorship
Bertha Henson disagrees with previous statements on censorship by Straits Times editor Jaime Ho
Former The Straits Times (ST) editor-turned-media commentator Bertha Henson has expressed consternation over comments made by ST editor Jaime Ho on a 14 Feb livestream.
Mr Ho had denied the existence of censorship, highlighting that the paper and Government shared a “fluid relationship”. He added that even though the paper receives feedback on its coverage, this does not amount to censorship. Mr Ho also said there was no self-censorship.
Ms Henson refuted this, pointing out that was not what she experienced during her time as a journalist and editor.
Bertha Henson disagrees with Jaime Ho’s claims on censorship
Ms Henson was speaking on the Teh Tarik with Walid Abdullah show hosted by Walid Jumblatt Abdullah, an Assistant Professor at Nanyang Technological University’s School of Social Sciences — the same show that Mr Ho had appeared on when he made his comments.
Ms Henson said she was “flabbergasted” by Mr Ho’s claims about a lack of censorship in the ST newsroom.
“Frankly speaking after the first two questions I had to stop… listening to the whole thing,” Ms Henson, who has 25 years of experience in Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), said.
Ms Henson had previously served as the associate editor and news editor of ST, as well as the deputy editor of The New Paper.
She added: “I mean, not just that there’s no censorship, I don’t know whether in Singapore, or another planet, or somewhere else, but worse, (he says) there was no self-censorship as well — it’s just not credible.”
She went on to say that her experience is very different from what Mr Ho has described. “Unless you tell me that over the past few years, things have changed drastically in the Singapore landscape.”
She acknowledged that Mr Ho could have defined censorship as a process in which draft articles get vetted by someone outside of the newsroom, a process that she agreed doesn’t happen.
But Ms Henson said it was “unbelievable” for Mr Ho to claim that there was no censorship from third parties and no self-censorship, too. It is “so clear”, she said, that newsmakers — companies or advertisers — would inadvertently put pressure on journalists.
“Newsmakers want to look good,” she said, adding that the outcome depends on whether journalists “have the stomach” to stay firm and say no to any influence.
Difference between self-censorship and editing
Ms Henson added that there was a difference between self-censorship and the process of editing.
“When you edit, you have the reader in mind. The story is shaped in a way that the reader can understand,” she said.
“When you self-censor, you are saving your own skin,” she noted. “You are doing it because ‘oh, I don’t want to get into trouble, I cannot afford this’… that’s self-censorship.”
“Frankly speaking, self-censorship is there all the time. You just don’t want to overstep some boundaries and then you get in trouble and have to defend yourself,” she said.
Ms Henson said at the end of the day it all depends on where one’s principles lie, and how far one can go to stand one’s ground. This can be done, she elaborated, in situations where journalists can say whatever they have written is “perfectly legitimate”.
“It comes down to facts. What is reporting? Everything is based on facts. If I have the facts, you may dislike how I write it, you may hate the thing, but you cannot quibble with me because I have the facts. That has always been the principle of journalism.”
She also said that there’s always room for negotiation, with both parties saying their piece. Ultimately the reporter and editor will have to decide if it’s a battle they want to win or are willing to lose.
Assistant Professor Walid replied that it might be hard for journalists to refuse such pressures, as they may be worried about jeopardising their career.
“Then what you’re saying is the newsmaker doesn’t think that the integrity of journalism is worth preserving,” she followed.
The culture set from the top is very important, she said. “Are we going to roll over and die every time there’s a bit of pressure?
You can watch the full episode on Instagram here.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from Wiki.sg and LinkedIn.
MCMC finalising framework for licensing social media platforms
-19 Mar 2024, 12:00 PM
Deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching says the purpose of licensing is to enhance online safety and tackle harmful content.
Teo Nie Ching says the proposal for licensing social media platforms in Malaysia is still being fine-tuned. (Bernama pic)
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is in the process of finalising the framework for licensing all social media platform service providers operating in the country.
Speaking in the Dewan Rakyat today, deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching said the proposal was still being fine-tuned.
“This proposed licensing enforcement is targeted at social media service providers and internet messaging services accessible to users in Malaysia, based on specified assessment criteria,” she said.
“The targeted licensing enforcement proposal is also considered appropriate due to the high availability of harmful content on social media and internet messaging platforms.”
She added that the proposed regulatory measures aim to enhance online safety and address content that violates national laws.
“These measures align with current global approaches and developments, without intending to restrict media freedom,” she said.
Teo was responding to Shamshulkahar Deli (BN-Jempol) who asked whether the ministry would require all social media platform service providers operating in the country to register with MCMC.
Communications minister Fahmi Fadzli previously said the ministry was examining the need to license large platform providers such as Google, Meta, and TikTok that generate revenue through content from local media organisations.
Separately, Teo said 14% of all takedown requests by MCMC between Jan 1 and March 1 this year were rejected by social media platform providers which cited the non-violation of their community guidelines.
“Therefore, this indicates that it was not solely MCMC’s decision,” she said.
She added that 86% of successfully removed content comprised cases of defamation (73%), fraud (15.63%), and false content (4.15%).
Study on Online Safety Act
Teo also said the Cabinet had directed her ministry and the legal affairs division under the Prime Minister’s Department would conduct a study on introducing an Online Safety Act.
“There is a possibility that the bill may be brought to Parliament in order to get its approval in the next sitting,” she said in response to a supplementary question from Mumtaz Nawi (PN-Tumpat).
Mumtaz had asked whether the communications ministry had conducted a study and was prepared to enact online safety legislation similar to that of Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment