The shill by Azmi Anshar, an NST editor and seasoned journalist, makes a mockery of the idea that our government and law enforcement authorities are accountable to the rakyat.

[Disclosure: I am a member of Hartal MSM, an advocacy group that calls for a Paper-free Tuesday -- 'No buy, No lies']

When a news organization's editorial policy is dictated by its owners, the quality of its journalism is often the first thing to go out the window (followed closely by its credibility, reputation and circulation figures).

The general level of integrity and professionalism in our news media notwithstanding, I have to say that this "online exclusive" op-ed piece from the New Straits Times (July 22), entitled 'They got their Royal Commission of Inquiry but will they stop their lynching?' is as egregious a case of journalistic misconduct as I have ever come across. Lest I be accused of making that claim just because I disagree with the article in question, please allow me share with you my reasons for saying so:

1. The writer made a significant error of fact by claiming that the purpose of the Royal Commission of Inquiry was "to probe the chary [sic] death of Teoh Boon Hock [sic]".

This is untrue because, as PM Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak himself said (bold emphasis mine): "The Royal Commission will be set up according to specific terms, which is to scrutinize and study the procedures related to interrogations that are used by the MACC. It will also identify if there were any violations of human rights during Teoh’s interrogation."

The PM also made it clear that Teoh's death would be investigated by an inquest and not the RCI. This is definitely not what Teoh's family, Pakatan Rakyat leaders and many others have been asking for from the outset.

Why is this error significant? Because the writer Azmi Anshar then went on to use his [baseless] "fact" to attack the character and motives of Pakatan Rakyat leaders throughout the article, beginning from the headline itself. A major thrust of the article is to show that even when their demands have been met, PR leaders (ostensibly for selfish political reasons), will continue to criticize the RCI. It should have been quite obvious to the writer that their (and many others') demands were not met. He has misrepresented their position, and as of 1650 hrs on July 24, this remains uncorrected.

2. The writer used at least two of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in argument, specifically:

a) he used emotionally toned words. Against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, followers and actions, he had this to say, without any supporting evidence (emotive words in bold mine):

• band of noxious supporters
• toxic Pakatan demonstrations
• defiant rants
• this mob
• sly pre-emption
• Pakatan’s instigation
• parrot his all-time favourite bellowing
• pressing for a RCI
• howls of protest
• partisan party sycophant
• sly pre-empts
• Another sly pre-empting ploy
• last week’s rampage
• Pakatan Rakyat minions
• brutish smugness
• mob fury
• lynching, Malaysian-style

For the government, he has this instead:

• most pragmatic decision
• strongly endorsed the setting up of the RCI

b) he attributed prejudices or dishonourable motives to his "opponents", again without offering any evidence in support.

"They were almost certain of getting a favourable Cabinet response but the hyperboles and sly pre-emption that senior Pakatan leaders discharged seemed to have given the appearance that the goading provoked the Cabinet into agreeing to the RCI."

"But let’s not be surprised that Pakatan would claim credit for their RCI ingenuity."

"Pakatan leaders’ pressing for a RCI had a disingenuous purpose:... Pakatan people will be nudged aside from the glare of suspicion..."

"Now anticipate the howls of protest, even if it makes sense to expand the scope of the RCI’s inquiry to include all possibilities."

"Kit will find other specious means to further pile the burden of attestation on Najib to prove that the RCI is “absolutely independent??? and will do their job fearlessly."

"Pakatan Rakyat minions will insist no less than a guilty verdict, that some MACC perp pushed Teoh Beng Hock out of the 14th floor to his death for no reason other than wanting to torture the young man.

3. The writer committed (what I believe to be) the most serious affront to the profession of journalism: he subverted and twisted the meaning of words in a way that obscures the truth, to further his attack on his 'opponents'. Two examples from the article:

Example 1

Lynching is "violent punishment or execution, without due process, for real or alleged crimes." It is a crime punishable by law in Malaysia, and it is what the writer accuses Pakatan Rakyat of doing to the MACC. Does the writer have any evidence to support this? If he did, he certainly did not share any of it with us in his article.

The irony is that the exact opposite may be argued. Teoh Beng Hock was either a witness or a suspect in an alleged crime, and was, prima facie, in the custody of the MACC. If these two accounts of MACC's interrogation methods are reliable, then there is enough cause to suspect that Teoh too may have been the victim of high-handed interrogation tactics. Did it stop there? Was there any physical violence used? These are reasonable questions to ask.

Upending the meaning of words

The very nature of criminal investigations: the secrecy, the power differentials involved, our unfortunate history of deaths in custody, and the inescapable fact that whatever was done to Teoh was done in OUR NAME, makes it absolutely vital that we actively get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding Teoh's death. Asking the tough questions and being skeptical about the answers we are given is not lynching, it is merely demanding accountability from our public servants.

By turning the meaning of the word "lynch" on its head, this 'wordsmith' from the NST has used his command of the English language to make a mockery of the idea that our government and law enforcement authorities are accountable to the rakyat.

 

Example 2

Sycophant means “a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people???. The writer used this word to describe Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a former vice-chairman of Transparency International’s Board of Directors. To be sure, Tunku Aziz is a DAP member, but has the writer any evidence to show that Tunku Aziz has ever attempted to win favour by flattering influential people in DAP, Pakatan or anywhere else?

If the favour of 'influential people' is what Tunku Aziz sought, would the DAP have been the right party for him to join? One might think that there would have been more 'favourable' opportunities elsewhere.

With Malaysia at the crossroads in the aftermath of March 8, 2008, advocacy journalism has become a weapon in the political war to determine which path our country takes. It is a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. It is certainly not new, and it is not disreputable per se; The Economist is an example of a publication that practices it quite well.

However, while advocacy journalists may justifiably eschew the newsroom journalists' credo of objectivity (i.e. being neutral and not taking sides in their reporting), this does not absolve them of all standards of ethical journalism.

Meeting the minimum standards

Here is the bare minimum that they have to meet (adapted from here and here):

1. They must acknowledge and declare their editorial position and bias up front. Doing so will inform readers as to where the writer is coming from and allows them to employ their critical faculties accordingly. Working to promote a particular point of view without disclosing one's true stance is shilling.
2. They must be truthful, accurate, and credible; ensure that every statement they make is factual and based on evidence from neutral sources. In other words don't spread propaganda, don't take quotes or facts out of context, "don't fabricate or falsify", and "don't judge or suppress vital facts or present half-truths". Requiring that media outlets refrain from spreading untruths and falsehood is not too much to ask for, is it?
3. Even if they do not provide equal time for their opponents views, they must at least understand and address their opponents' relevant points and criticism – they must never ignore, trivialize or distort them. Be fair and thorough.
4. They must use honest arguments; do not resort to the crooked thinking and dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments. Avoid slogans, ranting, and polemics. Instead, "articulate complex issues clearly and carefully."
5. They must not allow their bias to turn into rose-coloured glasses, or worse, a blind spot. They must not spare their own cause the tough, critical questions and scrutiny.

Without adhering to these most basic of standards, the resulting media product will be nothing more than propaganda, and bad one at that.

If it had come from a political party's media mouthpiece, the article might have been just bearable. After all, political propagandists and shills may rightly claim that they are not bound by any ethics, and have no interest in helping readers to seek the truth. They may thus abandon even the pretense of reasoned discourse and honest logic, and (perhaps to please their masters), be as partisan and as chauvinist as they please.

Practitioners of world's oldest profession

However, coming from the New Straits Times, the news outlet that is Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print, and which claims that "Our goal is to be the preeminent provider of news, information and entertainment and to achieve total customer satisfaction through our professional and highly regarded workforce that values quality, integrity, innovativeness and personal service", it is nothing short of an abject disgrace.

It stands to reason that the NST's lofty goal will remain out of reach so long as its journalists (and editors) behave like members of the oldest profession, and not as members of an honourable one.

[This article first appeared in the blog 'Malaysian Heart' on July 24, 2009.]

_______________________________

Editor's note:

Hartal MSM is a mediawatch group which had its beginnings in December 2007 in the People's Parliament, an initiative convened by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim. The group seeks to promote a free and fair media as an impetus to Malaysia's stalled nation-building process.