utusan malaysia or utusan umno?

I contend that Brother Azmin Ali might have gone overboard in calling for the banning of Utusan Malaysia reporters from doing their coverage in the Dewan Rakyat.

Indeed, I become very suspicious each time any government official or politician express their desire to control, restrict and dictate what should be featured, published or covered in the media, especially when most of these individuals have a vested interest in these news providers.

Our fidelity to the notion of freedom of expression includes not only the right to say what we wish to say, but conversely to also hear what others have got to say about us.

In that sense, the freedom of expression revolves not so much around the idea of us having the freedom of saying whatever we like (subject to certain restrictions and considerations of course), but relates to the idea of ensuring that our audience have unfettered access to all the possible news sources to which they have a basic right to, with the eventual desire that they would be able to exercise their autonomy in making an informed choice.

In this conceptualization, the notion of freedom of expression leans more towards autonomy as opposed to liberty.

Thus, the desire to ban a news source simply because one does not like the items it carries have no place in this conceptualization, since that would deprive the public’s access to that piece of information (however offensive it may be to one’s political position), and eventually affect their ability to draw their own rightful conclusions.

The newspaper have a right to disseminate views that are in direct opposition to your own, provided that they are substantiated and argued in a civilized manner.

A free media allows for (or at least promotes) the balanced circulation of a diversity of views and opinions; a responsible media on the other hand require news providers to be accountable, just and principled in their reporting.

A violation of the former credo is not enough to call for a ban complete on the newspaper, whilst a case for censorship based on the latter credo could be made.

So, you can ask your supporters to refrain from buying the particular newspaper or you can voice your protest over the content of the newspaper; but you should not be going around questioning the existential reason of the newspaper, much less to dictate what items it could or could not cover.

Having said all that, I disagree with the argument put forward by Awang Selamat who said “apa salahnya jika benar Utusan menjadi ejen propaganda UMNO walaupun dakwaan beliau itu boleh diperdebatkan?” and proceeds to add “pada Awang, tidak salah menjadi ejen sebuah parti politik yang banyak berjasa kepada agama, bangsa dan negara” specifically because he seemed confused as to the exact functions of the newspaper he is writing for.

The first thing he should remember is that Utusan Malaysia does not belong to him.

If Utusan Malaysia claims to be a mainstream media that is responsible for providing balanced news to the public, then the last thing it should be doing is to profess its loyalty and affiliation to any political party, regardless of the merits of the political party.

Since the mainstream media exists because of public consumption of the news its provides, it has a duty to ensure that it is acting in the best interest of the public (rakyat).

This goes back to the notion of freedom of expression being related to the issue of autonomy.

If one expects the rakyat to fully realize their autonomy in making an informed choice on a specific issue, then it is incumbent on the news providers to expose the rakyat to the widest variety of opinions as possible.

A newspaper which trumpets its role as the “Penyebar Fikiran Rakyat” cannot live up to its motto if it proudly proclaims its subservience to a political party in power, since its actions will inevitably be judged against the pros and cons vis a vis the political party.

If Utusan Malaysia wishes to be “ejen parti politik yang banyak berjasa kepada agama, bangsa dan negara”, then perhaps it should shed any pretensions it has of being a free and responsible mainstream media.

A clear distinction should always be made between a party newspaper vs. mainstream media; the former is targeted towards party members whilst the latter is intended for public consumption.

I have no issue with a party newspaper that spouts party propaganda or rambles on about its ideology, but I do expect a mainstream media to aspire and hold itself to higher journalistic standards.

Therefore, Utusan Malaysia would do well to stop marketing the news and commentaries contained in the newspapers as balanced and honest reports, and simply call them propaganda, in order to not delude the public over the distinction between facts and spins.

I have no objections if Utusan Malaysia wishes to align itself with UMNO, but then they have to stop perceiving themselves as the mainstream media since they have effectively joined the ranks of party newspapers.

Indeed, it should rebrand itself as Utusan UMNO instead of Utusan Malaysia to further highlight their new affiliations.

But it is unethical of them to continue to kowtow to UMNO and be its mouthpiece, whilst at the same time portraying itself as representing the voice of the rakyat.

After all, one who speaks with a forked tongue cannot claim to have a monopoly over the truth.

Source:
Bisik-Bisik Awang Selamat, 8 November
<http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2008&dt=1108&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_04.htm>