Singapore’s media dysfunctions: who is to blame?

Opening remarks at a panel discussion on Singapore media, organised by FOSG (Future of Singapore). The video of the event can be viewed here.

If you have read some of my pieces you will know I have strong views on this topic, but I thought it might be more helpful for our discussion if I took a step back and make three broad observations about the debate thus far.

First, what exactly is the problem with the national newspaper company? We can specify three separate issues.

• Video courtesy of The Online Citizen.

One, the breakdown of the century-old business model that used to allow media organisations to invest substantially in the kind of journalism that helps people become better citizens: news and commentary about public affairs. Such journalism used to be bundled with more entertaining news, and as well as with advertising. The internet disaggregated this bundle, exposing the cruel fact that public interest journalism by itself is not something enough people are willing to pay for. It is what economists call a public good, subject to market failure.

Two, the PAP government’s chokehold on public discourse prevents Singapore journalism from rising to its potential. Of course, the national media still perform a reliable service in many respects. The state is a huge part of people’s lives, so if a news service provides timely and accurate news about everything from Covid-19 restrictions, to school admission policy changes, to new schemes for small businesses, such media will be generally trusted. But of course in any country there will be instances where the interests of the rulers diverge periodically from the interests of the people they rule. And in those specific moments, that’s when people around the world intuitively expect the press to speak up for them. But it is precisely in those instances where the government demands that the press tells the people they are wrong and that officials are right, every single time. This is not a formula for developing customer loyalty.

Third, SPH may have been suffering a leadership crisis. According to this theory that many people hold, even given the digital disruption, even with government control, SPH should be doing better. And I think there’s some prima facie evidence of a competency gap.

Compare them with Mediacorp. Consider that MediaCorp’s Tham Loke Kheng had almost 20 years of industry experience when she was appointed CEO four years ago, including holding top positions in the highly competitive markets of Taiwan and Hong Kong.

SPH meanwhile has been led by CEOs with zero media experience and in many cases zero commercial experience of any kind, for the past quarter-century. I agree with Khaw Boon Wan that there is in fact no shortage of talented Singaporeans, including for topmost positions. Gina Chua, a former SBC and ST journalist, has run two newspapers in highly competitive markets, South China Morning Post and Asian Wall Street Journal; she is now executive editor of Reuters, a news organisation far larger than SPH. So the talent is out there.

I think all three factors — journalism’s financial crisis, Singapore’s press controls, and SPH’s self-inflicted leadership failures — play a part. What’s debatable is how big each factor is, to what extent they are interrelated, whether it is even possible to crack one challenge without addressing the other two, and so on. I predict that the disagreements that are likely to emerge even in this afternoon’s discussion will be of this nature. What is the balance of blame among these three factors.

My second big observation concerns our wishes for SPH. I think it would be unrealistic and unfair to burden SPH or in fact any single media organisation with all our pent-up desires for a better media system.

There are things that a large mass-market news organisation like SPH can do that smaller alternative media can’t; but conversely big media face certain limitations. For both economic and political reasons they cannot stray too far from the middle ground. Those of us who are further from the centre, whether its liberals and progressives like me or, say, religious conservatives, can’t realistically expect SPH to champion our worldviews.

Having said that, SPH can be fairer and more representative even within its current economic and political limits. I think it is reasonable to demand that SPH not shut out alternative views the way it does now.

Even if we concede that SPH titles need to gravitate towards the mean, it is reasonable to expect it to allow for more standard deviation, to stick with the statistical metaphor. Even if SPH has to broadly align itself with the government agenda, it could still give a much broader platform for contrarian views.

I think this is where even insiders and former insiders — including journalists who are not anti-government — have a problem with the status quo. It is understandable that a national newspaper would lean gently towards the PAP, just as most Singaporeans do. But it can afford to do this less unthinkingly. You know, a paper that insults the intelligence of its readers routinely does the government no favours.

There is a point beyond which SPH and Mediacorp cannot go, and to condemn them for not going further is like blaming a caged watchdog for failing to stop an intruder. It’s not the watchdog’s fault that it’s caged. The hard political limits within which media are forced to operate is not something that SPH in whatever form can unilaterally address. We, the people, need to work that out with the government.

Which brings me to my final observation, concerning the role of the public.

We’ve seen a strong public reaction to the SPH announcement a couple of weeks ago, and this forum is a manifestation of that, but I’m skeptical that people have the patience or resolve to make a difference. There is a big difference between the slacktivism of sharing memes or buying Umbrage merchandise, and the serious work of a citizen movement for media diversity.

I know many intelligent Singaporeans were incredulous about statements made by minister S. Iswaran and SPH Media chairman-designate Khaw Boon Wan, who have acted as if political control of the press is a non-issue. It seemed like the establishment is in denial.

But I want to suggest that they have a firmer grasp of the situation than the critics do. From a purely political point of view, was Iswaran wrong to claim that the system “ain’t broke”? Is the PAP wrong to bet that Singaporeans after loudly complaining, will quickly move on?

Think about it. Even though the SPH restructuring is quite radical, the main bones of contention are actually nothing new. Singaporeans have lived with the PAP’s media model in the past, why would the future be any different?

Many claim to be unhappy with Khaw Boon Wan’s appointment as chairman, but he is just the latest in a 30-year line of trusted ministers and mandarins managing the media. People got upset before too, but the disquiet died down. Why should this time be very different?

Many are also unhappy that the media industry is a closed shop; that the national media are protected from competition. But this is nothing new either. Voters knew this when they went to the polls the last 13 times, and each time they overwhelmingly endorsed a PAP that has openly, even proudly, declared it is against press freedom.

The biggest change is the decision to help finance SPH with government funding, but how new is that? That’s what always been the case with Mediacorp. Also think about the public funds poured into thinly disguised political campaigns like SG50, including in the run-up to elections. Think about the state’s use of paid influencers, and covert methods of computational propaganda.

Think about pro-government trolls that harass and incite hate against citizens who are classified as political opponents. Officials haven’t renounced or denounced such practices. Nor have they denied coordinating them or funding them directly or indirectly.

All in all, SPH Media will not be the first time taxpayers are footing the bill for their own indoctrination and manipulation. Singaporeans know this and seem not to care. So this doesn’t sound like a situation where the PAP is out of touch with reality. It seems that it’s the public that’s in denial.

Of course you may say that the people are helpless. I don’t accept that.

I’m glad Kheng Soon reminded us what he and his comrades did 50 years ago.

Fifty years ago this month, when a small newspaper titled the Singapore Herald was threatened with closure, Kheng Soon was part of a small group of concerned citizens who tried to mount a rescue bid.

They set up a Singapore Herald Trust Fund – so yes, 50 years before SPH, they landed on the idea of a trust-owned newspaper — to operate the Herald as a 100% Singaporean newspaper independent of any political party.

They were too late. Next Friday is the 50th anniversary of the newspaper’s death.

But the principle remains relevant. If citizens seriously want to develop independent media online, not just with commentaries and very occasional original reporting but with daily news coverage of national affairs — like Rappler in the Philippines, Malaysiakini in Malaysia, The Wire and Scroll in India, The Reporter in Taiwan — there is no major legal or regulatory hurdle stopping them from doing it.

The main impediments are in the public mind.

Singaporeans continue to delude themselves that high quality journalism does not need to be paid for. They will pay for Netflix and football channels and Spotify and video games, but they think the news should be free. They think that they don’t need large teams of journalists whose full-time job is to keep track of matters of public interest, because Facebook and WhatsApp friends will tell them what’s going on.

So in summary I think we are suffering from a triple denial. The government refuses to acknowledge that it is part of the problem. Newsroom managements protected from competition won’t acknowledge their own inadequacies. And the public is in denial about its own complicity. Journalism’s market failure is at heart, I think, a moral failure on the part of citizens who will pay for media that turn them into obedient consumers in a capitalist system, but not for media that would make them more engaged and better citizens.