|
SHOULD politicians sue the media? They could, of course, if they feel aggrieved by what was reported about them. If they want restitution, they should. Like the rest of us citizens, they have their rights, too. But could and should, and to be actually doing it, are two different things.
Members of parliament Teresa Kok and Karpal Singh are the latest politicians to take to court a member of the Malaysian media. I am not interested in discussing the merits of the cases, which are for the courts to decide, but to look into the act of politicians using the court to silence the media when the latter is not behaving to their liking. Now before anyone starts jumping on his hobby horse and gets his shorts twisted as well, this is not an attempt to target the action of the DAP's two Ks. Members of the Government have sued the media, too. What such action does is basically to instil the threat of financial ruin like the Swords of Damocles above the heads of reporters, editors and owners to cease and desist writing about the plaintiff. Now, what is the media to do if the plaintiff is a scoundrel and deserving of public contempt? Can the media write good things on the plaintiff, regardless? What the politicians are doing is well within the law and their rights. But then, politicians are different from ordinary citizens. Politicians are subjects of adulation and disdain, and they live by the people's thumbs-up or down. Their lives are matters of public interest and they should always encourage debate, favourable or not, on their actions and utterances, Kok and Karpal should instead use their position as elected officials and the bully pulpit available to them to argue their cases. With the media being as diverse as it is now, there is no way that their nemesis' point of view would dominate, and if indeed it was driven by an unholy agenda and mischief, it must be found out. Surely a more desirable outcome for Kok and Karpal is public contempt for the newspaper, rather than financial gain on their part, or ruin in the newspaper's case. I would even cotton a boycott of the newspaper: as a consumer product it is always subjected to the whims and fancies of the consumers. Some discontinue subscribing to a product due to political differences, or even a change in the masthead. It must be acknowledged that Kok gained as much notoriety and support from her tangle with the newspaper, much more than if the press had ignored her. The media going after, and by the same token supporting, politicians must be as old as democracy itself. From the mainstream media to party organs to the new reaches of the new media, politicians have been derided and championed. And they know it, too, hence, they seldom go after the media, especially with politicians being the self-appointed champions of freedom of expression, and being in the business of ideas and ideals There is also a knowing wink by politicos to media practitioners of their symbiotic relations. Politicians generally operate in an environment that is extremely permissive to innuendo, selective amnesia, calculated righteousness, lies and half truths, and the convenience of the moment. The media generally give them enough slack not to pounce on every single utterance and action. For example, by some proclamations, we would have had a new government, by now. But many opposition politicians now conveniently forget that and are changing the subject. The media understands the game, and has not gone on a tirade of the failure to deliver. Taken to the extreme, should we all not start suing politicians for failure to deliver promises or failed policy? We don't because it is rarely done, and deep inside we know what politicians are all about, and we are quick to excuse their failings for the nature of the creatures. Furthermore, we have the elections to get rid of them. It is, of course, inherent that the media be more careful in its operation, but having said that, it is unfortunate if it were to be silenced by a court order. We should be worried if the two Ks are starting a trend among politicians. A politician of all people should not in any way condone and promote the suppression of ideas, no matter how irreprehensible they may be to him. He should use the bully pulpit to correct them. He is, after all, not an ordinary citizen.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
- nst
 |
The Blogs 
