1. MEDIA MONITORING REPORT:
BY-ELECTIONS APRIL 2009 IN BUKIT
GANTANG, BUKIT SELAMBAU AND
BATANG AI
Report 1: MEDIA MONITORING REPORT: Coverage by Utusan Malaysia, New
Straits Times, The Star and theSun of the 2009 Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau, and
Batang Ai By-Elections by Yip Wai Fong
Report 2: MEDIA MONITORING REPORT: Online Media Coverage of the 2009
Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau, and Batang Ai By-Elections by Zachary David
Chambers Hill, Luce Scholar 2008-2009
Tel: 03-40230772, email: gayathry@cijmalaysia.org / waifong.yip@gmail.com
1

2. MEDIA MONITORING REPORT: Coverage by Utusan Malaysia, New Straits
Times, The Star and theSun of the 2009 Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau, and Batang
Ai By-Elections
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following the 8 March 2008 general elections when the electorate delivered a serious
blow to the Barisan Nasional and indirectly to the mainstream media, expectations grew
that there would be changes for the better within the newsrooms in terms of independent
and critical coverage. The Centre for Independent Journalism, in collaboration with
Charter 2000-Aliran and Writers Alliance for Media Independence conducted a media
monitoring exercise during the 2008 elections, and it was felt that the three by-elections
that took place simultaneously in April would provide a good opportunity to conduct
monitoring and assess the media coverage a year later.
The monitoring of the triple by-elections in Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau and Batang
Ai was done for the period starting 31 March 2009 to 8 April 2009, involving Utusan
Malaysia, the New Straits Times, The Star, and The Sun. A total of 486 stories were
monitored from the news section, and often these were in designated pages for the by-
election coverage. Using simple categories, we tried to get a feel of the slant of the
reporting, and at the same time, we tried to draw out specific issues in the reporting that
may be used as reference points for improvements. Utusan Malaysia had the highest
number of stories on the by-elections and it also had the highest portion of stories that
were positive to the Barisan Nasional (57%) and negative to the Pakatan Rakyat (26%);
for the New Straits Times, the bulk of its 141 reports were also positive to the BN, though
it had a significant number of stories that were neutral. The Sun had showed a more
balanced representation even though it had the least stories (34); while The Star's
reporting of stories that were neutral is worth noting as was its reporting of stories
positive to the Pakatan Rakyat.
The report looks at the quality of the neutral stories and the slant in the reporting of the
rest, in relation to the coverage of the independent candidates, Pakatan Rakyat, the
polling watchdog MAFREL and the reportage on the results of the by-elections.
Based on the observations, we can conclude that despite expectations of an improved
media environment, big media like Utusan Malaysia and New Straits Times continued to
provide reports that favoured the BN, were uncritical of the ruling coalition and to the
extent of promoting the BN. A very small number of stories found online, particularly for
The Star, indicated possibilities of using the online space to provide slightly different
content. It is too optimistic to say that the online version of the print newspaper is freer,
but small exceptions were noticeable.
The study does not attempt to provide a full view or understanding of media coverage of
the by-elections, and we recognise some gaps that need to be filled. Among others, to
focus on topical issues to map out more thoroughly the reportage; inclusion of different
2

3. language media; and the dynamics in the newsroom that influence reporting. We hope to
pursue some of these in future studies.
2.0 BACKGROUND
On 13 Feb, the Election Commission (EC) called for by-elections to be held for Bukit
Gantang (Parliamentary) and Bukit Selambau (state assembly) on 7 April and nomination
day on 29 March. The PAS member of Parliament for Bukit Gantang, Roslan Shaharum
passed away on 9 Feb due to a heart attack. On the same day, V. Arumugam from PKR
resigned from his seat in Bukit Selambau amidst speculation that he was pressured to
cross-over to Barisan Nasional.
The Batang Ai state assembly seat was held by the Sarawak Assistant Sports Minister
Datuk Dublin Unting, who after being in coma for nine months, died on 24 Feb. The EC
subsequently announced on 4 March that the three elections and nominations to be held
simultaneously.
The three elections was much talked about as the platform to gauge the people's reception
to the sixth Prime Minister, Najib Razak who was sworn in five days before the polling
day. Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) nomination of Nizar Jamaluddin, who was ousted as the
Perak Mentri Besar in February to contest in Bukit Gantang was also seen as capitalizing
on the public furore over the Perak political crisis. This occurred after three elected state
representatives declared they were leaving the PR and became independent members of
the assembly but friendly to the BN. Najib led the team to meet the Perak Sultan who
subsequently decided that BN had a majority in the state legislative assembly to form the
government.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring of the reporting on the “triple by-elections” of Bukit Gantang, Bukit
Selambau and Batang Ai was for the period of 31 March 2009 to 8 April 2009, following
the nomination and polling dates on 29 March 2009 and 7 April 2009,respectively. The
newspapers monitored were Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, The Star and theSun.
In addition to monitoring the newspapers available in the central region, we scanned the
online versions of the newspapers, except for theSun, to include stories that were
dedicated to the northern region and Sarawak.
In total, we monitored 486 stories. They were assigned into the following categories -
Neutral, Positive Barisan Nasional (BN), Negative Pakatan Rakyat (PR), Positive PR,
and Others.
The following explains the criteria for each categories:
Neutral- Stories categorised as “neutral” tend not to have the impact of forming
support or sympathy for any contesting parties. Reports about the Election
Commission and the police activities usually fall under this category. Stories
3

4. under this category that may contain a statement or allegation will have to a large
extent views from the contesting sides. The different views are contained within
the same article or in separate articles. For example, on 5 April The Star
published reactions on the release of ISA detainees ahead of the elections. Both
BN's and Pakatan's reactions were reported in two separate articles- Samy:
Release will boost BN's chances and Release of 13 detainees won't help Barisan,
says Karpal. Both were categorized as neutral.
Positive BN and Positive PR when stories have the potential to garner support
and sympathy for the main actors reported. Often stories in these two categories
contain one-sided reporting and can also be described as self-promotional. In
interpreting the slant of some of the stories, it was felt that those where
institutions were the main actors, some had the potential of being positive towards
a particular party. For example, the police had issued a ban against flying the
party flags while riding motorcyles and the ban on issuing permits for ceramahs
by parties that did not field candidates in a particular constituency. The overall
impact of the stories were felt to be positive to the BN.
Negative PR- Stories under this category are statements or events that put the
Pakatan in a negative light and with the potential impact of drawing negative
response to the party. Again, in cases like this, the stories are allegations against
the party but with no comments or right of reply from the coalition members,
leaving the reader to assume that the allegation was in fact the truth. There is no
equivalent category created for BN because no story fulfilled this category.
The monitoring does focus on the BN and the PR parties, and where independent
candidates were involved, they were mostly covered in terms of their relationship with
the major players. We will be discussing this in detail in the section below. In
categorizing the stories about the independents, we have taken the liberty to apply the
same yardstick as discussed above. Due to the limited scope of the categories, one
inconsistency in this approach is that some reports on the independent candidates were
placed in the Neutral category.
In the following sections, we discuss the issues that we observed in the monitoring
exercise.
4.0 FINDINGS
Of the 486 stories monitored, Utusan Malaysia had the highest number of stories on the
by-elections and it also had the highest portion of stories that were positive to the Barisan
Nasional (57%) and negative to the Pakatan Rakyat (26%); for the New Straits Times, the
bulk of its 141 reports were also positive to the BN, though it had a significant number of
stories that were neutral. The Sun had showed a more balanced representation even
though it had the least stories (34) with 47% neutral slant, 23% positive to the BN and
4

5. 14.7% positive to the PR; while The Star's reporting of stories that were neutral is worth
noting at 52% as was its reporting of stories positive to the Pakatan Rakyat at 11%.
Table 1: Breakdown of stories by newspapers according to categories
Publication Total number % Neutral %Positive to %Positive to % Negative
of stories BN PR to PR
Utusan 165 15.7 57 1.2 26
Malaysia
New Straits 141 40.5 44 4.4 10.8
Times
The Star 146 52 34.4 11 2.7
The Sun 34 47 23 14.7 14.7
Total 486
4.1 The Quality of Neutral Stories
Although not skewed towards any of the candidates' side, they were not skewed towards
the voters either. A scan of the headlines indicate that the subjects of the stories were
mostly the candidates or the government agencies. Invariably, campaign strategy and
controversies, rather than the political actors' plan for the constituency and articulation of
local issues, were made into news. Where voters' perspectives were reported in this
category, these constituted a negligible number in the Star and in NST, and none in
theSun and Utusan Malaysia.
In The Star, though 52 percent of a total 146 stories monitored are neutral, only six
stories were voter orientedand interestingly even among the six, not all were available in
print. Three under the headlines 'Bukit Selambau voters want development by either party'
a narration of Bukit Selambau's folks wishes and feelings by Looi Sue-Chern, and
'Heavy irony in Batang Ai, a remote land of contrasts', and 'Address basic needs, say
longhouse residents', about poverty and under-development in Batang Ai, were not
featured in the capital edition. There was also stories that were incomplete or one-sided
even though the overall impact was not in support of any parties. For instance, a report
about the Batang Ai Ibans' inability to pay the loan for their longhouses stopped short of
providing a response from the government, which happened to be the debtor. Whenever
the questionable integrity of the electoral roll- a perennial malady- is given coverage,
there is a noticeable lack of incisiveness. For example, a story about election watchdog
MAFREL exposing the deceased still being listed in the electoral roll does not feature the
Election Commission's response. A comment about the same issue was given as little
space as the lower half of an Editorial column published on 5 May, while the first half of
the same column is used to express relief at the general peace and order at the election
scenes. While depth in the neutral stories is found to be wanting, The Star has the most
number of neutral stories among the papers monitored. It has 75 neutral stories, compared
with NST's 58, Utusan's 26, and theSun's 15.
5

6. NST has 41 percent of neutral stories among the 142 articles monitored and only a small
portion (5 stories) were voter oriented.One common type of coverage during elections is
the use of soft news, and this was obvious in the 3 by-elections. One of weakest soft news
was in the NST – an interview with the candidates from BN and PR in Bukit Selambau,
S. Ganesan and S.Manikumar who were asked about where they met their wives, why
Ganesan's wife did not wear a saree on nomination day, whether they smoked, drank or
bought 4D, which temple they went to and where they get their hair cut. Other stories
included one about a famous local food stall and a parakeet's prediction for the election
outcome. Clearly, these reports pander to curiosity rather than public interest.
Neutral stories in Utusan Malaysia centred largely on the procedural and administrative
sides of the elections. Very few actions, statements and controversies involving the
political actors were found under this category. Not surprisingly, it has the lowest
percentage of neutral stories, only 16 percent out of the total of 165 stories monitored.
theSun has the smallest pool of election stories - only 34 articles during the period
selected. Amongst them, 45 percent are reported neutrally. All analysis about the
elections in theSun were found to be neutral - 'It's going to close as fatigue sets in',
'Which way the wind blows in Batang Ai', and 'BN upset likely of Pas loses malay
support'- something noteworthy among the four publications, but circumscribed by the
very small number of articles published.
4.2 Slant in reporting
4.2.1 Coverage of the independent candidates
To a large extent coverage of the independent candidates were dominated by the
coverage on the contest between the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional and federal
opposition pact Pakatan Rakyat. Although in the three by-elections combined there were
14 independent candidates, with 13 in Bukit Selambau and one in Bukit Gantang,
coverage on their candidacy was only6.6 percent, or 32 stories out of the total number of
stories monitored in all four newspapers. It was observed that close to two thirds of the
stories on the independent candidates were done in ways to given an advantage to the BN
and disadvantage the PR.
Where the independence candidates were featured, they were portrayed as having to fend
off allegations from Pakatan that they received the backing of BN, their counter
allegations of having received offers from the major parties to quit the elections, and the
major parties talking down to them about their chances of winning. On the other hand,
allegations by the independent candidates against the BN or PR failed to get the
responses from the parties accused, belying a pattern of absolving the major parties from
having to account for the charge. There were stories about the independent candidates
that also had the impact of laying further to BN's advantage. Such reportage was quite
apparent, for example, in The Star, half of the 16 stories on the independent candidates
was characteristic of this; in the NST, it was 3 out of the 9 stories published,; in theSun, it
6

7. was one of the total four stories;and in Utusan, there were only three stories on the
independent candidates of which one was clearly done to disadvantage the PR. In the
process, coverage about the independent candidates' campaign messages was neglected.
As mentioned earlier, the independent candidates were concentrated in Bukit Selambau,
yet whatever little coverage was left for them was disproportionately focused on the
candidate for Bukit Gantang, Kamarul Ramizu. He gets his own space in two reports in
The Star, two in NST and one in theSun. Whereas the 13 candidates in Bukit Selambau
not only need to share among themselves, but also with the BN or the PR issues.
This trend puts the independent candidates at a disadvantage not only in terms of lack of
publicity for their messages, but quite unfairly lins the independent candidates with
possibilities of corruption or being part of a strategy of either political party battling
against each other. Their strenuous denial is not helped by the fact that there is very scant
coverage about and certainly no robust examination of their intentions for the
constituency, which, for the voters' benefit, might dispel or confirm the suspicion. The
exception was Kamarul Ramizu, whose eccentricity seems to be the reason why he got
more coverage than his other more politically experienced counterparts in Bukit
Selambau.
4.2.2 Coverage of the Pakatan Rakyat
To begin with, in all four newspapers combined, coverage of the PR amounted to just
less than 26 percent. There are 115 stories about the PR out of a total 486. Overall, the
slant of these reports disadvantaged the PR.
Utusan Malaysia tops the three other dailies with the most negatively-slanted reports for
the opposition. Out of its 43 opposition stories, 36 are negative. In terms of percentage,
negative reports formed almost 83 percent of the paper's coverage for Pakatan. It only has
two neutral stories and two others that paint the Pakatan in positive light. The sheer
amount of negative coverage is made up of mostly statements by Pakatan's major
opponent, Barisan Nasional, for which the PR was given no space to state their views.
Coverage in other dailies vis-a-vis Utusan Malaysia, was different where the opposition
coalition got between 19 to 42 percent positive coverage from these newspapers, and at
least 25 percent neutral reporting.
Table 2: Slant in reporting of the Pakatan Rakyat
Publication %Positive to %Positive to %Neutral %Negative to
PR BN PR
Utusan Malaysia 5 7 5 83
New Straits Times 17 7 29 47
The Star 14 3 40 43
7

8. The Sun 42 8 25 25
It was observed that when both parties are reported in the same story, Barisan Nasional
invariably gets more weight and better portrayal than Pakatan. The other trend particular
to Utusan Malaysia is that statements from the BN officials concerning the opposition
sometimes turned into direct promotion of BN.
It was also observed that the coverage of alleged misconducts by those allied to Pakatan
and Barisan Nasional is lopsided. Invariably, the allegations against the former are given
more attention. The Star and Utusan reported former PKR division chief, Kalai Vanar
accusing individuals from Pakatan of harassment, while an Utusan report alleged Pas
supporters obstructed BN election workers in their work. But a sexual harassment
allegation against BN workers by an alleged victim from Pakatan was not found in the
papers but only on the online sources.
On top of being under reported, there was an imbalance in the reporting of the PR
candidates, notably in Batang Ai, where the PKR had fielded Jawah Gerang. Though his
track record as a former five-term parliamentarian for the Lubok Antu constituency merit
press inquiry, Jawah was largely marginalised. He didn't at all get a dedicated report and
scarcely got reported in first person.
4.2.3 Coverage of MAFREL
There are eight stories on the election watchdog MAFREL (Malaysians for Free and Fair
election), where five of them were found in The Star, and one each in NST, Utusan
Malaysia and theSun. Contrary to updates found in the MAFREL blog, most of these
stories reflected the election process favourably. This clearly indicates selective reporting
where critical issues, which might put the government agencies in bad light were not
highlihgted. For example, the only occasion where NST, Utusan and theSun reported
MAFREL, on 31 March, concerned the group commending the Election Commission
(EC) and the police role in keeping order during nomination day in Batang Ai. But
MAFREL's account posted on its blog depicted a stand-off between the police and PAS
supporters as the police tried to seize their party flag on the nomination day. NST also
added that MAFREL has certified the election in Batang Ai to be clean and fair in its
rather prominently placed story- No dirty tactics used, says election watchdog. Without
anymore coverage on MAFREL in the following days, in which the election watchdog
found irregularities in the electoral rolls of all three constituencies, the lone story in NST
becomes a one-sided portrayal of the election process.
A couple of articles in The Star, on 4 and 5 April each, highlighted the issue of the names
of dead voters still in the electoral roll. The first article featuring MAFREL's findings
however was not available in the capital edition. The second is an editorial which, as
mentioned in the above section on neutral story, buries the issue in the second half of the
article. Both these reports exempted a response from the Election Commission.
8

9. Other issues raised by MAFREL, such as it disagreeing with the police ban on flags and
ceramah by parties other than the candidates' were not reported. Readers are informed
about the issuer of the ban and the responses from the affected parties, but they are
denied a critical assessment and information on the exercise of elections from bodies
such as MAFREL.
Putting MAFREL stories under Neutral might appear to be applying the standard
inconsistently when stories about the police and Election Commission are categorized
under Positive BN if their challenger's side of the story was not featured. In MAFREL's
case, it is arguable that since what the group alleged was not being countered by the
Election Commission, it should be construed as favouring the opposition. We contend
that the standalone reporting of MAFREL fits the Neutral category as MAFREL is a non-
political organization and not known to be aligned with any political party, while the
government has vested interest in its agencies and this warrants a higher test for the
agencies to appear neutral to the public.
4.2.4 Coverage of the results and polling day
A significant trend in the reports about the results is the playing down of the opposition
win in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau among the papers except for theSun. In
general, the papers framed the results as “status quo” judging from their main headlines.
The following is the individual observations for the papers.
theSun
The opening line in the story on the frontpage- BN 1, PKR 2 - declares that the outcome
preserves the "status quo". Overall, the story contains a balanced mix of quotes from the
parties. The statements by the victors, Nizar Jamaluddin for Bukit Gantang comes first
followed by S. Manikumar for Bukit Selambau. BN heavyweights such as Deputy PM
Muhyiddin Yassin, MCA President Ong Tee Keat, UMNO vice presidents Hishamuddin
Hussein, Gerakan President Koh Tsu Koon and Sarawak chief minister Taib Mahmud,
get the bulk of the space for reactions. The BN's responses slightly outnumbered the
opposition's, but the story ended with the PKR president, Anwar Ibrahim's statement of
victory.
The Star
The Star's story on the front page was titled Status quo(PKR 2, BN1). It reported the
results of the three by-elections in a matter-of-fact manner, dwelling in details such as the
numbers of votes the contestants received and the background for the elections. In a
separate story about Nizar's win in Bukit Gantang, the report attributed the result to
“sympathy votes”. Interestingly, the same story has a different headline the online
medium. In the website, it is Nizar beats Barisan man with increased majority. In the
print edition, it is a watered-down revision that reads Nizar- from MB to MP. For Bukit
Selambau, a separate story prioritized the fact that the independents lost all of their
deposit. Any reason for Manikumar's win, compared to that of Nizar, was not even
mentioned.
9

10. New Straits Times (NST)
Unlike The Star and theSun, NST did not have a main story capturing the results of the
three by-elections. Instead NST reported the results in three individual stories, or one for
each constituency. The noteworthy story was on Bukit Gantang where Nizar won. Like
The Star, it is a matter of fact reporting and, playing down Nizar's win, reporting that the
victory “was not a surprise as political observers had expected him to garner sympathy
votes”. Nizar's speech was subsequently buried in the last para in a passive sentence.
NST's story for Bukit Selambau opens with the fact that Manikumar won and proceeded
to portray BN as having mounted a formidable campaign against Pakatan. Two additional
paragraphs about Manikumar are sandwiched between quotes from BN leaders that
occupied most of the story.
The NST also published two commentaries about the results. Zubaidah Abu Bakar who
wrote Opposition win a clear signal acknowledges the lost of confidence in BN, and
concludes that the incumbent government must go beyond introducing new, but rhetorical
concept to win people's confidence back. The other commentary, The tenuous
referendum against Najib works better as bragging right by Azmi Anshar, painstakingly
refuted the opposition's campaign claim that the elections served as a “referendum” of the
new PM Najib Razak. Nizar's win was not only “expected”, but also “merely one more
bragging rights trophy in the political one-upmanship game and nothing more intricate
than that”. In essence, it calls for confidence in Najib, who is said to be committed to the
more important job of revitalising the economy.
Utusan Malaysia
Utusan also carried individual stories for each constituency. PR's wins in Bukit Selambau
and Bukit Gantang were reported in much the same way as NST and The Star, it did not
capture the mood of the winners but dealt mainly with the results of the by-elections. The
EC was the primary source of the stories and there were no quotes at all from the
Pakatan's candidates, even for Bukit Gantang where BN was defeated.
The stories in NST, The Star and Utusan discussed above are essentially neutral and
detached reportings when taken as standalone reports (except for the NST's report for
Bukit Selambau, which belies a clear bias towards BN). When viewed together with the
accompanying reports - about BN's win in Batang Ai, the happenings on the polling day,
and various reactions from BN leaders - it appears that the limelight due for Pakatan's
victory was redirected to BN's accomplishment in Batang Ai and its readiness to take the
defeats in its stride. Pakatan's victory was even marred by reports about their members
blocking vehicles suspected of ferrying “phantom voters”. Quoting the police , the reports
said there were no “phantom voters”, implicating rashness on the part of Pakatan. The
overall coverage supported the observation that playing down Pakatan's victory was part
and parcel of the agenda.
10

11. 5.0 MAIN CONCLUSIONS
1. The mainstream media continued its approach in reporting the by-elections, similar to
the trend in the 2008 general elections. The hype about media changes to reflect the
changes in society came to naught as newsroom behaviour showed that when the
leadership was in trouble, the media would do its most to support the ruling government.
The monitoring findings echoed those from the monitoring done a year ago.
2. It also showed that the closer the newspaper was to the power base of UMNO, the
more likely it was to adopt a pro-BN strategy, at the cost of its professional and ethical
practices. The degree of bias strongly correlated to the ownership, in which papers that
are more directly owned by UMNO display stronger bias. As an illustration, Utusan
Malaysia, which are directly owned by UMNO has the most positive BN stories (57
percent), followed by NST, which is owned by UMNO through the Media Prima
conglomerate (43 percent), followed by The Star, whose owner is not UMNO but BN
component party MCA (33 percent). theSun is owned by Vincent Tan, who is said to be
close with the fourth Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and it has 24 percent of
positive BN stories.
3. The online space for the mainstream media seems to be the site where more
illuminating stories can be found. The numbers of such stories are marginal, but it raises
the question as to whether there are different stakes in play between the print capital
edition, the regional print/online edition, where the latter spaces can afford to push the
boundary a little bit more. As mentioned above, lengthy people-driven story narrating
their grouses, story about MAFREL and the issue of phantom voters, and relatively
lengthier portrayal of PR do not find their way to the capital edition. In The Star, 'Bukit
Selambau voters want development by either party' by Looi Sue-Chern, 'Heavy irony in
Batang Ai, a remote land of contrasts', and 'Address basic needs, say longhouse
residents', 'Names of dead in electoral rolls, says MAFREL' and 'It will be tough to sway
Bkt Gantang folk: Wan Azizah' by Clara Chooi are not featured in the capital edition. In
Utusan Malaysia, a story from Bernama about the Bukit Selambau electoral roll
containing 15 names who are over 100 years old was reordered in the capital edition to
highlight the fact that Bukit Selambau are getting bigger ballot papers, which, in the
online/regional edition edition, comes after the electoral roll issue. In NST, the solemn
coverage of Nizar's victory in Bukit Gantang in the print edition is in contrast to its video
coverage, which captured the jubilant celebration by a massive number of Nizar's
supporters. Whether it is true or not, unfortunately, the observations reinforce the notion
that the online space is the site to go for "freer" types of content and that conversely, the
print is vested with the interest of the powerful.
11

12. Gaps in the research
One of the experiences in the monitoring of three regions was the different coverage in
the regional editions of the newspapers. Without having considered this as a problem, we
only focused on the main newspapers available in the central region or the main edition.
In order to make up for the gaps, we accessed the online versions of the newspapers,
except for theSun. This proved challenging as well as we may have missed out some
stories that also did not make it to the online versions.
As in the previous research, one of our weaknesses is in including Chinese and Tamil
language news in our study and we were not able to show possible variances in the
reportage of the by-elections.
Suggestions
1. Future research should include other publications and online sites owned by
political parties in the opposition
2. We should identify topical issue for the research to map out how specific issues
are reported, for example on phantom voters and the extent to which the reports
explored the issue sufficiently, how they were presented etc.
12

13. MEDIA MONITORING REPORT: Online Media Coverage of the 2009 Bukit
Gantang, Bukit Selambau, and Batang Ai By-Elections
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2008, the Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ) conducted a comprehensive Media
Monitoring Survey of Malaysia’s most prominent newspapers during the 12th general
elections. The study found that in terms of political coverage, every one of these outlets
tended to skew their reporting in favor of the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition, with
Utusan Malaysia being the worst offender. In its conclusion, the report opined that given
the broken state of the Malaysian mainstream media, the public would increasingly come
to rely upon online news sources to ensure fair, balanced, and professional coverage. This
was further supported a number of surveys conducted in the post-election period that
showed the influence of the online tool on voter choices.
This report represents the first of CIJ’s efforts to test that assertion, focusing specifically
on three websites’ (The Malaysian Insider, Malaysiakini, and The Nut Graph) coverage
of the Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau, and Batang Ai by-election campaigns. The goal
of this study was not simply to determine whether these online media outlets harbored
any specific bias in favor of one party or another; rather, we sought to highlight all arenas
in need of greater diligence and professionalism, using the Society for Professional
Journalists’ Code of Ethics as its standard. In doing so, we also aimed to chronicle what
the online media was doing right, to highlight those institutions and individuals whose
devotion to their work manifested itself as reporting of superlative quality.
Our conclusions simultaneously strengthened our resolve that a fair and balanced media
was indeed possible for Malaysia, while emphasizing the need for real, decisive change
in some arenas. We can confidently assert that the online news space does allow for a
degree of genuine free expression and dialogue in Malaysia. Furthermore, we detected
no discernible, systemic bias in favor of one race, ideology, ruler, or political party.
This is not to say that we did not find any problems, however. In fact, major breaches of
professionalism concerning not only the presentation of content, but the actual makeup of
that content itself, pervaded all three of the sources in question. Frequently, the
competing presence of polarized viewpoints—both pro-BN and, to a much smaller but
equally problematic extent, pro-Pakatan—substituted for actual balance and objectivity.
This problem became magnified when sources chose to stream feed from BERNAMA,
the state’s news agency. In terms of the composition of content, a proliferation of a)
vague, unclear, or misleading statements; b) untested, unverified, or unverifiable
claims; and c) reporting that is indistinguishable from comment, or is otherwise
confused about its purpose abounded across all three outlets in question.
13

14. Our aim is not simply to criticize. Rather, we hope that by bringing these problems to
light while simultaneously showcasing the Malaysian online media’s genuine strengths,
we can contribute to the improvement of media across the board.
Introduction
The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) was proud to conclude the 2008 calendar
year with a media monitoring of the 12th general elections, involving six publications.
The study documented a systemic and deep-seeded bias in favor of the ruling Barisan
Nasional (BN) coalition. While the extent of this bias could vary from outlet to outlet—
reaching its peak inside the pages of Malay-language daily Utusan Malaysia—such
deliberate manipulation of the dialogue was, on the whole, very disturbing to proponents
of media freedom.
The report suggested that until the mainstream print media became a more suitable means
for legitimate expression—until certain long-term goals like independent ownership and
legislative reform could be achieved—Malaysians would look to the online news space as
their source of choice for legitimate coverage and dialogue. Indeed, the popularity of
websites like Malaysiakini, which recently celebrated its tenth year in operation, and
increasingly of blogs like Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s Malaysia Today, suggests a hunger
amongst the Malaysian public for a different, more neutral, more diverse exchange of
views.
But is the Malaysian online media, as it exists today, really that space?
This was the question that we strove to answer as we compiled this report, and it’s a
question that digs much deeper under the surface than issues of bias and skewed
reporting. The real issue, at its core, was: Are Malaysians getting the coverage they
deserve? Are stories presented in clear and effective language that allows the reader to
distinguish between fact and opinion? Are a diversity of viewpoints represented, with all
legitimate sides enjoying the opportunity to present their case? Can readers be sure that
what they are reading means something, represents actual research and analysis rather
than the mere restatement of rumor or supposition?
In short, we wanted to know if the online media was doing its job.
Methodology
For the previous survey, we actually constructed a quantitative scale with which to
measure pro- or anti-partisan favoritism objectively. This proved incredibly useful when
the existence of bias was more or less postulated. For this analysis, however, we
predicted a much less overt slanting of opinion, if such a slant existed at all. As such, a
numeric rating would be of much less utility than an actual direct analysis of problematic
14

15. quotes, techniques, styles, and modes of presentation. It simply wouldn’t be all that
meaningful.
We decided, rather, to first synthesize a broad conception of the entire body of material
as a whole and see what, if any, conclusions we could draw from looking at the raw data.
Once we were able to do that, we would then lift from the body of examined documents
the most illustrative examples of the point we were trying to make, and include those in
this report, so that the reasons behind why a particular issue was problematic would
become apparent. We intended for these to be a cursory overview of a more
comprehensive body of data, the whole of which you can view in Appendix A.
This left, of course, the problem of which documents to analyze.
Fortunately, the triad of by-elections in Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau, and Batang Ai
proved to be the perfect framework for this analysis. Set immediately after the recent
UMNO elections and the ensuing regime change that saw the ascension of Najib Abdul
Razak into the spot vacated by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, these elections would certainly
spawn ample coverage from the far corners of the web. Furthermore, with each election
providing its own unique ‘mini-narrative’—the ‘Constitutional Crisis’ and ‘Referendum’
in Perak, the unprecedented number of independents in Bukit Selambau, and the struggle
for the Dayak vote in Batang Ai—any one outlet’s attempt to control the flow of content
was likely to be exposed against the backdrop of a more diverse dialogue.
We decided to therefore monitor all of the news articles featured on English-language
websites Malaysiakini (www.malaysiakini.com), the Malaysian Insider
(www.themalaysianinsider.com), and The Nut Graph (http://thenutgraph.com) that dealt
specifically with the by-election campaigns or results. When the term ‘online media’ is
heretofore used in this report, it is to be taken as shorthand for these three popular
websites, unless its usage is specifically stated otherwise, and is not to be construed as
purporting to exceed these narrow limitations. Originally, the scope of our research was
going to extend into the opinion and editorial columns of these websites as well, but
quickly we realized that a) documenting ‘bias’ in these sections was only problematic if it
manifested itself in the reporting of actual news, and b) that opinion and editorial pieces,
if presented as such, hold themselves to an entirely different standard of professional
integrity than do pieces that purport their own objectivity by their very nature.
While recognising that the three selected sites contain spaces for public interaction
through the comments section, we have not included the comments in our analysis,
though the dynamics of the public discussion will certainly be a useful area of study.
As such, we limited the scope of our analysis strictly to ‘news’.
15

16. Results
Perhaps the most encouraging result to emerge from this analysis was the conclusion that
none of these three websites were guilty of any systemic bias either in favor of or against
any one race, ideology, ruler, or political party. Frequently, the ‘opinion’ or ‘editorial’
sections of these websites can display more overt political leanings—Malaysiakini’s
YourSay section1 during the elections was one of many good examples of this—but those
leanings tend not to spill over into the websites’ news reporting, and certainly not to a
greater extent than the natural variance that comes with a multitude of different authorial
voices. While some individual stories display definite signs of bias, the media space as a
whole in this case does not.
It is important to mention at this point that a fair, balanced, professional media is not in
and of itself partisan. Objectivity is not pro-Opposition. And while Pakatan may
advocate for media freedom in some of their campaign rhetoric, that does not
correspondingly invert the equation and make media freedom a Pakatan idea. This is
why we have actively chosen to reject the commonly-accepted notion that the online
media is predominantly a Pakatan-sympathetic space. In discussion forums, potentially.
In opinion and editorial columns, frequently. But in terms of the news itself? Definitely
not.
Making the case for this assertion, quantitatively or qualitatively, proves complicated,
though, because of the inherent difficulty of demonstrating lack-of-bias on an item-by-
item basis. How do you depict something that you’re asserting isn’t there to begin with?
We’ve chosen to address this quandary by highlighting a few pieces (or categories of
pieces) that do demonstrate an overt lack of objectivity, and using our ability to isolate
these pieces from the body of regular discourse to show that they are not the norm.
A Level Playing Field: Who Has It?
This segues us nicely, actually, into our first major criticism. We hold that, for election
coverage in this particular instance, the online media displays no overt signs of bias.
Furthermore, we assert that, on average, online journalists display a higher degree of
professionalism than do their print-media counterparts. But while these two findings are
encouraging, the online media is not without its flaws. These flaws manifest themselves
both in the way content is presented—that is, in the way the subject matters of particular
pieces of news are organized—and in the composition of that content itself.
We do not feel it is unreasonable to posit that the Malaysian online media feels a certain
burden to strive towards higher standards of journalistic integrity than does the
mainstream Malaysian press. As such, it can be self-conscious of its purported
1
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101337
16

17. objectivity. This self-consciousness, coupled with the need to provide up-to-date news
reporting, leads The Malaysian Insider and The Nut Graph to stream articles from state
news agency BERNAMA (Berita Nasional Malaysia) onto their main pages, to disastrous
results. It is as if the presence of absurdly Pro-BN content will deflect some of the
criticism that these websites are pro-Opposition. Similarly, Malaysiakini has on a
number of occasions juxtaposed original pro-BN content with pro-Opposition content, as
if two extreme positions ‘cancel out’ and produce objectivity.
We reiterate: To occupy two competing poles of discourse is not to occupy the middle
ground. You have two goalkeepers in a football match that are positioned exactly
opposite one another, yet neither stands at midfield. Journalism strives to maintain an
environment where all reasonable viewpoints can interact on a level playing field. It isn’t
necessary to present an extremist position, or an article with an extremely slanted
perspective, in order to ‘justify’ more professional journalism. What you have in that
case is one article that is professional, and one that isn’t. Websites should simply strive
to eliminate the one that isn’t.
For example, in a Malaysiakini piece entitled “Najib to Abolish Umno’s Quota
System”2—published on March 28, immediately before the campaign season began—the
piece’s author mentions that “Najib slammed those who practiced slander in thinly-veiled
criticism directed at the opposition, especially PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim.” This
implies, without evidence, that Anwar practices slander, and does not once allow space
for the opposition to respond or produce a counterclaim. The rest of the article
progresses along the same lines, featuring hosts of allegations from Najib without any
opposition rebuttal or commentary.
Similarly, in the April 2 article “BN’s Sexy Girls Fish for Votes”3—the same article
inside which Ahmad Zahid Hamidi claimed that performances by scantily-clad Chinese
singer-dancers were “a part of Chinese culture,” without criticism, follow up, or comment
from the author—the author makes the statement that “[Gerakan Deputy President]
Chang hit out at claims by Pakatan Rakyat that the by-election served as a referendum for
the power transition in Perak.” But this notion of by-election-as-referendum was hardly
just a “claim” by Pakatan. Indeed, it was the prevailing narrative across all the major
media covering this election. The attempt to present this mainstream perspective as
partisan concedes undue territory to the BN party line and attempts to belittle the reality
that the Perak constituency very well might take issue with the transition. As mentioned
before, it is very dangerous to polarize issues that are not inherently polar, to make
partisan that which is simply true.
We bring these articles up not only to highlight breaches of professionalism (which, we
emphasize, may be entirely unintentional) but to demonstrate that Malaysiakini does not
at all serve as a Pakatan mouthpiece—as we’ve seen, it can in fact be far from it. The
2
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101213
3
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101512
17

18. article “Jabu Calls Bloggers Specialist Instigators”4 actually goes so far as to employ
scare quotes to belittle criticisms by Dayak bloggers.
That said, pro-Pakatan favoritism can manifest itself as well. The April 5 article “Tense
Standoff Between MIC, PKR Supporters”5 paints an unduly sympathetic and egregiously
one-sided picture of the PKR coalition, going so far as to actually present events from
their perspective. “PKR leaders took pains to urge their supporters to remain calm but
soon the abuses from the MIC side was too much to stomach for the PKR supporters,
[sic]” it claims, postulating without evidence the existence of both ‘pains’ and ‘abuses’
while articulating neither. “The MIC side,” it continues, “now numbering about 50
people, was trying its best to ruin the PKR ceramah.” Was it really? How would the
author know what the MIC side was trying to do? Maybe the PKR supporters feel like
that is what is going on, but a journalist’s job is not to report what one particular side
feels. A journalist’s job is to report what happens.
Articles like these, we emphasize, are the exception rather than the rule in Malaysiakini.
But the existence of tremendous favoritism shown towards both sides reinforces our
point: that just because one website serves as a conduit for both extremely pro-BN and
extremely pro-Pakatan pieces, that doesn’t mean that breaches of professionalism in favor
of either side are any more acceptable.
For the Malaysian Insider and The Nut Graph, the problem is both more expansive and
more systematic. Both of these websites choose to host extremely biased, extremely
abrasive pro-BN content from BERNAMA, creating an awkward situation whereby
online news sources become accountable for content with which they do not necessarily
agree. Nevertheless, any time an agency chooses to host material, it becomes responsible
for the nature of that material, and BERNAMA content contains more overt violations of
professional ethics than any other category of content monitored in this survey.
The nature of these violations varies widely. Sometimes the problem is simply sloppy
writing, as this excerpt from an April 5 piece entitled “Which Way in Batang Ai”6
demonstrates: “Then there was an intending independent candidate who was all gung-ho
about contesting but never got to submit his nomination paper although he and his
seconder and proposer had entered the nomination centre.” There is no telling what that
sentence, or the phrase “all gung-ho,” actually means. Or an author will simply gush
without context or pretense about the perceived virtues of a particular candidate: “He
[Datuk S Ganesan] also said that the response received was very encouraging and many
voters wanted to know the candidate closely and the party capable of bringing
development and restore the country's bleak economy”7. Grammatical errors are again
4
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101501
5
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101710
6
http://thenutgraph.com/which-way-in-batang-ai
7
“Ganesan Claims Meeting Half The Voters, Targets The Rest,”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/22089-ganeson-claims-meeting-half-the-
voters-targets-the-rest. This article, a glowing recap of Ganesan’s beat on the campaign trail, also
18

19. duly noted. But the most common and by far the most prolific error involved the
conflation of a quote or paraphrase with the author’s own opinion, and a muddled
distinction between the two.
“Muhammad also regarded the opposition’s action of making baseless accusations,
including calling the government inhumane, through their banners, posters and other
campaign material, as extreme.” This quote comes from an article entitled “Muhammad:
Opposition Can Face Action For Contempt of Court”8, and consists almost entirely of
Muhd Taib leveling unsupported and unverified accusations at the Pakatan coalition.
Note the presentation of the paraphrase: who is calling the opposition’s accusation
“baseless,” Muhammad or the author? Another article replaces Muhammad with
Gerakan President Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon but retains the format of unchallenged
accusation-slinging:
“Dr Koh added that from initial surveys done in Bukit Selambau, most of the people were
receptive of BN after realising that they had been deceived by the opposition.
He added that the survey also showed Ganesan, being a local-born, was a very popular man in the
area and most voters knew him well while some were full of praise for him.
Dr Koh said cracks had also appeared in the opposition’s run up to the by-election as a group of
people had decided to quit the party and support BN” 9.
At no point is the opposition given space to respond, and at no point is it clarified
whether it is Koh or the author who is asserting that anyone had been “deceived by the
opposition”—indeed, at no point is the nature of that “deception” made clear at all!
A full list of problematic BERNAMA articles hosted on The Malaysian Insider and The
Nut Graph can be seen in the Appendix to this Report. What is clear is that such pieces
fail to hold themselves to any reasonable professional standards of objectivity, neutrality,
and even to basic principles of clarity, quality, and grammatical coherence. Contrasting
this flagrantly pro-BN material with the otherwise-solid output of both websites does not
contribute to a healthier overall dialogue by ‘allowing every perspective to be heard’; it
subtracts from that dialogue by exposing the reader to deliberately-manipulative material
that can hardly be described as “journalism”. Such material should not be allowed
anywhere on the website of a responsible journalistic medium.
makes a laughable attempt at ‘objective distance’ at the very end when, after a fawning, doting review
of Ganesan’s performance and the intense fortitude required to meet people door to door, it goes on to
say, “Bernama found PKR also conducted door-to-door campaigns.”
8
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/22060-muhammad-opposition-can-face-
action-for-contempt-of-court
9
“Gerakan to Adopt Family-Oriented Approach During Campaign,”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/21826-gerakan-to-adopt-family-oriented-
approach-during-campaign
19

20. Clarity is Key
Everything we’ve discussed so far has involved problems with the presentation of
content: competing biases, one-sided claims. But, as stated before, the overall
journalistic climate has not fallen victim to an overt, systematically-skewed perspective.
Far more prevalent are errors within the content itself, errors that, rather than marginalize
an entire universe of discourse, render specific pieces at best ambiguous and at worst
actively misleading. These problems manifest themselves across three primary avenues,
namely:
3. Vague, unclear, or meaningless statements;
4. Unchallenged, unverified, or unverifiable claims;
5. Confusion about the tone or purpose of a piece of news; the conflation of
reporting with comment.
Each of these errors violates one or more of the Rules of Reporting spelled out in the
Journalists’ Code of Ethics. We draw particular attention to the following:
1. “The primary responsibility of the media is to report correctly and to respect the
public’s right for accurate, fair, and timely news.”
2. “The media is to be critical of news sources by way of checking facts and other
pieces of information in ensuring accuracy. Facts are to be checked as careful as
possible, even if they have been published earlier.”
3. “All reporting shall be strictly distinguished from comment. Analysis,
commentary, and other opinion pieces shall be labeled and not misrepresent fact
or context…The reader is to be able to distinguish between statements of fact and
statements of comment.”
4. “The media shall eschew the publication of inaccurate, baseless, misleading, or
distorted materials.”
Vagueness and lack of clarity do not seem, at first glance, to be tremendously egregious
violations. After all, how much harm is really caused if the reader doesn’t understand
every single word in a news report, anyway?
The trouble is twofold. First, the deliberate nature of journalistic writing is such that
every word an author chooses to use is laden with meaning. Readers are accustomed to
reports that relay pieces of news with efficiency, economy, and clarity, and thus every
surplus modifier, every extraneous clause, every imprecisely-chosen piece of diction has
the potential to give the reader an entirely different idea about what took place. Second,
there is a fine line between a statement’s being unclear and a statement being downright
misleading. The journalist is a lens through which his or her audience sees the world, and
that lens must not distort what it sees.
20

21. Suppositions and Subjective Claims
It is crucial for any claim made in a piece of news to actually provide value to the
audience; if it merely iterates a potential outcome or series of outcomes, or otherwise
simply posits a potential fact, it gives that outcome undue, unmerited weight in the
reader’s eyes. Take, for example, the following claim:
Pakatan Rakyat may just taste defeat in the Bukit Selambau state by-election if and unless it
resolves, once and for all, the problem of getting the right candidate for the seat when nomination
opens tomorrow morning10.
Such a statement sounds like it is raising a legitimate doubt about Pakatan Rakyat’s
chances—except that any party anywhere “may taste defeat” if it doesn’t “resolve” the
“problem of getting the right candidate for the seat.” That statement is true by definition;
no campaign manager anywhere is advocating the fielding of ‘wrong’ candidates. Yet a
reader, upon reading this sentence, gets the idea that Pakatan has its back against the wall
and faces an impending loss unless it can get itself together and resolve this phantom
problem.
The same article goes on to commit a similar error when it states, “It could be a local
popular independent candidate who profit [sic] from the loss of votes for Pakatan”11.
First of all, the phrasing is awkward; “a local popular independent candidate” could be
one certain candidate in particular, or one of the many independent candidates vying for
the spot. But the broader error is, again, one of supposition: a lot of things could happen.
Unless some reason is stated, though, for why it is likely for a particular event to happen,
the singling that one event out gives it unmerited, undue weight.
While this type of statement is problematic because it doesn’t have a meaning, other
classes of statements fail because, while the potential for meaning is definitely present,
the author of a piece has made no attempt to elucidate what that meaning actually is. In
many cases, the audience is left free to assume for itself what the author was really trying
to say.
Often, this type of error can come about because of too-frequent uses of adjectives, as it
did here: “What makes this contest even more interesting is that there are 13 confident
independent aspirants battling side by side with bigwigs from Barisan Nasional and
Pakatan Rakyat”12. How exactly did the author come to know that they were
“confident”—did he or she interview every single one? What does “confident” even
mean? Other times, the error manifests itself in the form of an ambiguous clause, a
modifier that appears factual on the surface but in reality couches a whole host of value-
judgments an unstated opinions. “But for Hindraf, the group that has forever transformed
the Indians politically,” said one author at the Malaysian Insider, “the Bukit Selambau
10
“PKR May Lose Out On Crucial Indian Vote Bank,” http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101210,
11
Ibid.
12
“Bkt. Selambau Creates History With 15 Candidates,” http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101241
21

22. by-election is still anyone's game”13. While Hindraf’s influence has of course been
undeniable, “transforming the Indians politically” is an argument you articulate and
clarify over the course of pages and pages of exposition. You don’t simply slip it into the
middle of a sentence and expect your readers to understand what you mean when you say
it. With either error, the problem is identical: an author is not conveying news.
The worst kind of violation, though, and the one that borders most closely on actively
misleading the audience, is the kind of statement that speculates as to something that may
or may not have already happened. This is different from the next section’s category of
“unchallenged, unverified, or unverifiable claims” because the violation isn’t passive; the
author actively asserts something with no basis in reality, or no mechanism with which
the reader can discern its meaning. These breaches are serious, and must be halted as
quickly as possible.
“PKR's candidate for the Bukit Selambau by-election may be an inexperienced politician,
a fact that probably did not go down well with some of the party's patriarchs”14, says one
Malaysiakini article. It is important to recognize that this claim is not, strictly speaking,
false, in that it only purports to highlight a possibility (namely, that certain “party
patriarchs” were upset). The problem is that it is not a journalist’s job to highlight
possibilities. Again: “The primary responsibility of the media is to report correctly, and
to respect the public’s right for accurate, fair, and timely news.” Anything a journalist
says needs to be backed up by actual evidence.
Another Malaysiakini article by the same author actually commits a worse violation of
the same error when it says, regarding the successful campaign of independent V
Arumugam, “His blueprint to success, except for his resignation, is what the
independents want to follow now”15. What “blueprint”? Is there an actual stratagem for
success he employed that the author has discovered, through interviews with all 15
independent candidates, they are all trying to emulate? As a journalist, you can’t simply
assert, “Oh, you understand what I mean.” That can never be taken for granted. But the
biggest flaw to this particular piece is the “…except for his resignation…” bit. This is
like saying “I am the greatest footballer in the world, except for all the people who are
better than me.” It’s irresponsible to brush significant events under the rug as if they
were inconsequential.
Perhaps the most flagrant instance of this kind of error, though, occurred in a April 5
article entitled, “Jawah Spurns Town for the Interior”16. Concerning PKR candidate
Jawah Gerang’s inaccessibility and silence with regard to some comments he made in
2007 concerning the Barisan Nasional’s ability to govern, the article remarks, “In any
case, it was debatable that if contacted, he would have seen the need to respond to the BN
13
“MIC quietly confident of a comeback,”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/21813-mic-quietly-confident-of-a-comeback
14
“Manikumar Roots for Bangsa Malaysia,” http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101537
15
“Independents Vot to Put Up A Good Fight,” http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101499
16
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101713
22

23. strategy of trying to get him to be hoist with his own petard.” The author actually
manages to speculate about what someone would do if hypothetically someone else asked
him something based on yet another thing that yet another person might be trying to get
that first person to do. If you’re confused—well, believe me, so were we.
Other examples of this kind of violation can be found in the Appendix.
‘It’s True, I Promise’
The public is under no obligation to believe something just because a journalist says it, or
just because someone with whom a journalist spoke says it (unless the journalist is giving
evidence of that person’s holding a specific opinion, in which case the statement counts
as evidence in and of itself). Journalists are responsible for providing evidence to back
up their claims—and, when something appears amiss, to reconcile any apparent
contradictions.
One of the difficulties with spotting and correcting this kind of error is that frequently it
can appear innocuous. A Nut Graph author writes, “In the report, [B K] Kandasamy
claimed of the many individuals who engaged [MIC President Datuk S] Ganesan's
services, only 50 have seen successful construction of their houses17”. No big deal, right?
Factual, straightforward, to the point. But there is a problem. By stating ‘only’—and
contrasting it with ‘many’—the article implies that Ganesan should be held at fault for
something, or at least that Kandasamy believes that Ganesan should be held at fault for
something. And while the author refers to a report brought against Ganesan by
Kandasamy, it does not quote the ‘many’ as originating directly from that report.
Without knowing how many individuals purportedly engaged Ganesan’s services, we
cannot evaluate the import or veracity of the claim.
Other times, these problematic assertions appear to emerge out of poorly-thought-through
stylistic considerations. A Malaysiakini article about Anwar’s role in the campaign
writes the following about his trek through Batang Ai:
By the time Anwar arrived in the early evening, the upper longhouse was empty of residents
except for Ran, the frail looking chief. Ran’s wards were waiting with residents of the lower house
to listen to the man whom they hope would be prime minister someday18.
The clause on the end of the final sentence, “the man whom they hope would be prime
minister someday,” adds a layer of desperation, yearning, and anticipation to the
preceding scene, building the drama and furthering the narrative. It’s good writing—but
it’s not good journalism. Even though earlier in the article it is established that the
“lower house” residents were all Pakatan supporters, it does not follow that all of them
hope that Anwar will one day be Malaysia’s Prime Minister. To assert that it does is
17
“PPP Vice-President Nadarajan Joins PKR”, http://thenutgraph.com/ppp-vice-president-nadarajan-
joins-pkr
18
“Anwar Tells Iban Poor It’s Time For Change”, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101490
23

24. tremendously irresponsible, because it purports to define what an entire group of people
hope for their future.
A similar problem emerges in “BN Unleashes Ezam on Bukit Selambau”19, when the
author characterizes a group of independent candidates as “in the race just to teach the
Pakatan-run state a lesson”. It sounds nice, but unless the author has spoken to each of
those candidates, and each of those candidates has said, “I want to teach this state a
lesson,” this claim isn’t valid. It is also, incidentally, very vague.
There are journalists who try to get around this need to verify every claim directly by
speaking in generalities—using terms like “rumor has it,” “it would appear,” “it is said,”
“it seems,” “undoubtedly,” “the fact that…” or “[something] is seen as…” to talk about
‘commonly-accepted’ truths20. The trouble with this technique is that an author who uses
it simply chooses to substitute an unverified claim with an unverifiable one. It’s
impossible to disprove what “is said” or what something “is seen as” by an entire group
of people, technically speaking. But those kinds of assertions don’t mean anything, and
they are asking for the reader to trust that the author has summarized an issue accurately
rather than allowing the reader to draw those conclusions for him- or herself. A superior
tactic is for the author to provide evidence of what is ‘undoubtedly’ a ‘fact’ by eliciting
quotes from people on the ground, or by demonstrating a claim factually with empirical
evidence.
These types of errors are active errors made by journalists—errors where the journalist is
doing something wrong. But another kind of error involves not what the journalist does,
but what the journalist fails to do. These come about when a source decides to make a
claim that appears, on the surface, to have some serious problems, and yet despite the
seeming incongruity the journalist doesn’t challenge the source to back that statement up
with evidence.
Sometimes, journalists themselves can actually provoke these types of responses. “What
is your main message to voters?” one journalist asks the Barisan Nasional’s Ismail
Saffian21. “Okay,” says Ismail, “I want to help them, help solve the problems they face, if
I can be chosen to be their MP because I’m the government candidate. Certainly I’d be
able to help them.”
19
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101345
20
See http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101385, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101388,
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/21780-bukit-selambau-indian-votes-may-
shift-but-not-by-enough, http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/21808-rain-or-shine-
ismail-pounds-the-ground, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101201 for some of many, many
examples.
21
“BN’s Ismail Finds Things Okay on Campaign Trail,” http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/
malaysia/21777-bns-ismail-finds-things-okay-on-campaign-trail -- and, incidentally, what kind of
headline is “Finds Things Okay”?
24

25. That is not a message. That is not, in fact, even a coherent sentence. The nature of a
person’s campaigning for public office assumes that he or she wants to ‘help people solve
problems that they face’ by its very nature. Is a candidate somewhere running on the “I
don’t want to help people out at all, actually!” platform? Yet by failing to challenge
Ismail's claim, the journalist makes it appear that is what is actually happening! While a
journalist doesn’t necessarily endorse a claim by failing to follow it up, a journalist
certainly suggests that he or she accepts it. Yet Ismail's statement is so very obviously
unacceptable.
Similarly, a speaker in the article “PKR Needs to Mend Fences in Selambau”22 keeps
alluding to the influence of an unnamed business tycoon over Anwar Ibrahim, but
nowhere does the journalist challenge the speaker to validate his or her assertions, and
nowhere is there a quote from either Anwar or a Pakatan representative attempting to
repudiate this allegation.
The journalist is entrusted with the tremendous burden of being simultaneously the
public’s eyes and voice. With that burden comes the responsibility of providing the
members of the public the necessary information to form their own, qualified opinions.
This burden must be taken seriously.
Statements of Fact, Statements of Comment
Within the broad field of Journalism there of course exist different styles of stories, and
each style is most suitable for one particular purpose or end. Some stories are designed
to raise awareness, others are designed to criticize a particular entity or policy, and still
others are intended to evoke an emotional response. But the stories covered in this
analysis all purport to be News, and the essential, defining characteristics of News are
clarity and precision. Through clarity and precision, News stories achieve their intended
end: providing the public with accurate, fair, and timely news.
Many of the stories covered in this analysis, though, blur the lines between reporting the
news and commenting on it. Several incorporate elements of features writing and of
more in-depth professional analysis. Each of these genres has its place, but that place
must be clearly distinguished from the everyday reporting of news. Without that
distinction, the journalist cannot purport to a level of professional detachment that
renders his or her depiction of events believable to the reader.
Sometimes this blurring of the lines occurs with the simple choice to select or omit detail.
One Malaysiakini report reads, “10.15am: In Bukit Gantang, the Pakatan crowd is
shouting ‘Tangkap Najib'. However the BN crowd is rather subdued. The BN crowd is
also standing right under the hot sun while the Pakatan people have shades to protect
22
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/21728-pkr-needs-to-mend-fences-in-
selambau
25

26. them”23. The author of this piece did nothing but report facts—but the facts are of the
sort that frame a narrative, not convey a piece of news. The excerpt has the effect of
evoking sympathy for the BN-sympathizers—“right under the hot sun,” the loaded use of
“protect,” as if they are being victimized—and thereby loses its objective distance.
Similarly, Malaysiakini’s “A Tale of Two Crowds” (itself titled as if an excerpt from an
epic poem) romanticizes an entire train of events between competing flocks of
supporters:
The PKR-led contingent appeared to have a large number of supporters, bigger than the ones
ranged on the field, coming in from the Sungai Rambai side in cavalier fashion, as if they were
there just to see for themselves the unfolding events rather than being part of an organised show of
strength24.
“In cavalier fashion?” Who exactly is writing this piece, and what kind of reaction do
they want from the reader?
The Malaysian Insider is known for its more relaxed, more easily-accessible style, but
it’s possible to maintain that style while also maintaining professional credibility. What
is not acceptable is for the author’s own commentary to sneak its way into the reporting.
“Not surprisingly,” starts one article, “Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, the Pas
candidate for Bukit Gantang, called the parliamentary by-election a “referendum” for
both the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) alliance and its arch-rival the Barisan Nasional (BN)”25.
Not surprisingly? For whom? The author may not be surprised, but a reader unfamiliar
with the narrative of the election as it unfolds probably feels condescended to by this
choice of tone. “Looking more like a wannabe rockstar,” begins another article, even
more egregiously, “[candidate] Kamarul [Ramizu Idris] told reporters he had entered the
high-octane fight because he ‘felt the call to correct the problems in society’”26. “Like a
wannabe rockstar?” Really? Such a characterization marginalizes Kamarul before the
reader has the opportunity to evaluate the candidate for him- or herself.
A comprehensive enumeration of this particular brand of violation is available in the
Appendix, but the consequence of each is clear: the reader is unable to conduct a neutral,
thorough, and objective analysis of the article’s subject matter, because the authors of
these pieces co-opt the opportunity for that evaluation by inserting their own
commentary.
23
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101215
24
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/101221
25
“A Referendum? It Depends on Who You Ask,”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/21654-a-referendum-it-depends-on-who-you-
ask
26
“Dark Horse Believes Spirit Will Carry the Day,”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/21663-dark-horse-believes-spirit-will-carry-
the-day
26

27. Real Signs for Hope
We stress that despite the criticisms leveled at certain segments of the online media in
this report, there are an equal—perhaps greater—number of truly superlative pieces of
writing, commentary, and analysis that set exemplary standards of professionalism for
other journalists to follow. These articles differentiate between different styles and
narrative intensions, support each one of their claims with quotes and facts, follow up on
apparent incongruities, and succeed in presenting their subject clearly, fairly, and free
from any ambiguity.
For reasons similar to why it is difficult to present examples of un-biased content-
presentation, it is also difficult to lift specific excerpts from these excellently-penned
pieces of reporting and hold them up to the light as shining examples of quality
journalism. Success is more about the whole rather than the sum of its parts. Still, we
have attempted to present in the Appendix a listing of every article we feel is particularly
successful or excellent. Aspiring journalists should take these examples to heart.
The Way Forward
Despite the tremendous diversity of problematic tendencies and the obviously-ephemeral
nature of any report released by a single organization that tries to critique, criticize, and
improve upon an entire realm of discourse, CIJ has nevertheless formulated a set of
recommendations that, we feel, could secure the status of the online media as a legitimate
source of Free Expression in Malaysia:
1. Eliminate the streaming feeds from BERNAMA. We understand that the
feeds may have originated from a desire to provide analysis of disparate
issues, or from a lack of resources available to produce a sufficient volume
of original content. But biased and unprofessional reporting does not
constitute a valid ‘side’ which deserves to be contrasted with unbiased,
professional reporting habits. The BERNAMA feed undermines
tremendously the legitimate efforts of these two news outlets because it
jeopardizes their credibility by its very presence. It should be eliminated.
2. Websites should maintain clear and rigid boundaries between different
styles of content. When possible, writers should be allocated exclusively
to one and only one of these styles, to prevent tendencies from one from
overlapping with the next. Opinion pieces should be clearly marked and
labeled, and full-disclosure notices should be present if and when authors
may hold competing interests.
3. Journalists should undergo skills-training sessions dealing with proper
fact-gathering technique, as well as the actual writing of copy. Emphasis
should be placed on the regulations articulated in the Journalists’ Code of
Ethics. Good, professional reporting should be viewed as a primary
objective.
27

28. 4. If staff and financial demands allow, editors should have regular
conversations with journalists to identify any recurring flaws in those
journalists’ writing styles. These conversations should be constructive in
nature and aimed at skill-building and overall professional improvement,
not styled as a kind of mandatory performance review.
5. Perhaps most importantly, the frame of discourse must begin to shift from
viewing the online media as an inherently ‘pro-Opposition’ space to that
of its being, simply, an open space. It is vital to drive home the message
that unbiased, professionally-produced content belongs to no political
party, no grandly-stated agenda or ideology beyond the sheer reality of
fundamental human rights. Everyone is born with the right to express
him- or herself freely. Therefore the online media must not feel
compelled to react to criticisms of opposition-sympathy by promoting
what the Malaysian establishment has allowed to become the status quo
over the last fifty years. Nor must it continually exist in opposition to the
‘mainstream’ print media. It must become its own space.
We at CIJ are optimistic about the opportunities for the online media in the coming years
—but caution that, largely, its destiny is in its own hands. The time has come to no
longer settle for being ‘a level above’ the mainstream discourse, but rather to aspire to the
highest standards of the profession. The time has come to demonstrate to the Malaysian
public that they can have—can enjoy right now—the kind of media that for years has
been written off as impossible, hopeless, absurd.
The time has come for change.
28