Muslim magazine journalists pretended to be Roman Catholics :D
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
The problem here is that the press in question isn't independent to begin with. There's no issue of censoring it, since it operates as an arm of the largest political party in the country in the first place. You have to have a free press, before you can worry about censoring it.
There are no journalists in this story. What you have is paid political operatives.
Should reporters only report comfortable news because some people are bigots?
Isn't that what all journalists are?
Bells
Staff member
So it's not wrong for the press to make up stories about conversions and publish it, when they are connected to the Government?
No. Legitimate journalists operate independently from political parties.
Bells
Staff member
So you support the making up of stories to fan religious intolerance and violence?
One would expect reporters to not be biased and partial.
All governments try to control the fourth estate. Which is why an independent media is a good thing, for every article in Saamna, there are gazillion articles in other newspapers. But we want to read Saamna, because we want to be informed about the values and principles of the Shiv Sena, since they are a popular local party and they will part of the political leadership in some form or another. If the country is becoming extremist, we want to know, so we can make choices about where we are. We have the power to change the political parties as much as they have the power to manipulate us. Censorship is a slippery slope, you start making choices about what should be reported and pretty soon you end up with corporate media like the US and no one has any clue what is really going on.
You seem to be all alone on that question.
Isn't there?
Which wasn't included in the apology, as it happens.
That said, the complaint was not "reporting on incidence of conversion," but doing it in ways that are likely to expose individuals to risk, rile the (already dangerously high) passions of the public, and otherwise contribute to strife and division.
Plenty of others have reported on the issue of conversion in Malaysia, without causing problems or incurring complaint. So that's not what's at issue here.
Censorship is not what gives rise to corporate media - which itself would be a step up from partisan media, if not for the fact that it typically works out to essentially the same thing.
Not reporting on conversion will not make converts safer. So its silly to pretend that reporting on a phenomenon is what drives bigotry. Its what you don't know that is usually the problem.
Corporate media is just institutionalised censorship. You can see it in action at sciforums. It starts from the little things and pretty soon its the status quo
Thats why exosci [a site on UFOs] is now claimed to be a science site.
Corporate media is just institutionalised censorship. You can see it in action at sciforums. It starts from the little things and pretty soon its the status quo
Thats why exosci [a site on UFOs] is now claimed to be a science site.
Your persistent application of the term "free press" to an arm of a political party is another behavior that is starting to look a lot like intellectual dishonesty. I mean, this is in the face of repeated, good-faith objections citing the nature of free press and its variance with what we see here, which have gone unaddressed. This is not honorable.
Nor when it is an arm of a political party in the first place. Not being such is the definition of "free press," you know, and a major part of "journalism" as well.
Nobody has suggested otherwise.
But it is possible for the wrong kind of reporting on conversion to make converts less safe, no?
Nobody has pretended that either.
Bells
Staff member
But in this instance, we are not dealing with an independent media, are we?
So how can you make choices when the media is connected to the Government and not independent and making up stories and rumours?
Which is a fair point. However in this instance, the media involved is strongly connected to the Government and is manipulating the stories and thus, fanning the fires of religious intolerance. How is that correct in your opinion?
And in this instance, you have a paper that is not independent and making up stories to push their own agenda.
But this paper is not a "free press", Sam.
And they are making up rumours in their reporting. And amazingly enough, the Government saw fit to take no action against them for what they did. Had it been an independent newspaper, action would probably have been taken.
And making up stories about conversions is going to make it safer and stop the bigotry?
Okay, if thats how you want to play it. Maybe American press is different. But in Malaysia, as in India, its pretty clear that all media panders to some political party or the other. Saamna was started by Bal Thackeray who used to be a cartoonist before he became a politician and I consider the Malaysian paper which sent the journalists to be similar to the Shiv Sena goons who run Saamna.
Doesn't change the fact that its still a legitimate newspaper and represents legitimate points of view, which are clearly acceptable to a wide variety of people. Most of our elected city representatives are Shiv Sainiks
That's neither here nor there.
And as a corollary, that said press is not "free." So your invocations of "free press" as a central consideration in assessing this situation are not germaine.
Also we're talking about something above and beyond "pandering" here. This newspaper is a wholly-owned subsidairy of a political party. This goes beyond an ideological affinity for the party on behalf of the publishers: it is literally an arm of the party in question.
So? Your defense of them was based on them being a component of a "free press" engaged in "journalism," not mere popularity. Lots of legitimate points of view, which are clearly acceptable to a wide variety of people, are ugly, immoral things which merit criticism. And, indeed, the predominance of Malay/Islamic chauvinism and the press's role in it are exactly the targets of the criticism you're objecting to here.
FOX News is also a legitimate news outlet and represents a legitimate point of view, which are clearly acceptable to a wide variety of people. Does that mean they never do anything offensive, or at least should not be criticized for doing so?
What then does drive this sort of bigotry? Why would Malays who are Muslim be bigoted against Malays who are Christian? Why would they care if some Malaysians make a personal choice to change their superstitious beliefs?
What's really driving all this hate?
The implication that "free press" is about some kind of "representation of the people" is the bizarre part here. Even if we accept the even weirder supposition that all politics is inherently representative.
The duty of journalism is to the truth, not "the people."
Here's the definition of "free press"
a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology
That pretty clearly excludes media that take marching orders from political parties, in my book.
Agreed. That's why the tolerance of such outlets is one of the prices of keeping an actual free press around. And why nobody has suggested censorship, that I've noticed. So I suggest you drop that strawman: criticizing a newspaper for acting irresponsibly is not the same as calling for censorship.
I addressed your strawman, and I am going to stop here. Continue discussing whatever it is you think you're discussing.
What hate? Malaysians have a peaceful non-militaristic state. They have to get excited over a couple of guys spitting wafers in church. And the church sues them, and the paper apologises. Thats not hate.
Last edited: