The late Franklin Roosevelt, who led the United States during World War II, suffered from poliomyelitis when he was 39 and never regained the use of his legs, a fact that few Americans were aware of when the well-respected president was still alive.
The media felt a sense of duty to safeguard the president‘s dignity and prestige and kept the condition from the people. Besides, Roosevelt’s physical handicap did not affect his ability to govern and it was in the interests of the nation to protect him.
This happened half a century ago. The American society has since undergone tremendous changes, and so has the media.
It sounds unbelievable today to think that the US media would actually protect the president‘s honour for national interests. Many of us will no doubt still remember the juicy details on president Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky in the American media.
Singapore is deeply affected by the US, such as the ups and downs in the American economy and stock market. There is also a growing “market” for the latest American social trends and thinking. Views that are fashionable there will almost be echoed here immediately.
Take, for instance, public expectations of the media. Some Singaporean elites often complain that, compared to the Western media, the local media is rather “tame” when reporting on political issues.
Writer Catherine Lim, who does not mince words, said at a recent Institute of Policy Studies forum that caricatures of politicians are a symbol of a society‘s political maturity.
A group of English-educated civil society activists recently launched a MediaWatch Community. They intend to be a media “watchdog” and get the media to focus more on “non-mainstream opinions”。
According to representatives of the group, they will also try to get the media to redefine what “news” is. On the face of it, they seem to be saying that what used to be “mainstrean news” should now become “non-mainstrean” news.
The government and people have always had high expectations of the local media. Journalists are not only responsible for transmitting information, but they also serve as a bridge between the government and the people. In addition, Singaporeans expect them to assume a host of responsibilities, including maintaining racial harmony, boosting a sense of national identity, protecting our core values and supporting the arts etc.
Rather than saying that reporters are “uncrowned kings”, I think we are more like acrobats who walk the tightrope - balancing the distinctive needs of a diversity of communities and the different aspirations of the conservatives and the liberals.
The public do not hesitate to give feedback while journalists continue to strive to do better and remain open to criticisms. Yet, even as we do so, we must ask ourselves： Are the viewpoints of someone or a group representative of the wishes of the majority？ More important, are they in the interests of the nation？
Before we attempt to move closer to the Western model, we must look at where it is heading. The professionalism of some of the mainstream American journalism is indisputable - many reporters and columnists are learned individuals who serve as excellent examples for us. On the other hand, some changes in the past decades have also made many uncomfortable, including some thoughtful Americans.
Well-known American public relations expert Glen Whitaker has observed that Americans are fond of thrilling fights and love to be entertained. They hope to see politicians in exciting wrangles and to get some fun out of politics.
Forced by intense competition, the media has no choice but to pander to the readers. And the politicians also try their very best to be in the limelight. For example, in the presidential election last year, both Al Gore and George W. Bush tried to shed their wooden image by making wisecracks before their voters.
Many say that with globalisation, the American style is the way to go. Even if this is the case, the question is： Should we follow in the footsteps of the media during Roosevelt‘s time or Clinton’s？
Whether it is status quo or taking the American path, the choice will have a bearing on the nature of our society. Hence, it should not be decided by the local media or a few elites from a certain social background. We should hear the considered opinions of the majority of Singaporeans. I wonder if anyone would make this an issue in the coming General Election.
（The writer is a Correspondent of Lianhe Zaobao‘s Political Desk. Translated by Yap Ghee Poh.）
誰應(yīng)替本地媒體定調(diào)？
陳懷亮
領(lǐng)導(dǎo)美國參加第二次世界大戰(zhàn)的羅斯?？偨y(tǒng),在39歲時患了脊髓炎,以致下身癱瘓。然而,這位備受尊敬的總統(tǒng)還在世時,很少美國人知道這個事實(shí)。
美國媒體替他隱瞞這個事實(shí),因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為,他們有責(zé)任維護(hù)總統(tǒng)的尊嚴(yán)和權(quán)威。同時,行動殘障并不妨礙羅斯福的治國能力,維護(hù)他的尊嚴(yán)對國家有利。
這是半個世紀(jì)前的事了。美國社會經(jīng)歷巨變,媒體也跟著變。
美國媒體為了國家利益維護(hù)總統(tǒng)尊嚴(yán)的事,在今天聽來像是天方夜譚。前總統(tǒng)克林頓和萊溫斯基搞的白宮丑聞,就在報章上詳詳盡盡報道了很長的一段時間。
新加坡深受美國影響,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)和股市的起落,我們馬上能感受到其沖擊。美國的社會時尚,思想潮流,在新加坡的“市場”也越來越大,美國流行的觀點(diǎn),我們幾乎馬上可在本地聽到附和的聲音。
就以人們對本地媒體的期望來說,一些知識精英常表示,比起西方媒體,本地媒體在報道政治課題時太過“溫和”。
敢怒敢言的英文作家林寶音不久前在政策研究院主辦的論壇上說,挖苦政治人物的漫畫,是一個社會政治成熟的象征。
近,一群受英文教育的公民社會的活躍分子成立了“媒體監(jiān)督社”。他們要“監(jiān)督”本地媒體,是要促使媒體多報道“非主流”意見。
這個群體的代表更進(jìn)一步說,他們要爭取媒體為“新聞”重新定義,乍聽之下,他們似乎在說,過去是“主流”的新聞,現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該成為“非主流”的新聞。
向來,政府與人民對本地媒體的期望就很高。在這里,新聞工作者不僅應(yīng)該傳達(dá)信息,上情下達(dá),下情上達(dá),也肩負(fù)了其他許許多多的責(zé)任：維持種族和諧,加強(qiáng)認(rèn)同感,維護(hù)價值觀,支持文化藝術(shù)等等。
與其說記者是“無冕皇帝”,我倒覺得我們更像走鋼索的演員,使盡各種平衡術(shù),平衡各社群之間不同的需要,平衡思想較保守者和思想較開放者之間的愿望。
人們對媒體的期望高,也不吝賜教,我們也不時在鞭策自己,虛心受教。但是,在這么做的時候,我們也必須區(qū)分的是：某一個人的觀點(diǎn),或某一個群體的觀點(diǎn),是否代表了大多數(shù)人民的愿望？更重要的是,這些觀點(diǎn)是否符合國家的利益？
要向西方或美國媒體看齊,我們就先必須檢視西方媒體的趨勢。以美國主流媒體來說,其中部分的專業(yè)水平是不爭的事實(shí),許多記者和專欄作家是博學(xué)之士,這都值得本地媒體學(xué)習(xí)。不過,美國媒體過去數(shù)十年的改變,也有不少令人感到不自在的地方。
美國公關(guān)業(yè)知名人士懷達(dá)克曾這么分析,美國人喜歡熱鬧的戰(zhàn)斗,也喜歡被娛樂,他們期望政治人物進(jìn)行有趣的戰(zhàn)斗,期望從政治中獲得娛樂。
美國媒體在競爭劇烈的情況下,不得不順應(yīng)人們尋找刺激的傾向,而政治人物也使出渾身解數(shù),以求脫穎而出。比如說,去年的總統(tǒng)選舉中,戈爾和布什都努力擺脫木訥的形象,拼命惡補(bǔ)在選民面前搞笑的本領(lǐng)。
許多人說,在環(huán)球化現(xiàn)象盛行的情況下,美國化是大勢所趨。但是,即使是這樣,我們應(yīng)該考慮的是：我們模仿的應(yīng)該是羅斯福時代的媒體,還是克林頓時代的媒體？
美國化也好,保持現(xiàn)狀也好,這個抉擇將影響社會的本質(zhì),因此不應(yīng)該由本地媒體自行決定,也不應(yīng)該由幾位代表某一個社會背景的知識精英決定。我們希望聽得到大多數(shù)國人深思熟慮的意見。就不知在來屆大選,會不會有人把它當(dāng)著競選課題？
The media felt a sense of duty to safeguard the president‘s dignity and prestige and kept the condition from the people. Besides, Roosevelt’s physical handicap did not affect his ability to govern and it was in the interests of the nation to protect him.
This happened half a century ago. The American society has since undergone tremendous changes, and so has the media.
It sounds unbelievable today to think that the US media would actually protect the president‘s honour for national interests. Many of us will no doubt still remember the juicy details on president Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky in the American media.
Singapore is deeply affected by the US, such as the ups and downs in the American economy and stock market. There is also a growing “market” for the latest American social trends and thinking. Views that are fashionable there will almost be echoed here immediately.
Take, for instance, public expectations of the media. Some Singaporean elites often complain that, compared to the Western media, the local media is rather “tame” when reporting on political issues.
Writer Catherine Lim, who does not mince words, said at a recent Institute of Policy Studies forum that caricatures of politicians are a symbol of a society‘s political maturity.
A group of English-educated civil society activists recently launched a MediaWatch Community. They intend to be a media “watchdog” and get the media to focus more on “non-mainstream opinions”。
According to representatives of the group, they will also try to get the media to redefine what “news” is. On the face of it, they seem to be saying that what used to be “mainstrean news” should now become “non-mainstrean” news.
The government and people have always had high expectations of the local media. Journalists are not only responsible for transmitting information, but they also serve as a bridge between the government and the people. In addition, Singaporeans expect them to assume a host of responsibilities, including maintaining racial harmony, boosting a sense of national identity, protecting our core values and supporting the arts etc.
Rather than saying that reporters are “uncrowned kings”, I think we are more like acrobats who walk the tightrope - balancing the distinctive needs of a diversity of communities and the different aspirations of the conservatives and the liberals.
The public do not hesitate to give feedback while journalists continue to strive to do better and remain open to criticisms. Yet, even as we do so, we must ask ourselves： Are the viewpoints of someone or a group representative of the wishes of the majority？ More important, are they in the interests of the nation？
Before we attempt to move closer to the Western model, we must look at where it is heading. The professionalism of some of the mainstream American journalism is indisputable - many reporters and columnists are learned individuals who serve as excellent examples for us. On the other hand, some changes in the past decades have also made many uncomfortable, including some thoughtful Americans.
Well-known American public relations expert Glen Whitaker has observed that Americans are fond of thrilling fights and love to be entertained. They hope to see politicians in exciting wrangles and to get some fun out of politics.
Forced by intense competition, the media has no choice but to pander to the readers. And the politicians also try their very best to be in the limelight. For example, in the presidential election last year, both Al Gore and George W. Bush tried to shed their wooden image by making wisecracks before their voters.
Many say that with globalisation, the American style is the way to go. Even if this is the case, the question is： Should we follow in the footsteps of the media during Roosevelt‘s time or Clinton’s？
Whether it is status quo or taking the American path, the choice will have a bearing on the nature of our society. Hence, it should not be decided by the local media or a few elites from a certain social background. We should hear the considered opinions of the majority of Singaporeans. I wonder if anyone would make this an issue in the coming General Election.
（The writer is a Correspondent of Lianhe Zaobao‘s Political Desk. Translated by Yap Ghee Poh.）
誰應(yīng)替本地媒體定調(diào)？
陳懷亮
領(lǐng)導(dǎo)美國參加第二次世界大戰(zhàn)的羅斯?？偨y(tǒng),在39歲時患了脊髓炎,以致下身癱瘓。然而,這位備受尊敬的總統(tǒng)還在世時,很少美國人知道這個事實(shí)。
美國媒體替他隱瞞這個事實(shí),因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為,他們有責(zé)任維護(hù)總統(tǒng)的尊嚴(yán)和權(quán)威。同時,行動殘障并不妨礙羅斯福的治國能力,維護(hù)他的尊嚴(yán)對國家有利。
這是半個世紀(jì)前的事了。美國社會經(jīng)歷巨變,媒體也跟著變。
美國媒體為了國家利益維護(hù)總統(tǒng)尊嚴(yán)的事,在今天聽來像是天方夜譚。前總統(tǒng)克林頓和萊溫斯基搞的白宮丑聞,就在報章上詳詳盡盡報道了很長的一段時間。
新加坡深受美國影響,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)和股市的起落,我們馬上能感受到其沖擊。美國的社會時尚,思想潮流,在新加坡的“市場”也越來越大,美國流行的觀點(diǎn),我們幾乎馬上可在本地聽到附和的聲音。
就以人們對本地媒體的期望來說,一些知識精英常表示,比起西方媒體,本地媒體在報道政治課題時太過“溫和”。
敢怒敢言的英文作家林寶音不久前在政策研究院主辦的論壇上說,挖苦政治人物的漫畫,是一個社會政治成熟的象征。
近,一群受英文教育的公民社會的活躍分子成立了“媒體監(jiān)督社”。他們要“監(jiān)督”本地媒體,是要促使媒體多報道“非主流”意見。
這個群體的代表更進(jìn)一步說,他們要爭取媒體為“新聞”重新定義,乍聽之下,他們似乎在說,過去是“主流”的新聞,現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該成為“非主流”的新聞。
向來,政府與人民對本地媒體的期望就很高。在這里,新聞工作者不僅應(yīng)該傳達(dá)信息,上情下達(dá),下情上達(dá),也肩負(fù)了其他許許多多的責(zé)任：維持種族和諧,加強(qiáng)認(rèn)同感,維護(hù)價值觀,支持文化藝術(shù)等等。
與其說記者是“無冕皇帝”,我倒覺得我們更像走鋼索的演員,使盡各種平衡術(shù),平衡各社群之間不同的需要,平衡思想較保守者和思想較開放者之間的愿望。
人們對媒體的期望高,也不吝賜教,我們也不時在鞭策自己,虛心受教。但是,在這么做的時候,我們也必須區(qū)分的是：某一個人的觀點(diǎn),或某一個群體的觀點(diǎn),是否代表了大多數(shù)人民的愿望？更重要的是,這些觀點(diǎn)是否符合國家的利益？
要向西方或美國媒體看齊,我們就先必須檢視西方媒體的趨勢。以美國主流媒體來說,其中部分的專業(yè)水平是不爭的事實(shí),許多記者和專欄作家是博學(xué)之士,這都值得本地媒體學(xué)習(xí)。不過,美國媒體過去數(shù)十年的改變,也有不少令人感到不自在的地方。
美國公關(guān)業(yè)知名人士懷達(dá)克曾這么分析,美國人喜歡熱鬧的戰(zhàn)斗,也喜歡被娛樂,他們期望政治人物進(jìn)行有趣的戰(zhàn)斗,期望從政治中獲得娛樂。
美國媒體在競爭劇烈的情況下,不得不順應(yīng)人們尋找刺激的傾向,而政治人物也使出渾身解數(shù),以求脫穎而出。比如說,去年的總統(tǒng)選舉中,戈爾和布什都努力擺脫木訥的形象,拼命惡補(bǔ)在選民面前搞笑的本領(lǐng)。
許多人說,在環(huán)球化現(xiàn)象盛行的情況下,美國化是大勢所趨。但是,即使是這樣,我們應(yīng)該考慮的是：我們模仿的應(yīng)該是羅斯福時代的媒體,還是克林頓時代的媒體？
美國化也好,保持現(xiàn)狀也好,這個抉擇將影響社會的本質(zhì),因此不應(yīng)該由本地媒體自行決定,也不應(yīng)該由幾位代表某一個社會背景的知識精英決定。我們希望聽得到大多數(shù)國人深思熟慮的意見。就不知在來屆大選,會不會有人把它當(dāng)著競選課題？