Perhaps I'm old-fashioned.
Or maybe I haven't spent too many years hanging around newsrooms, where reporters argue about headlines, swear at impossible deadlines and somehow still believe that journalism matters (masih wartawan mentahan).
But when I looked at the composition of the new Media Council, one thought immediately came to mind: Why are journalists once again playing second fiddle in their own house?
Let's get one thing out of the way first. This is not about whether a former judge is qualified. Nobody is questioning the integrity, intelligence or public service record of the council chairman. A retired judge undoubtedly brings experience, stature and credibility.
Now hold on… What message this appointment sends?
Because optics matter.
The Media Council was never conceived as a tribunal. It was not envisioned as a disciplinary board, a court or a regulatory authority. It was supposed to be the embodiment of media self-regulation — a mechanism through which journalists hold themselves accountable without excessive interference from the state.
For decades, journalists fought for this idea. Neither CEOs nor corporate board members nor NGO activists nor judges.
The Journalists !
Reporters who sat through endless court hearings. Editors who faced political pressure. Photographers who stood in the rain waiting for politicians who never arrived.
The struggle for a Media Council was, first and foremost, a struggle by journalists to safeguard their craft.
Which is why I find it slightly awkward that the council is now chaired by someone with little or no newsroom experience.
Imagine if the Bar Council was headed by a veteran journalist.
Or if the Medical Council was chaired by a businessman.
People would understandably ask questions.
Yet somehow when it comes to journalism, we seem perfectly comfortable handing the steering wheel to people from outside the profession.
As veteran journalist and National Press Club president Rocky Bru argued years ago, media councils in many parts of the world are often led by journalists because journalism itself is a profession with its own culture, ethics and realities. The argument was simple: if the council exists to protect media independence, then journalists should be at the forefront of leading it.
That argument remains relevant today.
What makes the situation even more puzzling is the sheer depth of talent available within Malaysia's journalism fraternity.
We have living legends:
A Kadir Jasin.
Johan Jaafar.
Rocky Bru.
Wong Chun Wai.
Names that have shaped generations of journalists and readers alike.
We have respected newsroom leaders such as Yong Soo Heong, chairman of the Malaysian Press Institute, and Rocky Bru himself, who has consistently argued that media councils should be led by media practitioners rather than retired judges.
We have MANY more, in case the above are not acceptable: Ho Kay Tat, Azam Aris, Ashraf Abdullah, Mustapha Kamil, Nuraina Samad, Firdaus Abdullah, yes, each one with decades of editorial experience and wisdom.
These are individuals who have spent decades making editorial decisions, defending press freedom and understanding the daily realities of journalism.
Yet journalists appear to be a minority voice in a body created largely because journalists demanded it.
Look closer and the imbalance becomes even more noticeable.
The chairman is a retired judge.
The deputy chairman is primarily known as a businessman.
Several NGO representatives sit on the council.
Meanwhile, bona fide journalists seem almost like supporting cast members in a production that was originally written for them.
Maybe there are good reasons for this arrangement.
Maybe it will work.
Maybe the council will prove its critics wrong.
And for the sake of the industry, I genuinely hope it does.
But I cannot help feeling that a historic opportunity has been missed.
The Media Council should have been the moment journalists stood up and declared, confidently and unapologetically: "We are the media."
Instead, the first impression many people will have is that journalists are once again being supervised, advised and represented by everyone except themselves.
And that, more than any individual appointment, is what feels disappointing.
After all, if journalists cannot be trusted to lead a Media Council, then who exactly is this council supposed to empower?
Comments
Post a Comment