25 September 2019
Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya
Malaysia
Keynote Address
Rebooting the Media Industry:
Present and Future Challenges
Oleh Tan Sri Johan Jaaffar
(Tokoh Wartawan Negara)
I must admit that
this is one of the toughest speeches I have given. It was a painful exercise
even to look up pointers and facts. I found very little literature to suggest that
the future of newspapers is bright and sunny. I encountered material after
material espousing an imminent demise of newspapers. The newspaper business is
to be ditalqinkan (to be given the last rites for the dead according to
Muslim practices).
I was crowned
Tokoh Wartawan Negara by my peers, presented in an eventful and historic
night organised by the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) in May this year. And
yet, here I am, looking at an industry, which I have been involved with for
many years, as one with a bleak, uncertain future.
The newspaper
industry is a sunset industry, many would agree to that. Newspapers have been
dying in slow-motion for a decade or so already, some would argue. There is no
future in the newspaper business. It can’t be saved, even with the best of
intentions.
I don’t need
to look far. What has happened to the newspaper that I edited for six years
(1992-1998) is testimony to this. It pains me to see the state of my former
company and the newspaper I am always associated with. All is not well in the
state of Denmark, newspaper-wise, if I may quote Shakespeare.
Utusan Melayu,
the newspaper company set up in 1939, eighty years ago to be exact, is in
trouble now. Back then, the whole purpose was to publish a national daily that
would be, in the words of scholar W.R.Roffin his tome, The Origins of Malay
Nationalism, “owned, financed and staffed solely by Malays of the
Archipelago.”
It was a tall
order for Yusof Ishak and the first editor of the newspaper, Abdul Rahim Kajai,
later named Bapa Kewartanan Melayu or the Father of Malay Journalism.
Yusof later became the first president of the Republic of Singapore. With a
working capital of $2,000 at the time, Utusan Melayu, in jawi script,
began its humble journey to become one of the most feared and respected
newspapers in the land.
In 1967 it
started the romanised edition, Utusan Malaysia, ten years after the
Straits Times group published Berita Harian. It was no secret that Berita
Harian was initially nothing more than a translation of the English daily.
Utusan Melayu,
the company became a public listed entity on 16th August 1994. During
its heydays, 600,000 copies of Mingguan Malaysia(the Sunday edition) were
published and 350,000 copies of Utusan Malaysia were printed a day. It
had 13 magazines under its stable.
But what is
important to note is the role played by the jawi paper at the height of Malay national
consciousness and political awareness prior to and after Merdeka
(Independence). Utusan Melayu was an audacious daily that dared to take
risks. Much to the embarrassment of the British colonial masters who derogatorily
labelled it as nothing more than “the pink paper”, Utusan Melayu became
a formidable force that was credible and threatening to them.
Even after Merdeka,
Utusan Melayu was a thorn in the side of the Malay ruling elite who believed
that Utusan Melayu was influenced by the “Leftists” (mereka yang
berfaham kiri).That was a good enough excuse for UMNO to wrestle editorial
control of Utusan Melayu in 1961. The journalists were up in arms.
Equipped with only determination and commitment, they fought back. They launched
a strike that lasted 90 days. They lost. Said Zahari, the editor at the time,
was taken under the Internal Security Act and was incarcerated for 17 long
years.
The way I see
it, what happened in 1961 was a defining moment in the history of newspapering
in this country. Press freedom died at that moment, never to be recovered,
perhaps forever. The fiercely independent journalists of Utusan Melayu paid
dearly for their convictions. Many moved
on with their lives, others stayed on in the business, some working for-various
other publications, remembering the dark clouds that descended upon them and
their brothers and sisters in 1961.
Utusan Melayu
may have lost
its freedom in 1961. But that did not stop generations of editors and journalists
thereafter to carry their brand of audacity. The “Utusan Melayu brand”
was a trademark. They could be fiercely loyal to the “Malay cause” but they
were never racists.They fought injustices, religious extremism and backwardness
among the Malays.
They knew who
owned the company or who had the majority stake. That was UMNO. But that did
not deter them to be, in many instances, the conscience of their race.
I was asked
repeatedly if I was the “Hang Tuah” who placed loyalty above all else. I can’t
speak for others. But history will judge me for what I did, for the exposés I
made, for the leaders (including UMNO leaders) who I held accountable for their
actions. I lost my job eventually but
that had been due to the grand tussle involving the then Prime Minister (who
happens to be the current prime minister) and his deputy in 1998 (who happens
to be the PM-designate whenever the former leaves office, or so the story about
the promise goes).
I have a
simple theory about the control of UMNO on Utusan Melayu. It is
inversely proportional to its own strength. When UMNO was in the position of
strength, they somehow looked the other way. When they were weakened, they
exercised a near-strangling position on the newspaper.
Perhaps they
were significantly weakened during their preparation for the 2018 general election.
Utusan Malaysia and TV3 were unashamedly used as their election tools.
It cost the paper and the television station not just credibility and respect
but readership, viewership and revenues.
Like me, many
Utusan Melayu editors lost their jobs.I wasn’t alone, joining the ranks
of the late Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin and his predecessors, Tan Sri Mazlan
Nordin and Tan Sri Melan Abdullah. We carried that badge of honour in being
fired as editors. Perhaps it’s true what they say, that good soldiers don’t
die, they fade away, whereas good editors don’t fade away, they get fired.
Until only of
late, no chief editor of Utusan Melayu had left the company without
controversy.
I would like
to believe that we were all collateral damage in the grand political chess game
involving some of the most refined and consummate conspirators and political
operators ever to roam the land.
Technically I
“resigned” in July 1998, some three months before Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was
fired on 2nd September 1998. They had to “clean-up” the Utusan Melayu
and Berita Harian groups and TV3, as these were powerful platforms
before the advent of social media.
Yes, we knew
who owned Utusan Melayu (or who had the majority shares in the company)
but even under such circumstances, it didn’t deter us from being critical,
vocal and fair. We sincerely believed in the freedom of the press. We
understood the limitations of that freedom in a multi-racial country like ours.
We believed it is our right and moral obligation to call figures in the public
eyes to account. We believed in being the ears and eyes of the public.
There are
people who have been asking me, why talk about press freedom when there is
none? Is it true that the Malaysian press has been know-timed into
believing that they have a role to play as “agents of change” in the process of
pembangunan (development) and kemajuan (progress)? Are they being timid or silenced into
submission? Or were they merely unapologetic cheerleaders for whoever was at
the helm, now Pakatan Harapan, before that UMNO and Barisan Nasional?
Those are
relevant questions. We have been asking those questions too as we went along.
Were we complicit to some of the ills and injustices inflicted upon individuals
or even our society over the years? Were we merely looking elsewhere when
misdeeds became full-fledged scandals and these scandals later became
international disgrace? Sincerely we asked those questions too.
But to be honest,
many of us tried our level best to ensure we played the roles as expected of
us. We did our best under such circumstances. There were times when we were not
proud of what we did. But we believed we had tried our level best.
We made
mistakes too. We are not supposed to take sides, but we did. In one of my
pieces for The Star(1st October 2018) I asked the question
that everyone of us ought to be asking: Are we complicit in the 1MDB scandal?
“Why did most of us fail to voice out concerns when the 1MDB scandal was
unfolding?”
My contention
was that, too many people, including the mainstream media contributed to the
problem by ignoring the red flags and choosing not to question the official
line.
In my piece I
wrote:
1MDB is a
slap on the face of a cowering media.
1MDB is a wake-up
call for the local media.
Docility
sucks.
Never again,
that should happen. We must learn something from what happened in those years
leading up the full-fledged expose by Sarawak Report and other news
portals.
The truth is,
there is no ultimate press freedom anywhere in the world. Even in the US, the
so-labelled liberal press is being pitted against the conservative ones – it is
like The Rest vs Fox News or The Rest vs President Donald Trump. Someone
famously said, freedom of the press belongs only to those who own it.
Yet the war
of attrition against journalists is getting new traction. With Trump at the
helm of the most powerful nation on planet Earth, and the way he perceives the
media, we are in for more troubling times.
The United
States of America is supposed to be a beacon of democracy and free press. Trump
has called “the fake news media” enemy of the people. Trump’s rhetoric is
dangerous for it incites more than just distrust and hatred towards the media.
Which is totally unacceptable.
But what
about us – the practitioners – where are we in the scheme of things?What about
the need for the public to respect us as professionals? We have been soldiering
on all the while. We have been facing a cynical and sceptical public. We have
been given all kind of names and labels. We have to live with it.
We are just
doing our jobs. We are not taking advantage of other people’s miseries or
misfortunes. We do not want our names on the hall of fame just for exposing the
misdeeds of our political masters or the scandals of corrupt personalities.
Jamal Khashoggi
need not have died. So too 60 others journalists who have perished in 2018
alone. Journalists died in conflicts areas bringing wars and skirmishes to
readers, listeners and viewer sin the comfort of their homes.
Anyone
covering Afghanistan and Syria today knew the risks. But like their brethren
before and now and perhaps in the future, they will be there putting their limbs
and lives in danger.
I was in
Afghanistan in the Spring of 1989, somewhere in the Kunar province to be exact,
not too far from Jalalabad covering the civil war there. I knew what it was
like. It was not the adrenaline that propelled us, nor was it fame and fortune.
Again, we were just doing our jobs. Don’t blame us for that.
Perhaps we
are indeed doing a thankless job. But we are professionals. We go to jail, we
got hurt, some of us died. Occupational hazards you may say. But we do what we
are supposed to do. Forget about the notion of the romance of journalism or the
movies you watched about brave journalists covering wars and coming back to
their loved ones. Happy ending guaranteed despite the odds and challenges.
Journalism is
more than that.
We can have a
serious discourse on the matter. But for me, our conversation about the role of
journalists must go beyond that.
We have to
accept the fact that the newspaper is more than just about the enterprise of
news-papering. It is not only about the conversation on raucous chauvinism or
unapologetic political correctness. Or about sex, lies and democracy, the three
things that sell newspapers, they say.
It is also
about quality, not just what the readers want. It is about our responsibility
to do our best as journalists. It is about the role of the Fourth Estate. It is
about accountability and fairness.
And about
bringing sanity to a reading public that is obsessed with film stars,
celebrities and more film stars and celebrities. It is about not relegating
ourselves to prurient journalism fixated with telling the official truth and
avoiding dubious journalistic methods.
We need to
recognise the important fact that newspapers and the media as a whole are,
first and foremost, business ventures. They are about money. About resources.
About profit. About the bottom line. Why would quality newspapers fold? Why is it
that even notoriously explicit and salaciously sensational papers are
suffering?
Back then,
editors were reminded of a famous but anonymous 19th Century verse
about Fleet Street:
Tickle the public, make ‘em grin
The more you tickle, the more you’ll win
Teach the public, you’ll never get rich
You’ll live like a beggar and die in the ditch.
We were not
just editors. We learned fast to make adaptations. We made money for our
companies. Our companies prospered. Back then, when I was at the helm of Utusan
Melayu, the total advertisement spending for Malaysia was about RM3.5
billion, 60 per cent of that was for the newspapers, the rest for TV. People
advertised in our papers. Our papers were influential and a money-making
venture.
That was
before the Internet, before the whole enterprise of digital revolution
disrupted our business. We thought we were formidable. Many of the newspaper
companies in Malaysia were forging ahead with lots of confidence into the digital
world in the early 1990's. We thought technology would propel us to greater
heights.
It did, at
least for a while. The newsroom became fully computerised. Back then the
Internet was still in its infancy. Gone were the days when reporters were
calling from phone booths and the layout of pages was done manually. We were
excited. Hand-phones came, then short message system or SMS. WhatsApp, Twitter and
Instagram were a decade away. The digital revolution was a sure thing, but for
us, we sincerely believed that it would help us more than it would disrupt, destruct
or even deconstruct us.
How wrong we
were. We were literally caught with our pants down. What we once believed as
“unthinkable” became “inevitable”. It affected us, our business, the entire
discipline of journalism and perhaps the future of the newspaper and media.
Journalism was being hollowed out by massive structural shifts, readers’
preferences, latest trends and the cost of the newspaper business. After all
this is an era of Industry 4.0. The “New Industrial Revolution” is taking place
and it is changing almost everything – not just the way we communicate but the
way we live.
We now
realise how labour-intensive our business was, how vulnerable we were as a
business entity, how the old models of news-papering were being challenged to
the core, and how we were going to see more disruptions and the possibility of
the biggest wave of journalistic lay-offs ever in the history of newspapers.
We were
seeing that with our own eyes. Looks at the media conglomerates around us. Over
the last two years alone, at least 3,000 people lost their jobs. I am not
talking about only Utusan Melayu; even the mighty Media Prima group, the Star
Publications and Astro are facing difficulties.
Datuk Ho Kay
Tat, Chief Executive Officer of The Edge, pointed out at the Malaysian
Media Awards and Conference by the Media Specialists Organisation, that from
2014 to 2018, shareholders of The Star Media Group, Media Prima Bhd, Chinese
International, Utusan Melayu and Berjaya Media had lost approximately RM3.7
billion in market value.
How things
have changed over the last few years. In 2013, Media Prima was registering a
yearly revenue of RM2.3 billion a year. This year they are lucky if they can hit
RM1.3 billion. Media Prima is the only fully integrated media company in the
country today, with media assets ranging from TV, radio, outdoor advertising, to
the NSTP group.
I should
know. I was the Chairman of Media Prima Bhd for six years (2009 to 2015).
Media Prima
was at the right place when convergence of media assets proved to be its
winning formula. But the downside is that one of its subsidiaries, the NSTP
group, is literally bleeding and dragging the parent company down as well.
Take the case
of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). It has businesses in print, digital, radio,
outdoor media as well as property and aged-care. It was like when MRCB owned
NSTP; the former had interests in banking and property too. But even the mighty
SPH reported a 44 per cent drop in its third-quarter net profit to $26.5
million from $46.9 million a year earlier.
To say that
all newspaper companies are affected is an understatement. There are naysayers
who believe that in the next five years, almost all newspapers in the world
will cease to exist in their traditional form. The tide can’t be changed. The
die is cast. It is just a matter of time. If at all, the end is to be delayed,
not halted.
The reality
is that fewer people are reading the newspaper. Every time a reader dies, no
one new is taking his or her place. When anyone of us move into an apartment or
a condominium, the first thing we do is to stop subscription of newspapers.
Newspaper circulation has been dropping consistently since 2000, at a rate of 10
per cent per year since then.
It takes Jeff
Bezos of Amazon.com, probably the world’s richest man in the world today, to buy over
The Washington Post, the paper that will be remembered as the one that
brought down President Nixon and known for its many other exposés or
investigative reporting.
The Los
Angeles Times was bought
over by the wealthiest man in California. One of the most respected newspapers
in the United Kingdom, The Guardian, is now controlled by a foundation
and its online version is being kept alive by donations.
Therefore,we
can’t really harp on the likes of Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary who bought
over UMNO’s stake in Media Prima or that he aimed to save Utusan Melayu
(which he did not, though he has had a 20-per cent stake in the company since
the 1990s). Perhaps, online newspapers need crowd-funding or donations in the
future to survive.
Datuk Ho Kay
Tat made a pertinent point when he raised the issue about the rise of the digital
duopoly that is destroying the news business. Companies in Malaysia and
elsewhere are shifting their ad spend to social media and digital platforms,
mainly Facebook and Google. The duopoly now controls 80 per cent of the digital
ad revenue. Last year alone, according to Datuk Ho, Facebook made US$55.8
billion in revenue, 80 per cent of which was from digital advertising. Google,
on the other hand, recorded a US$11.8 billion in ad revenue, which was 85 per
cent of its total earnings. One must also take note that while Amazon is a
distant third, it will further hurt the media industry.
We simply
can’t compete with them. And things are getting worse.
Now, where do
we go from here?
The news
business apparently is not the exclusive right of media companies. Anyone can
be a reporter. A nasty road accident outside Taylor’s University now will be on
YouTube real-time or on any of the social media platforms. There is no need to
wait for the news bulletin update on Astro Awani or for TV3’s Buletin
Utama at 8.00 pm tonight.
Everyone is a
reporter. What you need is a smartphone. Citizen journalism is real.
Our obsession
with social media platforms has turned us into tech-animals. We socialise less
now. We are addicted to our gadgets. We spend hours on it. The world is at a
standstill, for everyone is holding on to the little, smart, yet distracting,
gadget for whatever information coming through it.
Serious
journalism is at stake.
But at least
there are people out there who still believed that the mainstream media remains
the true main source of information, a platform that must continue to be
trusted. Datuk A. Kadir Jasin, a veteran newsman himself and former editor of
the New Straits Times,who is currently the media and communication
adviser to the Prima Minister, argued that the mainstream media industry
comprised trained and licensed professionals bounds by ethics and laws in their
pursuit of true and verified information.
According to
Kadir, “It differs from social media, which is not news, but a social medium
that can be used by anyone and everyone to say whatever they want, just like in
the coffee shops.”
“So, we don’t
have to get muddled with what social media offers, as correct information can
only be obtained from the newspapers, radio, websites and television,” he said.
I am sure many would disagree with Kadir. It
is for us, comforting to hear that.
The truth is,
the social media revolution is changing everything. Social media platforms care
little about “truth”. Truth is elusive. Who cares where we get our news from or
whether such news are true or fake.We have created what I call a “forward
generation” – to mean we forward what we get on our smartphones or other smart
gadgets, usually without even thinking or batting an eyelid. In many cases we
don’t even subscribe or agree to what we forwarded. Fake news get traction
because of that.
The way I
look at it, the whole notion of “news” needs reviewing.
The social
media phenomenon is simply too consuming. While we acknowledge that there is no
sign of this abating, we hear about the need for digital detoxification. There
is an overall news-fatigue emanating from social media. People will demand
quality news. Not flashes of events masquerading as news.
But first we
have to regain the trust of the people. We need to ensure the public that we
can provide them with real, quality, objective and balanced news. We all know
news is a commercial property. It is show business. It is not cheap. For
quality news to be produced, it needs to be subsidised.
On the other
hand, not many media companies will survive, which is good for the industry as a
whole. It is also about choosing the kaca (glass) from the intan (diamond),
as the Malays put it, the good ones from the bad, the credible ones from the
not, and the reliable ones from the unreliable lot.
The painful
process must not stop at that. We must bring in only the best, the most
reliable, the truly professionals. We understand there will be staff burnout
under current uncertainties. The pressure of the present newsroom can be quite
a challenge.
Many news
organisations are investing a lot more on technology now. At one time it was
about investing in computerisation. But no longer. More and more publishers are
looking at investing in Artificial Intelligence (AI)and Machine Learning (ML).
Editors can’t be replaced by machines, of course. Probably we have to cater for
more personalised content and better presentations. Or shall we look at
robo-journalism to help us minimise cost and avoid human mistakes? Robotic news
anchors are real and perhaps the newsroom too needs ego-free and unbiased
journos for the future.
While we
agree that technology is an enabler for better journalism, we must also accept
the fact that eventually it is the journalists and the editors behind the news
that matter. Thus, we need to re-look at media studies. It cannot be business as
usual. The old curriculum sucks, and sucks spectacularly. We must revamp the
entire media scholarship, not looking at journalism from the prism of the old schools
but incorporating all the other relevant disciplines.
Journalism
schools must be re-assessed, students must be reminded of the new realities of
media business and operation and the entire discipline of news-gathering,
processing and disseminating.
The business
models, too, must be changed. Media companies must re-look at the way they do
things, how they operate and how they derive their income. The news industry
must look at itself as more than just about providing news. Industry players
need to remember the mistake made by transport companies before, those who
forgot that they were in the logistics industry. The outlook should be more
holistic and inclusive.
Probably news
do not sell the way they used to. Not via a newspaper. Or on TV. There are many
platforms where news can be accessed. Perhaps the newspaper companies must not
fight social media platforms but use them to their advantage. Media companies
of course have been utilising social media as a marketing and promotional
channel.
As newspapers
begin strengthening their online content, they face the challenge of monetising
part of it. It is harder to make money with online newspapers. Most people
believe that everything online is free. The experience of the digital video platform,
Tonton,is an eye-opener. Despite boasting 3.4 million registered
viewers, Media Prima Bhd had a tough time in monetising its potential. Why do
we need Tonton when YouTube is free?
It is time
that media practitioners look hard and deep into themselves. Things are
changing. The time when Rahim Kajai started Utusan Melayu in 1939 was an
era different from the time of the company’s legendary editors – Said Zahari,
Tan Sri Melan Abdullah, Tan Sri Mazlan Nordin, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin. And
their time was different from mine in the 1990s.
There are
very few left of my generation - Datuk CC Liew, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin, Datuk
Kadir Jasin, Tan Sri Rahman Sulaiman, Datuk V.K. Chin, Datuk Ng Poh Tip, Datuk
MohdNazri Abdullah, Datuk Ahmad Talib,
Datuk RejalArbee, Zainon Ahmad, Datuk
Hardev Kaur, Datuk Khalid Mohd, Datuk Seri Azman Ujang, Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai.
A new crop of
editors and journalists are taking over now.
I have only this
advice for them: Make adjustments. Adapt.
The truth of
the matter is, I am not just looking at a total revamp, I am looking at re-booting
the total industry.
Let me put
all these in perspective.
Firstly, I am
using examples of places that I am familiar with. Secondly,I am not a naysayer.
I am not even a sceptic. I am just trying to be realistic and pragmatic.
The death of
the newspaper is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. But in years to come, I am
looking only at the survival of very few newspapers. The great days of
newspapers have long gone. They will become smaller and even less influential.
But only the best will survive.
The news
media organisation is at the crossroad. No one can predict what will happen
from now on. Are the threats seen now merely the tip of an iceberg? Or is there
hopelessness on the whole? The entire ship is floundering. The next big
question asked by buyers and subscribers of newspapers is, why do we need
newspapers when we can get news elsewhere? Are we still relevant?
Let us ponder
the future – the challenges that will be formidable for the industry, for
practitioners and for people like me – an unrepentant former newsman.
Thank you.
-
TSJJ
