The Kingmakers

Do you think journalist just report the world as they see it?

Think about that, think hard. Relate it to the whole "Police v. Aminulrasyid" discourse. In the mean time, indulge me a little time to explain my thoughts on that.

Every profession has its purpose. One either provides a service or produce a product. A baker bakes, a singer sings, a tailor sews. A journalist? What about them? What has a journalist got to offer? Well, they manufacture news. Note my choice of word, manufacture.

The bread-and-butter of journalistic career is to run about town (or world, depending on what he or she is covering) chasing for newsworthy items. Once they find something worth reporting, they'll get down to business. The hunt for quotable statements and insider information thus begins.

The process is fairly the same everywhere, be it in the broadcast or print media. Journalists will first interview relevant parties and search for vital evidences like documentation or statistics, etc. Next comes the part where the journalist has to sit down and write the article. The next part of the process is to hand in the article to the editor.

The above process raises 3 main red flags:

1. Who decides who or what is relevant? Is an official statement from the government more relevant than, say, the house owners of setinggan settlement about to be demolished?
2. Let's say the journalist is bound by a word count of about 400-500 words only. Do you honestly think that everything can make it into the article? If you've ever written one, you'd know that the answer is a big fat no.
3. An editor does more than checks for grammar mistakes, he also has to weigh in several other factors. An article will not make it to print if, for instance the editors finds that it'll offend a certain religion (socio-culture) or it's detrimental to advertisers (economy) or that it goes against the OSA (politics).

So in the end, news is nothing more than a social construction of reality. It is what newspapermen make it to be. It is the result of the methods journalists employ in delivering the story. It is a produced content, packaged and presented to the world. News is manufactured by journalists.

In relation to the case of Aminulrasyid, what you know have all been the product of news manufacturing. The way the media has framed the stories is rather favourable to one side. Whatever the reason for the media to frame the issue the way it has, the effects have wide-ranging consequences to the psyche of Malaysians. So let me ask some questions:

1. Why hasn't the media corroborate his family's claim that he was a nice boy with statements from his school or his peers?


2. Would Azamuddin's (Aminulrasyid's friend in the car) "press conference" been taken seriously if it is made known that he has been expelled from various schools?


3. Would it make a difference if the public know that the police who shot Aminulrasyid is a pious man?

There are simply one too many questions to be raised. But to me, the bottom line of the case is as the following:

1. He shouldn't have been driving without a license. He shouldn't be out at 2am. He should have stopped when hailed by the police patrol.
   
   Did he deserve to die, no? Was his death the result of his own doing? Yes. Good or bad, the late Aminulrasyid is not faultless.



2. The fact that the shots caused a death calls for an investigation. The fact that shooting tyres could cause a crash and possibly killing the passengers, begs the reconsideration of the IGSO.
   
   Is the shooting an arbitrary choice? Yes. But is it right to vilify the policeman and force as a whole? No. Good or bad, the policeman was just doing his job.

Ultimately, newsmakers really does make or break a person. They are indeed the kingmakers.



Au revoir.