Protesting Against Paid Subscriptions, and Organization

During my absence for the past couple of days, there has been a pretty fiery discussion on the recent imposed scheme of subscription to the ST Interactive, the online national newspapers. The comments have been wide and diverse, and many commentators, such as Singapore Ink. and From a Singapore Angle have compiled the complaints and suggestions together to suggest counter actions against the move. Needless to say, I won't repeat the same arguments here but simply divert readers to soak up the analyses put forth. The avove two sites have collected what seems to be the general reaction.

However, there's one small point some seem to have miss, and I think Singapore Ink's latest post touched on it, though I would like to expand on that. First of all, it is true that the ST is essentially a national press that serves to inform the general public and its citizens about the affairs of the country. However, the national newspaper doesn't merely serve that role but has to double as a spokespiece for wealthy investors and financial managers who run their businesses here in Singapore. See, a very simple mistake which most people assume (such as Ernesto's post illustrates), is that the newspapers makes money through readership. Well, that's partially true, if nobody reads the newspapers, they certainly wouldn't have anyone to advertise to. And that's the key word most people miss. It's not about the overall amount of people who read the newspapers but simply what kinds of audience are being targeted by that particular press. Now for a national newspaper, a boycott will do very little damage to its financial status, simply for the fact that a boycott will probably be on a very small scale and most citizens are going to need a way to inform themselves of government policies that affect their everyday lives. A large-scale boycott is, for the present moment, too unimaginable and wouldn't necessarily demonstrate that the results would be a fundamental shift of ownership in the national press.

The ST's other role is to attract investors. It has to portray to business leaders and other corporate powers who have to manage their own money here that Singapore is a safe, democractic, transparent and legit place to conduct their businesses here. These businesses would, no doubt, need to advertise to high-end consumers and of course the general public as well, but what counts the most would be the premium advertising rates the newspaper offers. It then comes about that the ST has no obligation to ensure its price hikes are adjusted for the average consumer, but merely to cater to social elities who will pay that kind of price to both advertise and market to consumers in the newspaper.

This dualistic function of the press is not at all as incompatable as one might think. To give a simple analogy, so one might comprehend the dynamics and relationship between the press, consumers, corporate managers and the public, say I am the mayor of a small town. As the mayor, I also own the only town newspapers which essentially the community relies on. In a bid to perhaps promote the town, similiar to how one wishes to promote tourism, I need to portray a fairly good representative of my town. Now, I can't paint a totally unrealistic picture since the town's residents rely on it for information, but I would pretty much ensure a very positive representation is depicted. This kind of positive representation naturally serves my two objectives cohesively, firstly to ensure that the residents geninuely believe in the goodwill and positive aspects of their own community and secondly to pander to potential investors and business owners who can simultaenously advertise to consumers and be assured about the safety of their investments in the town.

Given all that has been said, I do believe that it is pertinent that we rely on the national press, and that previous suggestions regarding alternative sources isn't an encouraging step. The ST is the national mouthpiece, and despite its flaws, it has to attempt in representing the "Singapore" in the framework of a national ideology. It's also the mouthpiece of the government, and there wouldn't be any other source to correctly access and critique the statements and ideas advanced by them. If you wish to critique dominant ideology, you must accurately string it from the direct source.

That is not to say there is little hope for fellow bloggers. It is only too simple to give up hope in reading, sourcing or criticizing the national press after March 15th. There is a need for the online community, at least those who are serious about the affairs of the country and wish to speak up, to create an organized community, one that routinely shares articles and ideas with each other. Indeed, if there isn't an impetus to regroup as an organized whole, political commentators would continue to stay marginalized and effectively do very little work on their own. Hence, for what may seem like an outrageous but yet undeniably plausible strategy, I think the political commentators who form part of the online community should stay connected through a network and relay information, articles, sources, ideas and commentary to each other regularly. Hopefully, I will be able to put this strategy into action.