Those halcyon days

One of the websites I am always keen to read up is Uppercaise's Malaysian Media Matters. I don't know his identity. He/she seems to be a very meticulous individual with impeccable English. I will use the gender he. I think he entered into one of my earlier articles disturbed by my carelessness in inserting commas or punctuation or something. The blogger reminds me of some very good English Language teachers I have had. He loves the language tremendously.

More recently, he has written a number of articles on the state of the New Straits Times. In particular, about what he perceived to be the declining standard of NST. The quality of language, the contents and of course readers' allegiance. I too, have wanted to write about my perceptions of NST.

One of the earliest and cheapest sources of learning the English language in the old days was the Straits Times and later the New Straits Times. If I remember correctly, the straits Times then cost 15 sen. Those guys at ST were probably not aware of ST being the English Language text book for poorer students in the East Coast. I would usually devour the editorials- because that's my principle source of good written English.

Those were the days my friend- when editorials were written by editors with excellent English and had depth in their analyses. Editors were courageous people, well read and were convincing in their arguments. They had belief in issues they picked up. Reporters did their jobs with professional accountability- meaning they exercised great care and took responsibility  over the integrity of their reports. Journalism was a calling.

Those editors whom I never knew or could remember during my younger days, I suspect were mainly Malaysian Indians. They have either passed on or retired since.

Maybe my faith in them was also strengthened because like readers of my age then, we were young and impressionable. If I were to read those backdated issues, I would perhaps assess them differently. In addition, the 'class above' assessment of the old school was also helped by the fact that flow of information direction then was one way- it wasn't interactive.

We had to accept what were written. They were conclusive and definitive. Letters to the editors were obviously filtered such that only those palatable ones were let through. There was no way of knowing the real substance of journalism luminaries then. Perhaps they were just myths.

Nowadays it's different.

One, perhaps there has been a real decline in the substance of the material at NST. Not nice to say, but maybe true.

Two, times are also different. We now have the internet and the growing relevance of the new media. Traditional journalism represented by the 4^th estate is facing stiff and energetic competition. The overall effect of the new media is to expose not only the vulnerability of the 4^th estate should it be dominated by paper tigers- but also mercilessly reveal the superficialities and hollowness of editors, run of the mill reporters and other sub standard material.

Suddenly the comforts of protection and exclusivity of the 4^th estate are no longer there. The public have standard of comparisons. More importantly they have choices.

The most important effect of the new media in my opinion is the destruction of the monopoly by the media by 4^th estaters. Anyone with a flair of writing, not even trained in journalistic skills and have something to say can now publish their thoughts in space.

We are equal netizens in cyber-democracy distinguishable and differentiated by the thinking we put across and our diligence in arguing and defending them. We are differentiated by our substance.

It's the quality of contents that have proven to be NST's Achilles heel. Its suffering a long draught made worse by the re-emergence of the journalistic undead. Those kicked out by previous regimes because they were in fact, mediocre are making comebacks.

I have long wanted to make comments on the NST in recent years. I have friends who were associated with NST and perhaps that was the main reason why I held back. I have not read NST for a long time- because I want to retrain myself from opening the Pandora's jar. But you can't turn your back on a Paper that has given you good memories.

If it were to be opened, I am afraid I will be disappointed because nothing of interest lies therein that could excite our imagination or challenge our intellect. The NST people will insist that there is hope in there. We the readers know, that for quite some time, when the jar is opened, only terrible things wreaked on our senses.

So I called a friend, a former journalist. Told him, I want to write something about NST- its state of retrogression. He of course was aghast. After all, it was his playground before and who am I, just a plebeian reader to take on the warriors of the 4^th estate.

Well, I said, the immediate term that comes to my mind if I were to describe the present NST, it's a big waste land- much like the foreboding poems written by TS Eliot. The Paper stirs up gloom. It has no leadership. It is struggling to find an identity.

It's a wasteland; I said because that is where the undead journalists go to renew their miserable existence. Where else can any rejects, come back to have second leases of life? I thought these things happened only in politics. The NST wasteland makes the barren land of politics look fresh in comparison.

How would I describe the editorials nowadays? They are languid and turbid. The standard is like essays written by school children more concerned with scoring the right marks. They seem hesitant, unwilling to take positions, argue and defend issues. Editorials may not be right but they must exhibit commitment and loyalty to a cause.

As a not frequent reader of NST, I am also not unaware of the politics in NST. The state of NST now, is perhaps best summed up by the pointers given by uppercaise.

10 good things about an NST revamps

1. It's a way to spend company money by rewarding friends in the marketing business with nice little contracts.
   
2. It's a way to create a fake excitement in a bored newsroom, but mostly among ambitious executives.
   
3. It's a way for corporate tigers to keep busy rushing around bossing everyone.
   
4. It's a way for under-employed executives to suddenly turn "creative" with plenty of "new" ideas stolen from around the world
   
5. It's a way to build or temporarily burnish an ailing reputation and find some short-term glory in "turning around an ailing newspaper".
   
6. It's a way for corporate management to show the owners that Something Is Being Done.
   
7. It's a way for Marketing to bully Editorial by blaming editorial shortcomings for loss of sales.
   
8. It's a way for politico-mercenary executives to shift attention away from the real ills of the paper or company.
   
9. It's a way to have fun and spend other people's money without actually having to do anything.
   
10. It's a way to give graphic designers a chance to dust-off designs languishing in their drawers.
    

It might even con the buying public into taking a second look.