This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on September 11, 2023 - September 17, 2023

As a journalist and media practitioner of 39 years, I will not subscribe to the idea of total freedom of the press and expression, which some journalists clamour for, not in the days of the internet and social media.

The internet and social media platforms are being dubbed as a place where digital democracy reigns supreme. Yes, it gives voice to people who want to be heard, notably to those ignored by the mainstream media, powerful media owners and the government of the day. But total freedom at what cost?

Some say the mainstream media, like the one I built my entire journalism career on, is dead and buried. It will eventually have no place in the borderless cyber world. But that does not mean fair reporting, a health check on facts and figures and publishing the truth have to be sacrificed in the race for speed — where accuracy and truth come a distant second.

The internet has democratised the world of journalism, creating a space where almost everyone who has access to the cyber world can publish and comment on what they like. It is a liberation of sorts. But that does not mean it is a licence to lie, slander and spread disinformation, and in the Malaysian context, where we have experienced racial riots in the past, to incite racial and religious hatred.

The mainstream media, in the case of newspapers, is governed by the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. The statute casts its net wide, covering the usage of printing presses and the printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing and distribution of publications in the country.

One major objection that the industry has is that the licence or permit granted under the Act can be revoked by the government of the day if it finds that there is “justification” to do so. This acts like the sword of Damocles hanging over media houses, and because of this, newspapers are sometimes accused of not being brave enough to do more investigative journalism and push the limits of the freedom of the press.

While it is not often used, the Act can be abused. The Edge was suspended for three months in 2015 for its persistent reporting of the 1MDB financial scandal. One of the reasons used to suspend The Edge was that its reporting was deemed to be speculative rather than based on facts — which could cause “public and economic disorder”. The eventual unravelling of the 1MDB fiasco as one of the largest financial scandals in the world involving a government and its prime minister disproved that claim.

Although The Edge was suspended, to be fair to the government, it did not prevent us from taking legal action to seek a judicial review — which proved there was a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive — and as a result, the suspension was lifted. Subsequently, The Edge took the government to court for the suspension, won the case and was duly compensated.

While this was the case for The Edge, the Act and others like the Sedition Act (1948) have been effective in managing social conflicts that could arise from irresponsible reporting on race, religion and royalty (3R) — matters that are deemed most sensitive to the different races and followers of various religions in the country.

For those in the mainstream media, while we crave the freedom to report, under these delicate circumstances, we were also trained to avoid controversial 3R issues, always seek to present fair and balanced views, verify the facts and sources of the stories and never give prominence to a one-sided story, let alone publish those with undertones of incitement.

Unlike the news portals of today and individual account holders of various platforms who also report and share news and information on 3R issues, I would still believe that the traditional newsroom virtues of the mainstream media should not be sacrificed for speed.

Today, media reports, postings or comments on 3R issues in the cyber world are in the free-for-all mode. These are dominated by toxic political and religious views and slander and lies have become mainstream news. Nobody seems to be interested in true, fair and balanced reporting.

If this is the case, why then should those who communicate over the internet not be governed by existing laws, including the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998? It is true that when the government launched the Multimedia Super Corridor in 1996 it was promised that there would be no censorship of the internet.

There have been protests against the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) over its “Big Brother” practice of allegedly blocking online content carried by news portals and TV sites.

The government, through the MCMC, just like in the case of The Edge, could be seen as abusing its regulatory position but it has responded that some news outlets have been found to be irresponsible in spreading or intentionally publishing inaccurate content.

The MCMC says: “With the vast amount of information available online, it becomes challenging to distinguish between fact and fiction. This poses a significant threat to societal harmony as misleading information can easily be propagated and a false narrative can be created.”

While the government via the MCMC can indeed abuse its regulatory powers, first and foremost, the onus of accurate and fair reporting lies with online media practitioners and owners. This should include the responsibility to hear the other side of the story.

In the past, there have been proposals for the media to be self-regulated and that a media council or commission be established to serve as an ombudsman. This is for the media to sort out and if they truly believe they can be responsible enough to be self-regulating.

But in the meantime, those who are not in the news and reporting profession, the public, including politicians, their supporters, cybertroopers, paid messengers and anonymous commentators must be made accountable to the country’s laws.

Last week, an individual in Singapore was handed a six-week jail sentence over four accounts of trying to “promote feelings of ill-will between different racial and religious groups”.

Here in Malaysia in recent weeks, with three by-elections going on, the 3R issues are again being peddled to win votes, with many of the issues — which are untrue and have been clarified many times — doing a rerun. These include allegations about the closure of religious/tahfiz schools in Selangor and a redelineation exercise that would see a high increase in parliamentary seats that could result in the removal of the constitutional rights of the Malays and even the position of the Malay rulers.

Then there is the seasonal fatwa issue which condemns Muslims as infidels if they choose to vote for the ruling government that partners the Chinese-led DAP. This sort of misinformation just will not go away unless the weight of the law is brought down on those who spread such content.

For Muslims, maybe the spread of misinformation has become so uncontrolled and so imbued with the community that the last two Friday sermons (Sept 1 and Sept 8) were titled “Influencers, beware of the danger of gheebah (backbiting)” and “The danger of fitnah (fabrication and slandering)”.

The Quran says: “O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.” Verse 6 Surah Al-Hujuraat.

The sermons also reminded Muslims that the fitnah we are witnessing rampantly today is known as fitnah shubuhaat, which means a thing that is vague and unclear and can create uncertainty and uneasiness in the community. This could lead the ummah “to fall into the valley of misguidance”.

The sermons added that as Muslims with imaan (faith), they must not spread lies or slander and “must stay away from the habit of responding to fake news with more fake news, and responding to lies with something of its like”. Muslims must always practise tabayyun (verification) about all information attained by referring to credible authorities and experts.

But how many of them, including Muslims, in their craving for the newfound freedom of information and expression in the cyber world, are listening and even afraid of God’s law?

Azam Aris is an editor emeritus at The Edge

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.