August 13, 2012
From The Horse’s Mouth: Utusan Malaysia is biased
by Hafiz Yatim@http://www.malaysiakini.com
Utusan Malaysia‘s Group Editor-in-Chief Abdul Aziz Ishak has admitted that the UMNO-owned daily does not provide balanced political coverage and instead promotes the aspirations of the ruling party.
Abdul Aziz (left) said told the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today that with any national newspaper, the daily would report on national issues.
He was testifying in a defamation suit filed against the newspaper by PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim.
However, in reporting news about the opposition, Abdul Aziz, 48, would not describe it as providing balanced reporting, rather to side with the aspirations of the ruling party.
Replying to questions from Anwar’s counsel N Surendran, Abdul Aziz was asked whether the daily provided a balanced coverage.
Surendran: In the political arena, do you agree that Utusan does not give a balanced political coverage?
Abdul Aziz: I agree, but it is towards siding with the aspirations of the ruling party.
Earlier, Abdul Aziz admitted that Utusan is mainly owned by UMNO but claimed the party does not interfere with the editorial process.
Surendran: There is an UMNO representative on the board and one who is the representative of the Prime Minister?
Abdul Aziz: Yes, Hashim Ahmad Makaruddin is the chairperson and he is from UMNO.
Surendran: What about PM’s representative?
Abdul Aziz: I would not say the person is a PM’s representative. He is more of the party (representative).
Surendran: You mean Tengku Sharifuddin Tengku Ahmad (Press Secretary to Najib Abdul Razak)?
Abdul Aziz: Yes.
Surendran: Is there any directives given by UMNO on the editorial board with respect to contents or articles regarding the opposition?
Abdul Aziz: There is no intervention at all.
Anwar filed the RM150 million defamation suit against the UMNO-owned Malay daily and two others, Abdul Aziz and former Selangor PAS commissioner Hasan Ali, over what Utusan reported about his interview with the BBC. The daily claims that Anwar wants to legalise homosexuality in the country.
‘Hasan said the truth’
Asked again by Surendran whether the daily carries only negative reports on the opposition, Abdul Aziz maintained that it raises the aspirations of its political masters.
He said although UMNO owns Utusan, its editorial is fairly independent. “We do also report positive news on the opposition and Anwar, as I agree that Anwar is a national figure,” the Utusan Malaysia Goup Editor added.
Surendran then asked about what Utusan’s Deputy Editor, Mohd Zaini Hassan, said that the daily allows spinning of its news as long as it attacked the opposition, but this was objected to the newspaper’s counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin.
Abdul Aziz admitted that he cleared the title and front page report on the alleged defamatory article and found it to be correct.
He said what was reported to have been said by Hasan (right), who is also
Gombak Setia assemblyperson, was the truth.
“We are confident that what Hasan said is the truth,” Abdul Aziz said in replying to another question from Surendran.
“We believe in what we have from Hasan.” he said several times when asked whether the reported news on the issue was the truth.
The witness disagreed that what was reported by Utusan on Anwar was mainly malice. “I do not agree that we negatively report on Anwar, as there are positive news on him that we have highlighted before.”
Abdul Aziz maintained that the alleged defamatory article was fair comment and the daily had the qualified privilege to publish it.
During re-examination by Firoz Hussein, Abdul Aziz said like any media such as Harakah and Rocket, Utusan fulfilled the aspirations of the party that owned the newspaper.
Hearing before Justice V.T Singham continues on October 23.
Credit must go to him for admitting that his paper is pro-UMNO to a fault. The New Straits Times and The Star are owned by political parties. But they have yet to openly admit that they spin on behalf of their political masters.
We can say that Rocket, Suara Keadilan, and Harakah too represent the views of DAP, PKR, and PAS. Malaysiakini and the Malaysian Insider are critical of the government in power, but they are also not to excited about Pakatan Rakyat.
It is tough to be neutral when it comes to corruption, justice, freedom and crony politics. I try to use articles on both sides of the political divide, and I know that you guys are capable of judging what is fact and what is fiction for yourselves. Those who claim to be completely objective, please stand up. –Din Merican
Those who claim to be completely objective, please stand up. –Din Merican
Are you asking Karpal Singh to stand up??
_______________
Bendover and anak malaya will take care of him.–Din Merican
Surendran: In the political arena, do you agree that Utusan does not give a balanced political coverage?
Abdul Aziz: I agree, but it is towards siding with the aspirations of the ruling party.
————————-
Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer. This is one of those classic WTF moments our Didi has been wanting to have.
Alas the dying media shit gets more free publicity !
I don’t know what counsel is up to here but I guess he’s just laying the foundation.
So there is media bias. So what?? In the U.S. there is the liberal bias, the conservative bias etc. The issue here is defamation.
Here’s one definition of defamation and defamatory speech:
Untrue statements which injure the reputation of another i.e. an area of speech that is not protected by the Constitution.
Standard and Burden of Proof: Defamation of Public Officials: there is recognized a certain constitutional protection for certain forms of libel against “public officials”. The public official plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice.
What is actual malice? It is a knowing or reckless falsehood. Not the same as actual malice in the common law sense of “not made in the reasonable belief of its truth”. “Reckless disregard” is not shown by a negligent failure to investigate but by the publisher’s having serious doubts as to the truth of the statements.
Follow that one so far?
That Scott guy who was President Bush’s press secretary admitted in a book that he was fed with lies by his superiors so they could be released to the press. He did it according to him unknowingly. But defamation is a different ball game.
Anwar has a high standard and burden of proof to meet if he were to win this case.
Well, it is says what you like as long as you have the financial and political resources to cover your ass. Suing for defamation and defamatory speech does not work here because most folks does not have the needed resources to seek redress. And for those who have are either armed twist by the AG to throw the cases out or out of court settlement. These cases never see the light of the day. So more hanky panky.
It is only the poor and weak suffers. The saying goes, “when elephants fights all those around them perished”.
From “the horse’s mouth”? Thus far counsel Surendren in his cross examination of the defendant’s key witness has got his nose embedded in the wrong end of the horse.
_____________
Just an aside. Now all Mohameds staying in the UK or visiting the country will be known as Mo as in Mo Farah, the Long Distance double Olympic Gold medalist. –Din Merican
Well, U.S. President Obama signs himself as “BO”.