People who knows me know that I don’t read the papers. At least none of the local ones. Why? Because it’s crap. Everyone knows that. It’s like a propaganda pamphlet of the authorities and powers-that-be, shoving itself into the unsuspecting brains of its readers. In saying that, however, I do buy local newspapers. Not so much because of the news but rather for the comic strips, sports section and occasionally, the world news section. All in that order.
Another main reason why I don’t read the local news in our newspapers is because we – as in the generic “we” – tend to talk about it vigorously in the coffee shops, pubs, social gatherings, workplace, etc. We tend to talk about any issues with passion and subconsciously treat it as our social and political reality. In my opinion, it’s all nothing but a load of stinky pile of shit. I admit that I do get pulled into such talks – conveniently termed as “discussion” or “coffee shop talk” – and it’s only later, after those discussions that I think about it, and tell myself: “What am I talking about? And what am I going to do about it?” Eventually, as the news or the representation of reality slowly fades from the pages of the newspaper, the issue is quickly forgotten. Y’know, something like the haze. Do read about it in the newspaper for the past week? None. Zilch! Why? Because it’s no longer an issue. It’s not “there” anymore.
That is why I don’t like reading newspapers. And there have been many times when I’m sucked into this “coffee shop talk” where people take everything so seriously. It suddenly becomes my opinion versus their opinions based on a falsely constructed reality, whose sole existence is based on nothingness. That’s right, “nothingness”. Whatever the ministers or politicians say, and whether it has any direct connection with the grassroots societies, it becomes huge in the paper. The masses get sucked into it. So, when we talk about it in the coffee shops or bars, we become a diversified representation of them, i.e. the politician’s ideology. Frighteningly, if you come to think of it, you and I become the mouthpiece of those politicians. The mouthpiece of being shit. An epitome of shit. Now, how’s that?
Discussing issues, especially political ones, presented in the local newspapers is akin to being a pundit. Y’know, something like a football pundit or commentators. And not all those pundits really know what they’re talking about but hey, to a certain extent they can influence the betting trend, alter the audience’s perception of the game and even determine what to show or not to show on the news. These are football pundits. The only difference between football pundits and “coffee shop news” pundits is that the latter don’t get paid for their talk. All those teh tarik, ice lemon teas or kopi O kosong, no one’s subsidising it. The “coffee shop news” pundits have to pay for their own expenses.
Sometimes, I watch the football commentaries on TV and there is this guy, Shebby Singh, a famous local football pundit who used to be a good player, that would make comments on the week’s game (especially on the English Premier League teams). If you listen to him closely, I seriously do not think he knows anything about being a football pundit. Hey, I don’t know anything about being a football pundit but I’m not one. He is, and if you go to any coffee shop talking about football, their knowledge of the game and Shebby’s are not that far apart. But who gets paid for it?
The same goes to the newspaper. The news reporters, or “journalists” as they call themselves here, are like those pundits. Some of them write something that makes no sense at all just because the Authoritydom says so, and therefore, it is so. For instance, yesterday the Prime Minister in The Star – the people’s paper (yeah, right…people my ass) said: “It is time to look at laws and start chanign them if they are an obstacle or hindrance”. He wanted to expedite the implementation of the 9th Malaysia plan and argued that some of the laws and regulations had been in place since the British rule. Helloooo? Were we living under the colonial rule mentality all these while? And can Authoritydom just change the laws just because it doesn’t go along with proposed development projects? Therefore, does that mean, for instance, that the Native Customary Rights land of the people can just be extinguished just because it impedes timber and oil palm companies from doing their work? After all, in Sarawak, these are important proponents of development. Now, as for the local journalists, can’t they actually address such issues when they listen to the Authoritydom speak like that? Like I said, a “mouthpiece”.
