The First and Last Word

A Game Theory approach in tackling the Mainstream Media in Singapore

Recently, during the interviews with Pei Juan (the honours student working on a project about social-political bloggers, mentioned by several bloggers) and Linda (who is doing a case study on Singapore Angle), I summarize a strategy how bloggers can handle the mainstream media without the fear of being misquoted. The strategy is a pragmatic example of this so-called "power" that Kitana and Aaron purported about citizen journalism and new media. Of course, the strategy is successfully deployed on my previous engagements  with the political roundtable and the BlogTV.SG. On both occasions, if you have read between the lines in both my posts on the issue, they are deliberately constructed to ensure that I will not be misquoted or allow a particular interesting segment to be aired.

In essence, the strategy is a collective effort using the wisdom of crowds (another web 2.0 concept) from my colleagues in Singapore Angle and rely on simple game theory on how the bloggers can circumvent the mainstream media even if they may have the first word to distort your quotes. The catalyst that led me to coin the term the "last word strategy" came from a conversation on citizen journalism and web 2.0 with Kevin, Preetamrai and Benjamin Koe in the recent E27 event IV: You are the Media. In fact, Benjamin Koe provides a pedagogical viewpoint on how I casually called it the last word strategy.

I will explain why the last word strategy works so well on both occasions. If you are afraid of being misquoted by the mainstream media in Singapore, you can adopt two approaches: one, taking the stone wall defensive approach to disengage with the MSM (which is what Mr Wang believes, and I call this the old paradigm which the nay-sayers, critics and pessimists loved) or two, leverage on the weakness of the mainstream media to create the most optimal and rational outcome.

Squeezing the Press

When I read  Kishore Mahbubani's article 'Singapore journalists have a difficult job', my first perception is that he is trying to defend the credibility of the journalists in the print media despite we are ranked 146th in the world for press freedom. In fact, the mainstream media is under siege from the new media and the old authority. The new media distrusts and shuns them and the old authority are not giving them any leeway to expand beyond their domain. If you have attended the recent DSC forum, Tan Tarn How briefly explained the philosophy behind the workings of a Singaporean journalist: the journalist does not lie, but gives an angle of what the truth means or choose to give the whole truth. In fact, the truth is not about being accurate but comes in the form of how you package it to the masses.

The mainstream media has lost its credibility and the fact that they are only dominating group has made it worse for them. Let me paint an explanation using the economic argument based on monopoly. If you are the only group of people control the information, i.e. you own the monopoly of information, it is likely that two things will happen, you are able to decide what people can read and you will have the tendency to bulldoze without the fear of losing your credibility. It's obvious that if you are the only source of information and there is no competition, the tendency is that you will grow arrogant and provide the incentive for others to come up with something alternative to break your monopoly. We call that "creative destruction" or entrepreneurship.  The mainstream media has dominated for the past few decades in that way. Every small incident of not putting out the whole truth chipped away the credibility. Note that I use the principle of charity and assume that Tan Tarn How's assertion that the mainstream media do not lie.  Of course, if you are the Goliath and you are not compassionate to the masses, you will suffer your retribution when the time comes.

The internet or Web 2.0 has changed the dynamics for the mainstream media. In the old days, the media is the be-all and end-all of information. If they choose to misquote you or not even bother to cite you (see Aaron's example), there is no platform which you can come out and tell everyone that you are misquoted or not being cited. However, citizen journalism provides the alternative avenue and starts to become the credible source. It has been shown recently that more and more people are relying on new media for news instead of the mainstream media.

So, if you are the mainstream media, what will you do? Of course, since the mainstream media is a big corporation and they will adopt the most direct approach, start a campaign to argue that the new media should be regulated like the old media, otherwise, give the old media more power to write what they want. You have seen the past year how this conversation keep recurring from the mainstream journalists. It's a win-lose approach for them and we can all see where that is going from looking at the rally speech 2006.

Inherently, the emergence of the new media provides us to exploit the traditional strengths of the old media and translate them into weaknesses. That is the essence of the last word strategy in simple game theory.  

Why the last word works today and not yesterday

"As he (BL) was casually using the phrase, it suddenly dawned upon me that there was a phenomenon created here out of the social media (mainly blogs) that actually worked against the mainstream media. To my native PR mind, media is media be it online or off, by journalists or citizens, it didn't matter. They are the media and they are a force as a whole." - Benjamin Koe

That description captures the essence of the last word strategy. In the old days, the mainstream media have the first and the last word to how your quotation, interpretation and image be shaped for their own purposes. No matter how you try to counter that, there is no avenue for you to reach out to the masses. Of course, with the new web 2.0 revolution (that comes in the form of blogs, podcasts and vodcasts), you can now take the advantage to politely tell the media not to censor or misquote you after the interview is over. In a gentleman's approach, you can give them the first word but you take the last word. Even if they misquote you, the masses can be reached via viral marketing, from those who have to know and trust you, and even better, get them to decide for themselves who is distorting the truth. You can advance that position by putting them in a position if they don't print or broadcast a certain interesting segment of the interview, you will talk about it in your own blog.

This approach is not universally applicable. If you try this strategy in US, it is likely that you will fail. The US mainstream media is polarized into many different views and no matter what you say, it can be twisted in any way and they will continue to take away your chances of having the last word. That is why diversity can both work for and against you.

If our government has allowed some alternative newspaper which sings other political lines, the last word strategy will not be so successful in Singapore. This comes to my next point. The last word strategy works well in Singapore precisely because there is only one dominant mainstream media. The attitude of the public follows exactly, "no one likes the biggest bully in the class".

Their monopoly creates a problem for them: for any good deed they do, for example not misquoting me, the public will say that it is their job to tell the truth, and for just one bad deed like distorting one's statements, the public will deem them less credible. So, the last word is more portent in Singapore, because there is no alternative voice in the mainstream media.

Acknowledgments: Without the collective wisdom of my colleagues from Singapore Angle, I would not come to understand and put this game-theoretic approach into practice. I also thank PJ, Linda and Benjamin for the inspiration to put it to blog.

Author's Note: The title is inspired by Olaf Stapleton's "Last and First Men", a science fiction classic I have read some time back. (Edited as of 18 Feb 2007, got the title in the wrong order).
 

Comments

[Elia Diodati]

Your strategy works both ways though. Doesn't mean the MSM can't employ Papanons to troll back. :)