Who is media accountable and responsible to, other than their owners and the civil laws of a land? Are they not also responsible to search for truth and publish all such truths; but, only after they understand all dimensions of that truth matter?
Do we really agree with any current or mainstream view that media ownership is a special privilege of a selected few; reserved only for the rich and famous, or the well-connected?
Do we then also really want to disallow my media colleagues Steven Gan and Premesh Chandran to have started their new media venture; after they have achieved role-models status of a good business model for Asian Internet media?
Do we know and understand serious risks taken by all such entrepreneurs in terms of personal and family issues to enable them to do take risks with new businesses? Or, for that matter, should we not allow media mavericks like Jahabar Sadiq to own and run his most popular new media outlet; but then stop it just because some of the truth hurts the mainstream powers that be?
Knowledge is never secret
Anyone who has been involved in knowledge management and due processes, but not just involved in the educational enterprise or with one-way transfer of knowledge, should know the real difference between data, information, knowledge and wisdom.
These are not just words but a paradigm of knowledge which informs one’s perspective to enable one to distinguish between knowledge and ignorance. The root word for both is gnosis.
Knowing the difference between each of these ideas and/or concepts in its applications, and the understanding of the full implications at each stage of collection, storage, and distribution, allows one to understand and differentiate between each of them at each of different stages of processing and value addition.
To my horror, therefore, even the best of the CNN teams or anchors, in their various programmes frankly do not know the differences between these concepts for ideas or ideals. One person was clear and I have used his definitions in an earlier column. What do I mean?
I am a public policy person and have had sufficient experience and exposure with the Malaysian public policy system. In Malaysian public policy, we too have the overriding concept called ‘the need to know’. It is simply an operational dimension of public policy security which defines who gets to read what, when, and how much, and it clearly specifies the rules of use, misuse, or abuse.
Today, with social media or multiple media modes and forms, we cannot be naïve about what is classified are these so-called ‘confidentiality’ categories; whether ‘secret’ or ‘top secret’.
Secret classification
Every top secret document always starts as a policy analysis report in the early stages and is never super classified. It becomes coded and classified when it gains knowledge with data and information; more than mere raw data. Finally it recommends an action or policy prescription.
When it has gained full top security status; only then does that subject matter become fully and truly classified as top secret. Then they do not get mailed at whim or fancy; regardless of who does it.
In Malaysia, these different categories and files are coloured White, Green, with Red for the final two categories; with a Deep Red X marked across the front of the top secret file which is also handled separately from all other files.
From methodology for storage, movement, distributi0on and reception; the entire paper trail for a top secret file is recorded and documented. Unclassified people who are not yet positively cleared by police and security cannot even touch or handle these files. Really, nothing is left to chance.
Therefore, can we be honest in our intellectual analysis of this kind of stuff with relevance to the Hillary Clinton carelessness? Let us not take it out of its context.
All such knowledge was already in the heads and hearts of all relevant public officials. Is it really that difficult for any outsider to gather enough knowledge about these individuals and track them? Actually, those in the information gathering or intelligence business do this for their early living; and almost at whim or fancy they can source such critical information, by simply knowing all the right and correct players and their watering holes.
Leadership is both speech and conduct
In some cultures of the world, silence is also their medium of communication. Silence speaks as loudly as brash words. Does not leadership of all nation-states need to understand this? Is it not wisdom to know when to speak and when not to speak about a subject matter?
Let me conclude this column with seeking to clarify at which point does any leader of any formal system need to know when to not speak to the media? Let me state a major lesson learned while I had two distinctive experiences about good and wise leadership; at two different workplaces.
One was at the National Institute of Public Administration (Intan). The media had got wind of a serious but secret policy dialogue we at Intan were hosting. One investigative journalist called me and asked to know more about this truth or falsity.
My director, when informed, said we can include the journalist but on condition that he come in and join as a responsible reporter but also learn the full public policy dimensions of need to know. The reporter was in but never reported anything.
In similar vein, while at the International Trade and Industry Ministry (Miti), then-minister Rafidah Aziz never liked or entertained rookie reporters. Even when she had a public press conference, she avoided speaking on petty issues or concerns but always spoke only to the subject of the conference.
But soon, the media team learned quickly enough to line up some very knowledgeable senior journalists who would conduct follow-up interviews on the same subject matter of serious concern.
All knowledge is found in hierarchical forms. Wisdom knows the difference between knowledge and ignorance. One does not give roses to monkeys, as a Malay saying goes. Knowledge is always value-added information. So first, one must have comprehensive knowledge about a subject matter and then seek to add value to existing knowledge; never to simply create false interest in the subject.
Only then can one seek to add value to any factual information after one understands the context of that knowledge and information by differentiation. May God bless Malaysia with information but not ignorance.