31 July 2012:
"A free press can be good or bad. Without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad." -Albert Camus
If anyone read today's Straits Times, one would have realised pages A16 and A17 were two full-page advertisements on subscribing to Straits Times. Normally, such a large-scale would have cost a few thousand dollars or more for an advertiser. The fact that they are willing to use so much space to advertise for their own newspaper shows one thing: their readership is declining.How may that be so, actually? The Straits Times is Singapore's longest English daily broadsheet. Most, if not all, Singapore families would have already subscribed to it. The only possible new market would be new citizens, but with news about policies tightening, this would mean that the number of new citizens are decreasing in recent months.
Hence, if you claim that A16 and A17 is used to attract new citizens, I would then ask: would Straits Times really spend so much money on them? Frankly speaking, most new citizens are from China. They are definitely more proficient in Mandarin than English. While I do not deny some may deliberately subscribe to only Straits Times to force themselves to improve their English, I still believe that the majority of Chinese new citizens would rather subscribe Lianhe Zaobao.
The same thing can be said for new citizens coming from India.
It seems like the answer is 'no', to the question of whether Straits Times would spend a few thousand dollars or more to attract a decreasing number of new citizens. Then what may cause a decline in readership?
The most plausible answer would be that Singaporeans are cancelling their subscriptions to Straits Times. Well, why would Singaporeans cancel their subscriptions to Straits Times? Is it because they subscribe in turn to Straits Times online?
Evidently not, because if that were the case Straits Times would not bother to spend so much on print advertisement. I suppose the money earned from online subscriptions would be around the same as print subscriptions, and they would not require such advertisements.
I believe that it is because more Singaporeans (mainly below the age of 35) are realising how biased Straits Times is in terms of local reporting. These people are more open to online information, and I think they would rather get world news from reputable sources such as New York Times or BBC. (I personally like BBC.)
As for local news, I suppose having a daily read of Today newspaper is enough. If not, a search online may reveal even more perspectives or details of said local news item. As such, a Straits Times subscription is unnecessary.
Next would come the logical step of cancelling the subscription. And next would be a decline in readership. Next, still, would be Straits Times publishing full-page advertisements to try and attract people back.
If you look at the advertisement on A16 to A17, there is something about getting Otto massage products if you subscribe. Has Straits Times ever been so generous to subscribers? Apparently not, from what I can remember.
Previously, locals could only read Straits Times. The internet was not very developed and prevalent, and they were of the general impression that Straits Times was unbiased in reporting. Nowadays with organisations such as Reporters Without Borders and the Press Freedom Index being measured every year, the truth is out.
Singapore ranks 135 out of 179 countries. (Surprisingly, the lowest country is not North Korea; it is second-lowest.) Doesn't Singapore try to achieve number one in everything it does? Apparently, this is one item where Singapore does terribly bad in.
Back in 2000, then PM Goh CT claimed that it is okay to sacrifice press freedom for economic growth. Well, it's been twelve years and I'm sure our Singapore economy has been doing alright, if not better. When, if I may ask, is the time to release the iron grip on press freedom?
(By the way, our neighbour up north, Malaysia, ranks more than ten places above us.) The report mentioned about how some countries were surprisingly low on the list even though they had achieved considerable economic growth. Isn't it obvious enough it is about Singapore?
Back to the thing of Straits Times publishing advertisements. Why not everyone continue to observe for another month, how many of such advertisements, no matter big or small, continue to appear? If the quantity and size (of advertisements) increase, I suppose you may form your own conclusion in the context of all above as to how exactly is the readership trend going.
On a side note: the editors of Today and Straits Times are brothers. Both newspapers are supposed to be competitors to each other, although Today is free and earns through advertising. What say you? It is no wonder that many anti-establishment people accuse the government of practising nepotism instead of meritocracy all over government or government-related institutions.
I certainly hope that the Fernandez brothers are really so talented that they both become editors to compete against each other. I have heard stories about how both of them, being political correspondents previously, were groomed by members of the ruling party to toe the line when they oversee Singapore's English dailies. I certainly hope that is not the case, lah.
TTFN.