“Join for what?”
“Nobody reads it one lah.”
These were the kind of remarks, which I heard repeatedly, when I first joined The RIDGE as an innocent freshman in August 2010. I soon realised that being part of student journalism in NUS was more than just about the writing. I heard from several students that there was a major reshuffling of personnel within the editorial board in AY 09/10, the academic year before I matriculated. With that in mind, I went to dig up the archives and speak to journalists from the past. What I found was that the history of the RIDGE, and student journalism in NUS, is one that was filled with more ups and downs than a Universal Studio roller-coaster ride.
While most of the NUS undergraduate population now see The RIDGE magazine as a 64-page magazine, which is generally praised as “professional”, few have been around long enough to remember some of the darker parts of its history. It is not often that organisations are willing to be transparent about their controversial past but I am convinced that a certain degree of transparency is important for every organisation. Contrary to popular belief, hindsight is not always 20/20. It is always coloured by bias, post-hoc rationalisation and, as history majors will fully empathise, a difficulty to retell events as it is. But I will try my best, not just to recount the history of The RIDGE but raise the issues that have afflicted student journalism in NUS.
My investigations took me to the very beginning where it all started. The year was 1984 (all semblances to creepy authoritarian worlds are purely coincidental). Then NUSSU Publications Secretary Tan Cheng Han started The RIDGE with the idea that it was a “good idea to have more of a newspaper type publication on campus.” The RIDGE eventually evolved into the more polished magazine it is today with more varied content. Still, Tan, who later became the Dean of the NUS Law Faculty, applauded the progress of the magazine, saying, “I do come across The Ridge now and then and while it has evolved into a more professional publication it is very much in the spirit of what I envisaged.” The RIDGE was probably the first of its kind but that would eventually change, with other student publications, independent of NUSSU, springing up spontaneously.
The Rise of “Alternative Media”
The RIDGE has always had to deal with the stigma that it is merely a mouthpiece of NUSSU despite the fact that we do print articles critical of NUSSU and its constituent bodies. Nevertheless, students are entitled to question our independence given our financial reliance on NUSSU to print copies of the magazine for campus-wide distribution. For this reason, it is unsurprising that over the years, alternative news sources have arisen. Today, there are two relatively well-known independent student groups which cover campus news, albeit with a different emphasis: Kent Ridge Common (KRC) and The Campus Observer (TCO).
KRC was set up by Lester Lim, then a Philosophy major, in January 2009. At the time of writing, I was unable to contact him for discussion. Instead, I met up with the current KRC editorial team, Salima (Year 4, Theatre Studies), Xiang Yeow (Year 3, Chemistry) and Anirudh (Year 2, Economics & Political Science). I was pleasantly surprised by how much KRC has in common with The RIDGE. Both groups want to give students a platform to air their views and want to develop the writing ability of student contributors through constructive feedback from the editors. What distinguished us and KRC was that they have a “flatter hierarchy”. Unlike The RIDGE, KRC does not have “desk editors” or “copyeditors”. Instead, they depend on freelance submissions; anything and everything that students are interested in writing about can be submitted to KRC. According to their website, “students write about anything they want, anytime they want.” It is this free spirit which has seen KRC’s website popularity skyrocket. Topics range from campus news to political commentary about Singapore. Some of their articles get thousands of page-views which is remarkable for a small student-run website.
The Campus Observer (TCO) was founded in August 2006 and has a slightly different mission from KRC and The RIDGE. They focus mainly on breaking news and emphasize accuracy and fairness. According to their website (http://campus-observer.org), they are “committed to the expression of diverse viewpoints, to being a top source for in-depth and comprehensive news and features.” Kelly Ng (Yr 4, Communications & New Media), is one of the editor-writers for TCO. Ng says that TCO did not have much of a hierarchy, similar to KRC, and members of the editorial team edit each other’s work. The team of writers used to be drawn from the NM4211 (Online Journalism) module but in recent times, they have also taken in writers from various faculties. Ng says that one of the major challenges of being a student news journalist is juggling academic commitments, timeliness of the news as well as making sure that the writing is up to standard.
Joel Chow, who was managing editor of Campus Observer in AY10/11, says, “We try our best to get direct quotes and primary sources, so it really is time-consuming, and without any tangible immediate payoff, there is little incentive to produce good work.” He added that they also had to kill some stories because the paper has a policy of naming all its sources but sources preferred to remain anonymous. From my understanding, TCO is struggling to maintain a stable team of journalists. Ultimately, Ng said, “there needs to be a balance between getting news out and making sure it’s well written.”
There will always be people who will doubt The RIDGE’s impartiality but it is perhaps too simplistic a view. Every organisation has to deal with and balance the power interests and agendas of various stakeholders, even the independent student publications. Regardless, there is definitely a space for all of us to exist on campus. Each student publication fulfils a different niche on campus and appeals to different audience. I believe that we spur each other on to be better. The more pertinent question to ask is: are we doing enough to encourage a vibrant scene for student journalism? I believe the answer is no. Take a look at the editorial boards of all three publications; there are barely any Communications & New Media (CNM) majors. Something is desperately wrong with the system if the very people who are learning about the rules governing the media and the various news writing styles are not the people running the major student publications.
If American universities such as Yale and Harvard have vibrant student publications (see: Yale Daily News and The Harvard Crimson), I believe that NUS, which prides itself as being a world-class university, should endeavour to do the same. It would be a shame if we have to wait for the setting up of Yale-NUS College before students take more interest in journalism and general freedom of expression on campus.
The Spectre of Censorship
On 20 January 2008, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) held a public forum discussing the need for electoral reform. While The RIDGE published an article about the forum in both its online and print version, the SDP later published an article on its website on 3 April 2008, accusing the magazine of censoring an interview conducted with Dr. Chee Soon Juan, SDP’s secretary-general. In response, the RIDGE’s editorial team defended its decision by claiming that the interview was merely “part of the research process” and that it is “not a mouthpiece of the SDP.” According to the follow-up article posted on the website of the SDP on 8 April 2008, the SDP asserted that “the overall climate of fear in Singapore, including the universities, it is hard to believe that censorship, imposed or otherwise, does not play a role when it comes to reporting on politics.”
Kelvin Lim, the writer at the middle of the controversy, said “I was genuinely irritated by [SDP’s] response. I thought it would have been wiser to actually hold back and do some basic fact finding before announcing so reactively.”
“[But] I believe that students should have the freedom to publish interviews, regardless of the political views that the interviewees espouse. Universities are the ideal place for ideas to be exchanged. Censorship in any form only leaves everyone poorer and more close-minded,” he added.
I was unable to contact the editors involved for comment. Nevertheless, the spectre of censorship looms large in NUS. I am sure many students wonder whether they are indeed free to write as they please. It is precisely because of this fear that alternative student publications claiming to be “independent” have grown.
What we have to understand is that the NUSSU of the past is not the NUSSU of the present – organisations evolve over time. In my opinion, in the age of mass media, the days of heavy-handed and overt censorship are over. Even the Office of Student Affairs (OSA) has changed. When contacted, A/P Tan Teck Koon, Dean of Students, agreed that policies have changed. He said that in the past, the Student Liaison Office (Office of Student Affairs’ predecessor), used to vet every single student publication but he assured me that this was no longer the case. However, he did mention a few guidelines that might be of note to student publications. Firstly, all articles must contain the full name of the author (note: the RIDGE and other student publications have made exceptions). Secondly, the student publications must allow for the ‘right of response’. Thirdly, there is a need to observe prudence in matters about race, religion and politics. He added that not being “partisan” means to allow a “balanced” view from all parties and not just singular viewpoints. I think ultimately, it is important to remain as objective and as thorough in our research as possible. For aspiring journalists, C. P. Scott’s remark in 1921 still reads like a commandment, “comments are free, but facts are sacred.” It is not the opinions but the facts that will determine the worth of an article.
Newsworthy or Mere Sensationalism
In February 2008, the RIDGE published an article about safe sex and sex education, using the results of a survey as a basis for discussion. Unfortunately, the survey only had 56 respondents with unequal representation from each faculty – a survey that was statistically insignificant. When the article was published, it created a huge uproar. An online commenter named “Alvin” said about the survey, “the sampling looks like it was haphazardly done, with no sampling frame and all the random selection.” Another commenter, who remained anonymous, said “Poor research man!! Seriously are you an arts undergrad?? Defame my fac & uni!! [sic]”
It did not help matters that a mainstream newspaper picked up the article and ran with the headline ‘64% of NUS undergraduates have sex’. In response, the writer of the article and then Chief Editor Nurhayati Khan responded online saying, “I regret to say that the original article has failed in its attempt to highlight a major issue in the sexual practices of some NUS students; not the sex itself, but the lack of protection used.” Because of a lack of rigour in her survey methodology coupled with the controversial subject at hand, readers were not so much concerned about her message of promoting safe sex but ended up focusing on her mistakes. Eisen Teo, then a third year History student at NUS and previous News Editor of The RIDGE, wrote an article published in The Straits Times (21 April 2008) and remarked that, “If one student survey cannot be handled properly, how can student journalism be taken seriously and be tasked to delve into more serious issues?”
The black-cover issue of The RIDGE, which was printed in February 2010, represented another low point in the history of The RIDGE. The issue published a double-whammy of an interview with a sex-worker by writers Brittany Hardin and Chinmaya Joshi as well as a feature by writer Nathanael PS, on Sasha Grey, an international adult-film actress. Some students I spoke to said that they saw nothing wrong with that, with the caveat that the articles had to be well-written and they should raise pertinent points of discussion. Having read both articles, I argue that the articles fall short of either one of the criteria. The interview with the sex worker raised the very relevant issue of human trafficking but was often garbled and largely inconclusive. The feature on Sasha Grey was well-written, in the sense that it was largely coherent but it is unclear why the writer chose to write about her and it merely ends up reading like the aim of the article was merely to shamelessly rake in readership with the mantra: “sex sells.” Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it caused a huge uproar and the entire editorial team was sacked after the issue was published. Had there been active intervention in the content of the magazine, such a debacle could have been avoided.
In 28 May 2012, Koh Choon Hwee, then a final year Philosophy student at NUS, wrote an article for Kent Ridge Common with the headline ‘Cyberbullying in NUS‘. In the article, she detailed how Keira Chen, then a third year History student, was ridiculed in a private Facebook group of USP students. Although Koh wrote, “I would like to remind readers here, however, that it was only a minority of USP students who had engaged in making vicious comments, and there remain wonderful aspects of the USP,” she also wrote that “Apart from the largely online negative reactions from USP students, it was demoralising too to find out that USP staff also engaged, however unintentionally, in perpetuating negative stereotypes about us.” Since the mainstream media picked up the article, many members of the public begun to criticise the USP and labeled it ‘elitist’. I personally felt that Koh was using an isolated incident to cast aspersions on the larger USP community (You can read my full response here).
Another article published in The RIDGE’s March 2012 print magazine also stirred up a lot of mixed feelings. The article titled “Poor Sportsmanship?” was published anonymously to the annoyance of Eusoff Hall. The writer, who remained anonymous despite calls for his identity to be revealed, wrote about what he/she deemed to be poor sportsmanship on the part of Eusoff Hall after winning the Inter-hall Games (IHG) 2012. The writer argues that “Eusoff Hall has been guilty of going overboard with its victory celebrations so much so that it bothers on utter disrespect for their opponents.” Not surprisingly, Eusoff Hall demanded an apology from The RIDGE but no apology was given as the editorial board felt that the article was justified and the necessary fact-checking had been done.
How much of these articles are sensationalism and showboating and how much of it provides a balanced and well-substantiated argument that needs to be made? It is difficult to make a judgement as many of our judgements will inevitably be subjective. One point I definitely agree on is that as student journalists, we must strive to uphold journalistic integrity. Our youth and inexperience is no good excuse to misrepresent the facts and dramatise the situation. At the same time, I think it is important to apply the ‘principle of charity’ to some of these writers. I doubt that any of these writers, Koh included, deliberately intended to sensationalise the issue, instead it is also important for readers to learn how to judge articles not just based on their ‘sensational’ value but also on the strength of their argument and its basis in facts.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Suhas Bhat, ex-Chief editor of the RIDGE, puts it this way, “when it comes to journalism within NUS, a Catch-22 paradox exists whereby journalism will be in vogue once there’s good journalism present but that won’t happen if we don’t recruit good journalists in the first place!”
I think it is fair to say that a vibrant group of student publications should exist in NUS. To achieve that, all of the stakeholders need to play their part. More students need to step forward to write insightful commentary and report on the daily activities happening on campus. School administration needs to continue loosening up the regulations that stifle freedom of expression and be more forthcoming with information that would concern students. Readers need to be more willing to interact with student journalists, creating a constant dialogue about policies that affect students, which would benefit everyone in the long-run.
The journey towards a stronger scene for student journalism in NUS has not been smooth and there will be more painful and controversial moments along the way, but isn’t that all part of growing up?