Playing by the rules
Technorati tags: Malaysia, Journalism, Politics, Malaysian Bloggers Sued, Walk With Us
Update @ Jan 31: The Star made an error in their online version of the story below, which was later corrected in the print edition. Thanks Rocky for the factual correction (which you can read in full in the comments to this post).
Update @ 1657 hrs: It appears that for now, at least, the plaintiffs have agreed to play by the rules (via Walk With Us).
Original Post:
In an ongoing legal case, the last thing that anyone would want happen is a trial by the media. Unfortunately, in many cases this is exactly what happens. And so, this bit of news that Walski read a few minutes ago is a smart move on Rocky's part. (Also, read Rocky's brief post on this, and Jeff's commentary)
Rocky wants to play by the rules. What about the plaintiffs?
(click on image to read the full article)
The biggest question Walski has is this - will the plaintiff(s) also play by the same rules?
Last week Walk With Us revealed that there is a worrying nexus between the Executive, and the plaintiffs in this case. More worrying is the fact that the plaintiffs may have already prejudiced the case. Read the full article here, and a follow-up here. And trust Walski on this one - they are must-reads.
(more journalistic enquiry in the full post)
The rabbit-hole goes deeper, it would seem, than meets the eye. Strategically releasing articles may be a subtle move on the part of NSTP, supposedly in the name of journalism. But peel away the fake vaneer, and it is easy to see that the motivation may not be just journalism and public interest.
The NSTP in publishing what it has, therefore, put its own self in a precarious position. Have they inadvertently (or even purposefully) committed an act prejudicial to an ongoing legal case? Have they inadvertently (or even purposefully) dragged in the Malaysian Goverment Executive into the fray, thus further prejudicing the case?
In other words - have NSTP et al committed acts of judicial contempt by printing the articles in question? Walski's no lawyer, but if the answer to this is yes, then why the fuck are they exempt from playing by the same rules?
Almost grounds, in fact, to throw the cases out, if claims of prejudice and contempt are found to be true. (Disclaimer: this statement comes from a Law-illeterate who watches too much law drama on TV - namely Walski)
Not to be overly paranoid, but consider this; NSTP and just about all the terrestial TV channels are owned by Media Prime Bhd, in whole or in part. Media Prime Bhd, therefore has a role in controlling the nation's mindshare.
Who, then, is behind Media Prime Bhd?
That's a question Walski will let you answer for yourselves (it's actually a no-brainer). But it's a question whose answer is not too difficult to find. And after joining the dots, do you still think that it's nothing more than just libel lawsuits?
