Navigating the Complexities of Modern Journalism
Just days after publishing a story about a woman who claimed to have suffered a miscarriage after waiting four hours for treatment in KKH’s A&E department, Wake Up Singapore (WUSG) issued a correction notice prompted by the Ministry of Health under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).
This incident follows another alarming case where a woman lost her unborn child after a two-hour wait at NUH’s A&E. Naturally, these accounts of alleged neglect have stirred public outrage, casting doubt on the quality of care at these institutions.
Healthcare professionals have been under immense pressure, and the situation has only worsened. The surge of COVID-19 cases, particularly the Omicron variant at the end of 2021 and throughout 2022, overwhelmed A&E departments with patients who required attention but not hospitalization.
Falsely accusing medical staff of misconduct during this challenging period is particularly damaging. In their apology posted before the correction notice, WUSG stated they had “acted in good faith by taking steps to verify [the source’s] account” after KKH filed a police report regarding the evidence shared by WUSG. Upon investigation, KKH found significant discrepancies in the claims and determined that the woman had indeed been seen by a doctor and did not suffer a miscarriage. Subsequently, the hospital filed a police report to address the false allegations.
Shifting Patterns of News Consumption
WUSG has characterized itself as a volunteer-run platform, but the specifics of who operates their social media remain unclear, as they have been publishing anonymously for the past two years.
Public reaction to the KKH incident has been polarized. Some detractors relished the irony of the “man-hunter” becoming the hunted, while a coalition of supporters called for compassion, urging for a second chance for the anonymous volunteers at WUSG, whose “fierce spirits [need] to be handled with care.”
This divergence in opinions raises larger questions about the evolving nature of journalism and the platforms that disseminate news. A Statista poll indicated that 83% of Singaporeans receive their news online, including through social media. The ongoing discussion around protecting the public from misinformation highlights that social media is often not conducive to nuanced, fact-checked information.
Given that many consumers primarily access information through online channels, it’s likely that the average Singaporean encounters content from alternative media outlets like WUSG, which predominantly operate on social platforms.
Digital innovation has transformed the media landscape for both readers and producers. Traditional state-owned publications, which have struggled to create profitable digital models, now compete with agile creators like WUSG, who gain traction by addressing issues often overlooked by mainstream media.
The High Standards of News Reporting
WUSG has successfully leveraged timely reactions to current events and discussions on sensitive topics as part of their growth strategy. They have often labeled their platform as an “alternative news source” while referring to their output as “reporting.”
Their readers, who likely engage with content from established media, may expect the same level of quality and fact-checking in WUSG’s offerings. Understandably, readers would invoke standards of journalism when consuming content from a platform that claims to be a news source. A former supporter characterized WUSG’s actions as “bad journalism that is not easily recovered with a simple apology.”
However, it’s essential to recognize that mishaps are often inevitable for alternative media outlets in Singapore. The industry’s general lack of resources means independent journalists may struggle to develop and practice journalistic skills consistently.
While it’s not impossible for these outlets to produce quality work, the challenge lies in meeting high standards without sufficient funding or infrastructure to support their efforts. This brings into question whether it’s fair to hold emerging players in the alternative media space to the same standards as established journalists, and what it will take for them to regain credibility after a misstep.
WUSG’s Ascension to Prominence
For those unfamiliar, WUSG’s rise began on Instagram and Facebook. In January 2020, they had under 30,000 followers on Instagram, but that number has since surpassed 150,000. Two significant events fueled this rapid growth: the 2020 General Election and the COVID-19 pandemic.
There was a clear demand for unfiltered, anti-establishment commentary during this time. Although WUSG maintained a website (which has been offline since shortly after the correction notice), their most recognized content has been primarily social media-driven.
WUSG’s tone sets it apart; it often employs a combative style and delivers information in concise bullet points across several slides. Their unique voice is exemplified in statements like, “We may not be balanced (we never claimed to be), but our presence balances the playing field.”
Initially, much of their content consisted of screengrabs of news articles from established outlets paired with provocative captions and memes. However, over the past year, their scope has expanded to include longer-form infographics and original pieces that invite readers to their website.
To their credit, WUSG often amplifies minority voices and discusses issues that receive limited attention in mainstream discourse, including the abolition of the death penalty and discussions on LGBTQ+ rights.
Defining News Sources
If something behaves like a news source and presents itself as such, can it truly be regarded as one? WUSG’s “About” section previously claimed they aimed to be a trusted and accessible alternative news source, striving to shed light on important issues and amplify marginalized voices.
Following the KKH incident, WUSG revised their Instagram bio to remove the designation “alternative news source,” opting instead for the label “community.”
Critics argue that WUSG’s political leanings, which tend to be anti-establishment, hinder their ability to provide objective information. While WUSG declined to comment for this article, it raises questions about how their credibility has been impacted by their alignment.
Perceptions of Truth in Journalism
Veteran journalist PN Balji asserts that the notion of an objective truth in journalism is elusive. He contends that every news outlet presents a version of reality shaped by its perspective and biases.
Balji posits that even established state media outlets project the government’s narrative, making it challenging to discern the “real view” of society. PJ Thum, managing editor of New Naratif, echoes this sentiment, highlighting the challenges faced by independent media outlets in accessing information.
Both Balji and Thum emphasize that the reliance on an objective standard for evaluating news diminishes the credibility of all media players, reinforcing a cycle where state media leans toward the government’s viewpoint and alternative media tends to counteract that bias.
Thum categorically states that he doesn’t view WUSG as a legitimate news source, advocating for the public to practice discernment when engaging with various media outlets. Balji, however, acknowledges that journalism’s beauty lies in its lack of clear definitions.
The Alternative Perspective
Nur and Yulianna Frederika, co-founders of Lepak Conversations—a platform advocating for issues affecting the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore—expressed solidarity with WUSG. They believe in giving WUSG an opportunity to regain credibility, while acknowledging that a second chance does not equate to a clean slate.
Yulianna contends that WUSG should be held to journalistic standards, while Nur emphasizes that the term “journalist” has broadened to encompass a wider range of contributors in today’s media landscape. They agree that transparency about limitations and potential gaps is vital for WUSG as they continue to evolve.
Regional Solidarity and Knowledge Sharing
Funding and sustainability remain central challenges for media outlets globally, and Singapore is no exception. However, knowledge sharing could be an underutilized resource.
Journalists often work in silos due to competitiveness, hindering collaboration and information sharing. In the alternative media space, this separation is exacerbated by a lack of access to established networks.
The experience of independent media in neighboring Southeast Asian countries demonstrates the value of coalition-building. Initiatives like AJI in Indonesia and PCIJ in the Philippines focus on knowledge sharing through fellowships and capacity-building workshops.
Thum emphasizes that Singapore’s independent journalists could greatly benefit from engaging with regional peers to address common challenges in the media landscape.
Conclusion
WUSG’s significant misstep underscores the importance of rigorous sourcing and verification in journalism. Legacy media outlets benefit from established processes and resources that alternative platforms may lack.
Ultimately, as the media landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to consider the role of independent journalism within the broader context and foster a culture of collaboration and mutual support that encourages the growth and sustainability of diverse media voices.
