In the next couple of weeks, Malaysians would be witnessing an avalanche of torrid and horrid news and views about the West, specifically the United States. That is, if the exhortation of the honourable Foreign Affairs Minister Syed Hamid Albar is to be taken seriously by Malaysia's oft-compliant mainstream media, particularly the newspapers.

This, as some of you - who still read the awful mainstream newspapers - would recall, stemmed from the minister's revulsion towards what he considered as the American media's journalistic double standards.

In an oblique reference to a predictably selected and highly profiled "Letter of the day" in the April 21 issue of the New Straits Times , written by a certain Chairil Anuar, Syed Hamid condemned what he claimed as a selective and biased journalism of the International Herald Tribune in its coverage of two different, recent demonstrations in Washington DC and Kuala Lumpur.

The Tribune , he asserted, went to town with the KL demonstration, but was curiously coy with the anti-globalisation and anti-IMF protesters in the American capital city. Like a knee-jerk reaction, he called for a deliberate splash by the local media about the "bad side" of the American society.

It is intriguing that one would have expected the Mahathir government, often projecting itself as the champion of the Southern countries beleaguered by, among other things, unfair financial regulations and trading arrangements, to have given a thumbs-up to the protesters of globalisation and IMF. Perhaps it is unfortunate that they staged their demonstrations too close to the day the KL demonstration was held. A case of selective salute, selective censure?

If it is indeed true that, as claimed by writer Chairil Anuar, those US-based papers such as the Tribune were selective and differential in their news treatment, then they certainly deserve criticisms by Malaysians. After all, American media in general, like other media in the western world and elsewhere, aren't exactly flawless. Likewise, Malaysians - the government, the media, and the people - shouldn't express shock and anger if foreigners denounce, say, the lack of professionalism, or erosion of press freedom, in Malaysia's mainstream media.

Having said that, though, one would think that urging the local mainstream media to go out of their way to highlight the social and political ills of the American society is really going over the top. As many of us would realise, making others, especially foreigners, look bad wouldn't necessarily make ourselves, in particular the local media, look better - especially when the local media themselves have some skeletons in the cupboard.

This is, of course, not to deny that there are harsh realities in American society, such as racial discrimination, social neglect of the minorities, rich-poor gap, etc. - things, incidentally, which, tosome degree, aren't too alien to many of us here either, and ones that not many of the local mainstream newspapers would dare or prefer to broach and tackle journalistically.

To reiterate, to centrestage the social ills of others to the neglect of one's own social problems not only bares the local media's socially irresponsible stance, but it also meant the media flaunting it for others to see. Misdemeanor of a high-profile social institution such as the media can easily catch the attention of, and invite rebuke from, its audience.

The media should instead indulge in some remedial and confidence-building measures such as practising fair and balanced journalism and, by implication, avoiding the production of lies and slander. Besides, focusing on foreign failures can be a shrewd tactic of the media - and of the government - to divert public attention away from the country's pressing problems.

It is instructive that the Chairil letter generally reminds us of the role a newspaper could play in providing a platform or space for public participation in public opinion formation. But the case of the Chairil letter is an excellent example of the local newspapers' selective journalistic treatment. The status of this particular letter was raised by the newspaper (Letter of the day) primarily because it nicely coincided with the government's ideological or political inclination.

In contrast, a letter that expresses views critical of the government isn't likely to see the light of day, let alone its status raised. Thus, for instance, would a letter by KeADILan vice-president Tian Chua explaining in detail the objectives of the Black 14 demonstration be entertained? Would his lawyer friend, Cheah Kah Peng, be given a space to tell his side of the story pertaining to his recent police arrest?

It would also be interesting to consider whether there is some connection between Syed Hamid's "media urging" and the forthcoming Umno general assembly. Syed Hamid, to be sure, is aspiring for a seat in the prestigious Supreme Council. It is a known fact that a number of individuals are inclined to do and speak strange things to make themselves "visible" in the eyes of the Umno leadership and delegates.

So a contestant would be tempted, for instance, to evoke a sense of patriotism in the face of perceived foreign enemies. It is times like this when certain individuals try to appear more (patriotic) Malaysian than other Malaysians - or, in other instances, more Malay than other Malays - but unfortunately ended up looking sillier than others.

There could also be another reason for this (Syed Hamid's) behaviour. Barisan Nasional politicians in general have been very comfortable with the notion of the media and the government being partners in national development. This close relationship, it is often argued by the proponents of modernisation and the government as well, should be developed, cultured, and perpetuated so that a non-adversarial press could help facilitate national development and keep to the minimum any criticisms of government policies.

Consequently, development journalism, as it is popularly known and practised, is reduced to being what-the-government-says-only journalism. Hence, the mainstream press, at least seen from the BNperspective, is time and again expected to be at the beck and call, and within the control, of the government.

This also explains why Selangor Mentri Besar Abu Hassan Omar, speaking at the "Selangor 2000 Mass Media Appreciation Night", expressed satisfaction with the press' cooperation with the government - while at the same time, cautioning the local press not to be dictated by the West.

As if to reinforce a well-known fact, Abu Hassan, also an Umno Supreme Council contestant, said, "The Malaysian press has always been helpful in developing the country. It has always been with the government. Without its solid support, we would not be where we are today ( NST , April 24)". Is it a wonder, then, that press awards and appreciation functions in Malaysia have always been organised by, and accorded the blessing of, the government?

Nothing could be barer than this.