The survey results by Prof Dr Syed Arabi Idid is referred.

He propositioned that higher media credibility brings a higher number of votes for the Barisan Nasional - and he marshaled his survey results to prove it. Questions:

Since he apparently did not differentiate the qualities of media credibility/propaganda, could it well be that the so-called higher media credibility was a measure of something else i.e.more successful media packaging/soft-selling/manipulation?

In a media environment where BN parties have an unquestioned overall control, this is an issue which cannot be taken lightly. Further, I would like to question the survey's inference that the BN won the last general election on account of higher media credibility.

I suspect that there is a possibility that survey's results simply serve to rationalise the BN win and thus serve to cover up the many other unsavory factors which could have contributed to the win i.e. a notoriously unfair election system as well as illegal practices.

The BN media department could have learned from the 1999 general election that crass, intimidating media propaganda didn't work as well as more subtle, softer and more sublime messaging - subsequently employed in March 2004.

In addition, in 2004, there were visibly more bill boards used to propagate the message of a softer (Pak Lah) regime coming. And since Malaysian election laws do not require disclosure of party expenses (they apparently only require candidates' disclosure!), BN could have spent even more money on the media in 2004 as compared to1999 to affect a better perceived 'media credibility'.

Thus, this perceived media credibility seems to be like a tradable commodity (just like votes!) in an environment where campaign expenses are not subjected to disclosures and public or legislative control.

So in what way can the media be considered to be more credible beyond the perceptions polled in that survey? It is obvious that the survey did not bother to link the election results with any more objective measures of media credibility.

For instance, were there more openings for the opposition in any of the media? Were the competing parties allowed equal access to all media? Were all parties given right of reply?

The survey's media's 'credibility' is only referred to a perception which invariably is subject to a one-sided media's influence as well. If there are unanswered questions as to the surveyor's methodology, then the results are similarly subject to questions.

Significantly, the motivation behind the release of the survey's results is also open to question. Did the surveyor - whose other hat is as a board member of a nationalist think-tank Yayasan Kajian dan Strategi Melayu - want to rationalise BN landslide win in 2004 by its narrowly-measured media 'crediblity'?

But what credibility can we attribute to such a narrow measurement?

If we go by the surveyor's past record, we find that he missed the 1999 results by a huge six percent while questions about his 2004 election survey results from such bodies as the Malaysian Voters Union and others have never been answered.

If the surveyor is not prepared to answer queries from the public, then I have strong grounds to suspect his motivation and thus the credibility of the entire survey this time. Last but not least, it was not coincidental that there was a proliferation of seemingly academically-based political surveys during the last general election which unabashedly served as 'cheerleaders' for the ruling parties.

It is regrettable whenever someone cloaked in disinterested academic garb lends his or her credibility to exercises which could be pushing politically-loaded views onto an unsuspecting public. We hope that Syed Arabi Idid will answer the questions posted here this time.