In Sunday Star (Feb 27), its senior news editor and esteemed columnist, Wong Chun Wai, grudgingly acknowledged the important role that the alternative media such as malaysiakini played in a democracy because "there is room for alternative and dissenting views, even if we do not agree with it (sic)."

[Then he was reportedly one of the 581 signatories of the memorandum in petition for the repeal or amendment of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) that manacles alternative and dissenting views].

That was about four months ago. However, when the "dissenting views" hit too near home, as when your letter contributor ex- Star journalist in "Ling lies about 'non-interference' (May 30), cited him as one of the three known "MCA-Ling cronies", his patience with your brand of dissenting views (in respect of MCA's non-interference with The Star ) apparently became exhausted.

So too was his grudging support for you that turned to attack: See his article "All's fair in politics and the newspaper" under his 'On the Beat Column' in the Sunday Star (June 10) that I read with some amusement and bemusement.

In the article, Wong said, 'Then, there is one Internet news website (in apparent reference to malaysiakini ) which claims to advocate press objectivity but unashamedly runs one-sided news items that attack the Barisan Nasional.

'In the name of responsible journalism, it puts on the Internet, purported letters, written by anonymous readers to discredit leaders and journalists without checking the facts. No efforts are made to get those implicated for their side of the story in these letters. Anything that is critical of the establishment appears and must be accepted as the gospel truth. What is important at the end of the day is balanced, responsible and fair editorial coverage.'

[On the controversy surrounding MCA's acquisition of Nanyang Press, Wong said that the question was not ownership but various laws manacling the media, such as the PPPA].

Being a criticism from one senior journalist to another (even on the different side of the political divide), Wong's allegations are serious as they pertain to the ethics of journalism, albeit online, as practised by malaysiakini that should be addressed, and cannot be swept under the carpet.

In 'The practicalities of anonymity' (June 8) I had defended the use of pseudonyms for anonymity on various grounds.

Anonymity as a shield against reprisals - this is defensible - and detracts nothing in terms of credibility in respect of even an anonymous article or letter like in 'Ling lies about 'non-interference', if its contents were sufficient in particularities, cogent and consistent with our perception of human behaviours and the situation under scrutiny and seemingly corroborated by subsequent writers claiming purportedly to have insights into the workings with The Star .

[In this respect, it must be said by way of reply to Wong that The Star 's slant as alleged by these anonymous writers struck an instantaneous chord with the perception of many of us, regular subscribers of The Star , whose spontaneous feelings based on familiar knowledge of its coverage would be 'but of course they must be true!' Besides, what would be the various writers' motive in spreading lies or creating fiction over the issue?].

That notwithstanding, the issue is not whether anonymity by itself implies inherent unreliability of content or otherwise but the question validly raised by Wong is that of fair and balanced reporting in the sense that not one side but both sides of the story (on the inner workings of The Star ) should be given an opportunity to be presented especially when your published letters implicated the credibility of a national party like MCA and its president Dr Ling Liong Sik.

As everyone knows, the next best method to ferret the truth out (besides verifiability by objective evidence) is to allow a clash of adversarial positions as we practice in our courts, the very reason why the ISA, one-sided in favour of the police is vehemently opposed.

So the question is whether, as what Wong said, malaysiakini had made any effort to get the response of those (like Wong) implicated by the writer (ex- Star journalist) to be published contemporaneously with or soon after his letter?

It will be recollected that when K Kabilan first broke the story of a Filipina (Dina)'s alleged involvement with the Sultan of Pahang, the other side - the Sultan's part - of the story was also reported based on a "close palace source".

In what way is the coverage of Dina's story different from that of MCA's or Ling's influence over The Star 's editorial policy that the other side of the story was canvassed for by malaysiakini in the first case but not for the second?

Undoubtedly the first was by your senior editor (identified) whilst the second was an anonymous letter contributor. The common element however is that both pertain to stories of public interest that effect the credibility and reputation of public (even national) figures and a public company like The Star and their well-known senior journalists within news circles.

Or is it that the comments of the senior journalists in The Star affected had been elicited by malaysiakini but they declined to give them - and still refuse to give them through the forum of your letter section?

What is the position from the standpoint of journalistic ethics, the issues raised by Wong? I am not a journalist and I like to know.

On the other point made by Wong on MCA's acquisition of Nanyang Holdings - that PPPA and not MCA's ownership is the real issue - I beg to disagree.

Indeed Wong's article is replete with examples cited by him of how Gerakan leaders had been vying for more coverage of their activities and profiles in The Star . This shows how important media reach to constituents is to politicians (whether Gerakan, MCA or PAS) of which it is reasonable to infer that ownership of the media facilitates that political agenda.

For Wong to say that the PPPA was the real issue that the public should clamour against (when the examples cited by him in his own article showed the importance of media to politicians) evinced an intent on Wong's part to downplay and sidestep the real issue of the political advantage of media ownership by MCA and unwittingly demonstrated his own bias in support of MCA's acquisition of Nanyang Press and China Press supported Dr Ling's faction.

Editor's note:

While we will continue to do our best in providing balanced reports in our news stories, the letters page is a forum for our readers and is open to all, including The Star journalists. Indeed, we have published letters by current and former journalists of The Star , most of whom wrote under pseudonyms.