On bloggers' "neutrality"

I am the first to admit that there is no way a person who has an interest in something in any sphere in life can be wholly, truly neutral. I will be the first to raise up my hand and admit that I have a natural inclination to be more biased towards certain car manufacturers when asked why I choose to drive what I drive. The same goes for my political leaning. I am not ashamed of standing where I am in the realm of socio-politics. I even put details of my party membership in my profile. And that would have given heads up to readers of my blog on what to expect. This blog is one way for me to articulate my thoughts and opinion, and it affords me freedom of speech (so to speak) to tell people who are bothered to listen to what I think.

But that is the whole point. Freedom of speech is NOT about being neutral. It is about allowing people to say their piece no matter on which side they're standing. It will be naivete if someone would think that to have freedom of speech, everything spoken must be neutral. That has never been, and will never be. When applied to the print media, it's the same thing. I don't mind The Star or the NST of being extremely pro-BN. I don't mind Utusan Malaysia slanting their news to paint an erroneous picture of the Chinaman. But what I DO mind is the prevention of the other side of the story, or the other views to be equally heard by Malaysians. Yes, I know Malaysiakini is seen as pro-Opposition, but so what? If you don't like them then don't read their news. But at least allow others who want to read more about the other side of the political fence to read what they want. Nobody is naive enough to think that the press in the US or UK is neutral. They are never neutral. But, the crucial thing is that they are allowed to be biased towards any side they wish. Of course, if one claims from the outset that they're "neutral", then the most they could do is to accomodate space for views and opinions from both sides of any issue. Even in such cases, there is no guarantee that the body giving such space will be able to be truly neutral in their own analysis of the issue, unless you expect then to be just "reporters" and not have any analysis whatsoever. Let the readers judge, so to speak.

Which brings me to the current fuss about the recent meeting between the pro-tem committee of All-Bloggers with Anwar Ibrahim at his office. The committee, including Rocky, has stated that it was Anwar who invited them to a meet, perhaps for the reason of just wanting to embrace the blogosphere further, or perhaps he just have his personal agenda, whatever that may be. But reading through various comments in various blogs, I sense that some people are very uncomfortable with the meeting, to the point of even questioning the integrity and credibility of the very real people in the pro-tem committee. How else could one explain away the need to insinuate that it was the committee who wanted to meet Anwar despite being denied by Rocky and others involved? It so happened that the first politician which the supposedly apolitical All-Bloggers group is someone seen as the enemy of the current administration, and is a character controversial enough for people to hate him no matter what he does and say, and people are ringing the alarm bells all over questioning the "hidden" agenda of the pro-tem committee and the group. The thing is, would the reaction be different if the committee had met with Dr M instead? Would they sound the alarm bells as vigourously as they are doing now? Dr M after all is also an enemy in the eyes of the current administration. What if it was Pak Lah or Zam which they've met? Would they create alarm bells insinuating that All-Bloggers is now trying to pander to the government which intent on persecuting bloggers? These unwarranted and irrational reactions are even more inexplicable in the light of revelation by the pro-tem committee that they are planning to meet more politicans from both side of the fence. It's a classic case of "you cannot please everyone".

I am in full support of the effort by the pro-tem committee of All-Bloggers to meet politicians from both side of the fence. Heck, I don't mind if they want to meet whoever they want to meet, as long as they explain the rationale for it and why they see the bloke they wanna meet as someone worth meeting. I am not going to question their reasoning in a manner which brings their character and reputation to question. I am not going to tell them they cannot meet this person or that person, just because I have a personal dislike or suspicion of that fella. If we distrust these people who have volunteered their own time and putting their names at stake in an undertaking currently seen as "against national interest", then by all means go form your own little club and do whatever you see fit, and meet whomever you think it's more worthwhile spending your time with. And if you think your little club will not face such issues from members, then you do not understand the dynamics of human interaction. At the end of the day, each one of us have our own little interest and agenda, and no way 100% of the time will our interests be aligned with interests of the club/group/organization we are in. Unless of course, your little club has only one member, and that is yourself.