Who Gets to Tell the Story?

Reading around Southeast Asian policy issues for this blog, certain stories kept coming up underreported. It was not until I came across a piece on media ownership in the region that the pattern started to make sense. That made me rethink something I had written earlier: that media is a tool activists can use. I had not seriously considered what happens when the outlet itself is not built to carry what you are trying to say.

And media coverage is not neutral. Most people know that. What gets talked about less is the structural reason it is not: who owns the news outlet, and what that ownership is designed to protect.

In Singapore, the media is a duopoly between state-linked Mediacorp and SPH Media. In Malaysia, Media Prima has long had ties to governing parties. One executive at Utusan Melayu, one of Malaysia's oldest and most widely read newspapers, said checking on the government was not the newspaper's role. What I find more interesting than those facts on their own is what they predict: not outright propaganda, but a consistent drift toward certain framings. What emerges is not a lie, it is a gap: between what is covered and what matters to anyone who is not in a position to shape the coverage.

The pattern is not limited to Asia. The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp, a company that also controls major newspapers across the UK and Australia. Internal documents and testimony from former journalists point to something researchers called an unspoken rubric: coverage norms that nobody needed to state because the ownership structure had already shaped them. Ownership concentration creates pressures that quietly shape coverage, in ways rarely visible from the outside. Often not even to the journalists working inside it.

If you are thinking about communication as a tool for advocacy, this is not an abstract problem. What does it mean for movements trying to get their message heard through news outlets shaped by these same pressures? Independent journalism exists, but it is underfunded and increasingly hard to find. That is a problem worth taking seriously.

I do not think that means giving up on media as a tool. But it does mean asking, before you use it, who built it and what for.