It’s all right to share information
The events at Tourism Malaysia have taken several turns, the latest being Integrated Strategic Communications chief Austen Zecha claiming that someone had asked for bribes in exchange for the contract in January. Why he did not report the matter immediately is for him to answer.
By R. Nadeswaran. TheSun
ONE of the most satisfying moments a journalist enjoys is when the editors and management stand by him or her when faced with an onslaught of calls, messages and even “love letters”. The journalist takes pride and understands that the owners are aware of the facts that have been presented and that these forms of communication are made to prevent the newspaper from publishing further truths. We at theSun take cognisance of the stance taken by the management when it comes to complaints (and even police reports) and have endeavoured to be professional at all times.
The management is aware of the position we are in and always encourages us to co-operate with the authorities when it comes to issues we have written. We have in the past on our own volition handed over documents and photographs; persuaded victims of abuse of power to come forward; and there was even a time when we kept vigil as one witness was giving her statement for almost 12 hours at a stretch. That is how far we would go to help those who have been wronged. However, we normally do not entertain those who use us as a post office to communicate their grouses to the authorities.
Therefore, when Terence Fernandez wrote in his column last week that he had shared information on Tourism Malaysia’s contentious advertising campaign with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, there seemed to have been unnecessary unease. Some felt that he had over-stepped his journalistic “boundaries”. There is nothing wrong with that and all journalists must be encouraged to share their information with one caveat – do not compromise the source. In the course of the week, I too am expected to make a statutory declaration on some issues to be submitted to the authorities.
The events at Tourism Malaysia have taken several turns, the latest being Integrated Strategic Communications chief Austen Zecha claiming that someone had asked for bribes in exchange for the contract in January. Why he did not report the matter immediately is for him to answer. It shall remain an allegation for the moment unless it is proven otherwise. But while everyone is uttering his or her two sen’ worth on the recipients, doesn’t anyone care to ask if the process was correct?
Appointing an advertising agency is not like appointing a company to supply rations for the army, or food to prisons. It is not a matter of the cheapest supplier getting the spoils. Anyone who has dealt with advertising agencies will tell you about creativity and the ability to “market” the product or services.
When such an exercise is carried out, agencies normally pitch for the account with their presentations, complete with visuals, ideas, artwork, etc. So, how come the five agencies had not made presentations on their ideas? Did anyone present a concerted, well-laid out media strategy? So, the inevitable question is: On what basis were the agencies selected?
Everyone wants to believe the minister when she declared that “everything was done above-board”. But there should be a clear demarcation between full-fledged creative agencies, media specialists and the “brokers” who get the contract and then farm it out to third parties? Herein is the problem. Such contracts are given without proper scrutiny of the recipient company. Does anyone know how many staff each agency has in its creative and media departments or if such departments exist or are manned by competent people? Does anyone know if it is a one-man show whose work is done by freelancers?
This is no attempt to teach the ministry, but ask clients especially the multinationals how they go about appointing their agencies, and they would gladly part with good advice.
No disrespect to the minister or her staff but did a competent group make the final call or a group of civil servants who know little about marketing and promotion? The simple process would have been to call for a presentation so that they can judge the ideas and then consider their efficacy.
