Why nothing is going to change at SPH

Images: Shutterstock, illustration design: Rishad Patel

This article is republished and edited from the author’s newsletter. The original version is here.

Even before the pandemic, times were tough for media businesses the world over. We’ve watched newspapers and media publications shut down or downsize, leading to figurative bloodbaths as entire teams and departments were made redundant. 

In Singapore, traditional media outlets have felt a similar pain. Just last year, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) retrenched 140 staff from its media sales and magazines operations. This was after previous rounds of blood-letting, such as the one in 2017 and, even further back, in 2003 (citing the difficult business environment post-SARS and the war in Iraq).

Now, the head honchos of SPH have decided to take more drastic action. They’ll be spinning off the media business into a not-for-profit SPH Media, leaving the original Singapore Press Holdings with no press to hold. The new SPH Media will be a company limited by guarantee.

The reasonable reasons

SPH, with the support of the PAP government, has explained the necessity for such a big change. They’ve talked about the “digital revolution”, where platforms like Facebook and Google have cut into media advertising revenue, and free sources of online content have pulled attention away from traditional media outlets. 

This, the former PAP minister and new chairman of SPH Media, Khaw Boon Wan, says, is a “global phenomenon” that “quality newspapers around the world are facing”. SPH’s strategy is not to seek billionaire bankrollers, but to go on this not-for-profit route.

The logic is that the pressure of meeting shareholders’ expectations isn’t good for a newspaper company, so this new arrangement will open the door to different sources of public and private funding, while freeing the operation from having to pay out dividends. Instead, public funding recognises that quality journalism is a public good that’s crucial to a functioning democracy.

These are all reasonable. The shift towards consuming news online has cut into the usual revenue streams (i.e. advertising) of print publications. Social media platforms and the proliferation of online news sources (of varying quality and integrity) have drawn eyeballs away from traditional media outlets. There has been a global disruption that’s caused headaches for many quality newspapers around the world.

The consequences have often been to the detriment of both these publications’ staff (through retrenchments, wage freezes, directionless yet energy-sucking “pivots”, or increased pressure to produce work in multiple formats) and its readers (a drop in quality as newsrooms are hollowed out, or entire subject areas that fall off the news conveyor belt completely), although not necessarily to the shareholders.

What’s missing in the equation

Taking all this into consideration, the move to create SPH Media makes sense, but what’s missing from SPH and the government’s story is crucial context. 

While it’s true that SPH isn’t alone in grappling with digital disruption, it’s still different because it essentially enjoys a monopoly on the newspaper business in Singapore and has been more protected from real competition than others. Sure, it has to compete with MediaCorp and other websites when it comes to online news, but it’s still the largest professional news-gathering force in the country, and owns all the national print dailies.

It's quite something to be the only horse in a pony race, and still faceplant before the finish line.

It's also not impossible to break even or make a profit in these times. The New York Times, for instance, had a good year in 2020. While websites and social media platforms might have undercut advertising revenue, the internet has also opened up new possibilities for media businesses. 

Last year, I was involved in writing a media viability handbook for digital media entrepreneurs, where we profiled media start-ups around the world to ask how they manage their funds and operate. While acknowledging that SPH isn't a digital media start-up, my point is that it is possible to survive and thrive, even in a difficult media business environment, and that outfits smaller and less well-resourced than SPH are figuring it out.

I don't have a sure-win answer to building and running a profitable media operation. If I did, I wouldn't be running this one-woman show of a newsletter that really needs your support. But what I've learnt from my experience with New Naratif  (where I was chief editor from 2017 to 2020) and interacting with various media start-ups around the world is that upgrading the tech and pumping out digital products will only get you so far.

Apart from company operations and structures, media entrepreneurs and outlets have also flagged the importance of trust and the relationship between the media and their readers, viewers, audience, or community. 

Products are important since their quality and innovation can attract users, but trust and relationships distinguish one media organisation from another, and build loyalty.

If it's just a cold transaction, people can always take their custom elsewhere, or read the news from outlets without paywalls. But if you have a brand that people buy into, if they become not just your customers but your fans, that's when you have a base that'll stick around. (And if they really love you, they'll give you money even without a hard paywall.)

SPH has been in a prime position to build this sort of trust and community but has failed, commendable charity efforts notwithstanding. The Straits Times, as Singapore's "paper of record" by virtue of being the only English-language general news daily, could have built itself up as something that every Singaporean could feel pride and a sense of ownership in, regardless of whether we're actual shareholders.

There are likely many internal organisational factors as to why SPH has failed to foster this sort of trust and community buy-in. But I'd like to focus on something else that I think has greatly hobbled SPH, only no one in the establishment will admit it.

Editorial independence

The lack of press freedom and editorial independence in Singapore's media industry is killing Singaporean journalism. It's hurting independent/alternative outlets via harassment, obstructionism, repression, and oppression, but what we're seeing with SPH is evidence of how it's hurting big, traditional media companies too.

How can a paper like The Straits Times build trust and buy-in from Singaporeans if people feel like the paper looks out for the ruling party's interests over theirs? 

If Singaporeans feel that the local media is more likely to toe the party line rather than ask hard questions, pursue important stories, and demand accountability from the powerful on public interest issues, then why does anyone owe papers like The Straits Times their support or loyalty? 

If SPH titles are too afraid to point out that something a politician says is a meaningless platitude or straight-up BS, why would anyone subscribe to a paper when we can just read the politician's social media posts, or the government press release? What are SPH's values, really, and do they even live up to them?

It's not like there's a dearth of talented Singaporean journalists. It's just that, if they're working in the mainstream media, they're being hobbled by an entrenched culture of censorship, fear of repercussions, gate-keeping, and government meddling. 

If we're lucky, these journalists leave the mainstream media and find positions in other news organisations, where we finally see what they're really capable of. If we're unlucky, they get fed up and ditch journalism as a career, decamping to the much more lucrative fields of PR and marketing, and society is all the poorer for it.

We're wasting talent and potential because we have a political culture where the powerful are petty and thin-skinned, and too used to maintaining control to let go. 

Until this changes, SPH will find it difficult to improve the quality of their journalistic content, no matter how many print and digital supplements or products they might eventually come up with.

The government will probably keep bailing them out because they're too big to fail, but unless the political culture changes, we'll be flushing taxpayer dollars down this hole for quite some time.

Supporting media

Not everyone is able to set up a media start-up, but we can certainly support the people who do. Donate or subscribe to independent and credible news outlets in Singapore. Participate in discussions with their leadership as much as you can, provide feedback and help them do better. Volunteer if they need extra manpower. Support young up-and-coming journalists who might be running their own magazines, newsletters, or websites. If you have a business with an advertising budget, fight the fear of guilt by association and place ads with independent media outlets. 

Singapore is not a place where independent media outlets can access philanthropic funding or journalism grants very easily, so anything that you can do to support such outlets in their struggle for sustainability is appreciated.

Perhaps SPH will change. It's likely they won't. But we can't afford to just sit around to wait and see.