What’s inside the Malaysian Insider?

When the March elections came about, a new news portal came on to the scene. Claiming to want to give Malaysian news greater objectivity, the Malaysian Insider became part and parcel of the discerning online news reader’s daily diet. Malaysians have now grown quite fond of the Malaysian Insider. It seems even the government is happy with it, so much so that it received press tags in July, being less than half a year in operation.

During the March elections, I relied a lot on the Malaysian Insider for news. But in recent months, not so much, mainly because there are quite a number of things which don’t seem to sit well with me.

Malaysian Insider: trademark, business entity or what?

When you scroll right down the bottom of the Malaysian Insider pages, you’ll see this:

So my question is is “the Malaysian Insider” a business entity? If it were a company, it would either be “The Malaysian Insider Sdn. Bhd” or “The Malaysian Insider Bhd”. However, both the limited company words are missing. Unless of course the Malaysian Insider is a company limited by guarantee, usually only given to charities.

Is “The Malaysian Insider” a name of a sole proprietorship or partnership? If this is the case, shouldn’t the business registration number be there? After all, people, like me, might end up being confused, because with no business registration number, “The Malaysian Insider” might be taken to be a trade mark or just a business name (i.e. “trading under the name of”).

Why is this important?

Firstly, there is the important issue of transparency. This helps the consumer/reader to understand the background of the publication (in this instance), its views, its agenda etc. All publishers and media has an agenda, even if its just to put across objective journalism. Transparency in the press has always been vital in its fourth estate role.

Secondly, there is no one to sue. A simple example, let’s say a hypothetical article was published on the Malaysian Insider, hypothetically stating that I was a swindler liar and cheater. Now, if I hypothetically wanted to sue for defamation, who should I hypothetically sue? The writer, obviously (another possible issue, which I’ll deal with later). And the publisher. Who is the publisher?

If someone was asked to contribute to the Malaysian Insider, in whose name do they write the invoice, based on the website? Actually, this point disturbs me greatly because, to me, it flies in the face of good business practise.

Anonymity of certain commentaries and opinions

If you’re a regular reader of the Malaysian Insider, you might notice there are quite a number of anonymous commentaries, like the one highlighted below:

Referring to the hypothetical writer I hypothetically wanted to sue earlier, if an anonymous commentary had hypothetically defamed me or anyone else, and the website does not even state a business entity, who do I hypothetically sue?

Are things changing?

On July 13 2007, blogger Nathaniel Tan was apprehended under the OSA for an anonymous comment left on his blog by an anonymous visitor. And then there’s the defamation suit faced by Raja Petra, in which anonymous comments are also involved.

I wonder if the tide is turning? Are the authorities looking with greater favour on the Internet, considering it feels the Malaysian Insider – with no evident business entity behind the publication on its website - warrants press accreditation?

So then…

Could I have a press pass too please?