Contentious journalism and the Internet advantage: Democratizing public discourse in Malaysia and Singapore

The internet has been used to democratize public discourse in Malaysia and Singapore, two countries that lie in the under-studied zone between liberal democracies and closed authoritarian regimes. Several websites have emerged on the margins of the political system to engage in a contentious style of journalism, challenging the hegemonic consensus that prevails over and through mainstream media. This dissertation explains the emergence and development of this movement. Through comparative case studies, it shows how such projects are shaped by the availability of the new technology, actions of the state, and the activation of social networks. The two governments were unable to apply their traditional controls to the internet, presenting media activists a loophole for dissenting communication. The internet helped activists mobilize virtual social networks, and was an economical means for publishing and distributing their work. It also had ideological utility: it was used as a symbol for radical change, resistance against authority, and individual empowerment. However, technology can explain only so much. The internal diversity of the movement---ranging from party organs to independent sites, professionally-run organizations to informal amateur groups---is better explained by the kinds of social network and organization in which the respective projects are embedded. Similarly, the difference between the two countries is at odds with technological-determinist expectations: Malaysia is less advanced in information technology than Singapore, but has the better-developed online journalism. The paradox is accounted for by Malaysia's broader and deeper civil society, and by Singapore's more complete hegemonic domination. In addition to specifying the mechanisms through which the internet has had an impact, this study is an opportunity to examine competing normative conceptions of journalism, and of democracy. Contentious media are more morally-engaged and less disinterested than their mainstream counterparts. Their methods are condemned by those who believe in a more orderly form of democracy. From a more radical democratic perspective, however, they can be seen as sustaining multiple public spheres and sites of alternative consensus. The case studies are thus a window on alternative interpretations of journalism and democracy, in two societies where such alternatives have been difficult to sustain.