::A Call for All Agents of Changes::

While I was driving to campus last week, I listened to one preview of an interview on HOT.FM with one of Malaysia's renowned broadcast journalist (BJ) who has been doing tough tasks in media entertainment industry.

If I were to mention the name, everyone will undoubtedly has something to say, to comment or even to critic.

So, I choose not to state the name or where this particular person is attached to because his 'status' is nothing interesting to me.

But, one of his statements has strongly gave me a reason to share my say.

Something that is 'completely interesting".

In response to a question asked by one anonymous caller, he firmly replied in one simple yet thoughtful answer, "The journalists aren't human. Journalists are journalists".

Although I decided not to work with the media, but I have all reasons in this world to appreciate the media industry, especially the restless efforts taken by the newspeople to provide the best scoop to their dear audiences. They took all pains to feed the hungry-for-information audiences out there. Journalists carry the toughest commitment to the public. It's a fact that shouldn't be doubted. The heterogenous public rely on what the media got to say.

To the laymen, media practitioners, especially the journalists are their watchdogs.

Such a position has given these people what I deciphered as 'added responsibility over any other responsibilities'.

There's an interesting saying that articulate about the role of journalists- "The journalists can either make it or break it!". It's undoubtedly true that 'mata pena lebih tajam daripada mata pedang'.

But that should not make them, the journalists (reporters or most profoundly Americans called them as the press) less than human. On whatever situation, journalists are still humans who carry a very high standard of responsibility to the public. At the same time, they have to operate accordingly to the pillars of journalism.

Go and ask the journalists.

"What is one of your biggest conflicts in performing the job?"

And no journalist would say no to "Public interest versus right to privacy" as the answer.

This is because, in most conflicting situations, it's really hard for the journalists to decide the point of the 'golden mean' when the two interests compete in one picture. In order to reveal the truth, sometimes they got to break the right to privacy. And if they choose the latter, they have to fail their utmost responsibility, that is to serve the public interest.

At times, even the pillars of journalism cannot provide means to save such a situation.

Desperately, they may use what Machiavelli offers to the industry- 'The ends justify the means'. When they were questioned on their less ethical decision(s), some of them would simply quote Machiaveli's words and arrogantly hide behind the profound responsibility, that's to meet the public interest. To say the truth, nothing but the truth.

But I am a strong believer that the moral conviction will always offer an ideal way to say the hardest truth. Even the sensational stories can be written responsibly. By putting it this way, the press need not sacrifice anything yet saved the situation at stake. Mills called this as the 'conscience of the agents'.

Journalists are always human. They operate under the name of humanity, at all times in whatever situation.

It's a noble job.

Always.