When a media entity is considered a supplemental extension or alternative to the mainstream media

Photo courtesy of kelxia

It appears that these days, how some understand the term ‘alternative media’ seems to go according to the criteria that as long as the articles or write-ups carried by the particular website or hard print publication does not appear in our mainstream media, then the entity is classified as an alternative media.

That definition in itself sounds quite loose or broad. Dictionary.com defines the term ‘alternative’ (if you look at number 6 under adjective) as “employing or following non-traditional or unconventional ideas, methods, etc.; existing outside the establishment“.

Thus, the widespread belief is that a published content that does not appear in the mainstream media, but appears in media elsewhere is considered an alternative piece. Hence, the earlier point about broad definition.

An understanding of the editorial process will get us underway in addressing the topic of whether a media entity is considered alternative or a supplemental extension of the mainstream media. The editorial process, as most would know starts with the submission of a piece by writer or journalist to the editor, who would make appropriate changes language-wise or others that will improve the flow or arguments made in the article. This process is known as copy-editing. Of course, not all the time, there is an editor or committed copy-editor around. It may be that the writer ends up playing the added roles of editor himself. If it is a print media, the piece will undergo one round (or multiple) of laying-out with additional inputs from the designer, and the final copy is being published.

Thus, there is a possibility that editorial resources may be limited, and there is only so much articles that can be produced. Hence, when a media entity does not publish a particular piece, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the viewpoint expressed is rejected, but rather it may be due to the paucity of editorial resources.

With that in mind, we can move to the next stage – how to determine whether a media entity is considered a supplemental extension or an alternative to the mainstream media. The first test is pretty obvious – whether the viewpoints or school of thoughts demonstrated by the entity resonates with that of the establishment’s and/or the mainstream media’s. (It is usual though to consider the mainstream media as synonymous with the establishment). If yes, the entity is considered a supplemental extension to the mainstream media. If not, then it is considered an alternative media. Of course, not all the time, media entities have different viewpoints, but as a general rule of thumb, if majority of the viewpoints do not resonate with the establishment’s, then the entity is considered an alternative media. If an entity has an equal share of viewpoints resonating with the establishment and those that do not resonate, then it lies somewhere in the middle of the divide.

The second test has an editorial basis and is the most important one – would the editor or anyone who has final say over the publication of the article that is promoting a particular viewpoint accept it, discounting language, formatting, house (or presentation) style, other technical requirements for article submission and finally, editorial resources availability? In order to perform the second test, a knowledge of the trend of articles acceptance or rejection by a media entity is necessary. It is more straightforward here whereby an increasing number of writers publish their rejected articles by the mainstream media at alternative media sites. Thus, one has to examine the viewpoints of these rejected articles for the trend, and secondly, look out for media platforms that are willing to host them. If the articles are rejected on the basis of their viewpoints and are willingly accepted by certain media platforms on a regular basis, chances are that the latter is likely to be an alternative media entity.

The third test has its basis in the potential reaction and response to the articles produced by the media entity – how would both the establishment and mainstream media respond to certain viewpoints expressed in writings published by a media entity? What are the ways in which we can determine such responses? One way is to look out for citations of the articles produced by the entity. After finding the citations, one has to further determine the context in which the articles are cited, i.e. whether they are cited in a positive or negative context. In the same vein, one can attempt to determine whether the establishment responds positively or negatively to the viewpoints. If a media entity has frequent positive citations by the mainstream media and elicited positive response from the establishment, that will mean it is a supplemental extension to the mainstream media. In some cases, if the viewpoints expressed are similar to the mainstream media, but there is no citation found, but a positive response is triggered from the establishment, then the entity can also be considered a supplemental extension. Both the Young PAP and p65 blogs come into mind.

The three tests can be illustrated using The Kent Ridge Common as an example, after the team has decided to take a new direction. To perform the test, the articles produced for the month of November onwards, the start of the new direction will be evaluated. The articles produced are entitled “Ris Low and our pop culture“, “LKY: Through the eyes of the outsider“, “Adventures in Southeast Asia“, “Campus heats up with examination fever“, “Online Student Feedback System now on“, “Campus heats up with examination fever” and “A Halloween with toys“.

Applying the first test, two of the articles would resonate with that of the establishment, and they are “LKY: Through the eyes of an outsider” and “A Halloween with toys”. The content of the first article is basically a positive appraisal of Lee Kuan Yew by an international exchange student. Positive appraisals of Lee is quite common in the mainstream media and our establishment. The second article on Halloween basically revolves around the promotion of a museum going culture that is an initiative started by the National Heritage Board, a government institution. The results of the first test for the rest of the articles are uncertain though, because they are about mundane topics in a student’s life.

Applying the second test, we now examine whether the viewpoints expressed in all the articles are acceptable to an editor in the mainstream media. It appears so. In fact, if there is enough space, the positive appraisal of LKY by the international exchange student can be published or cited in our national papers, especially in the current affairs or politics section. The articles on student life can appear under the educational section. And the travel experiences within Southeast Asia and A Halloween with toys can hypothetically appear in the LIFE section. Discounting non-content-based factors, there is no reason why the viewpoints expressed in the articles should be rejected by the ones who call the shots in our mainstream media.

The third test is redundant because none of the articles have been cited.

Thus, what is the conclusion then? By virtue of all the articles not being potentially rejected by the mainstream media (discounting non-content-based restrictions), which is the most important test, and the fact that two of the articles resonate with that of the establishment and/or mainstream media, it appears that the Kent Ridge Common is taking the path of a supplemental extension to our mainstream media as opposed to an alternative one. However, things may change in the future which no one knows for certain.

Everyone has a democratic right to express a viewpoint, be it mainstream or alternative, and there shouldn’t be any form of condemnation of any entity that chooses to be mainstream, alternative or right smack in the middle. Neither should any entity feel shameful about the direction it chooses. The issue and the goal of this article is rather how to segregate entities according to the directions they have taken. There is nothing wrong being a supplemental extension to the mainstream media since there is a wide variety of interest groups out there which cannot be possibly covered with limited editorial resources within our mainstream media. Neither is there anything wrong being an alternative media just because the latter expresses viewpoints that are not embraced by the current establishment.