COMMENT: Will a new DNA change The New Paper’s fortunes?

After nearly 30 years of a topsy-turvy existence, The New Paper that many of us loved and hated takes a bow. In its place, a totally different paper with a totally different editorial approach will hit the streets on Thursday (1 December).

It is normal to dismiss The (old) New Paper as a two-trick pony. Sensational stories and in-depth coverage of football spiced with action graphics and a splash of colours – those were the obvious hallmarks of a paper that burst on to a staid newspaper scene in 1988.

That is only half the story. The other half, those in the pioneer team and those who follow the paper religiously will tell you, is about how it reports on the important issues of the day. There are many examples to give but for the sake of brevity I will keep to a couple.

Trailblazing paper

When the People’s Action Party lost four seats in the general election in 1991, TNP did something unheard of at that time. Reporters were sent out to the four constituencies to ask voters why PAP got a beating with a clear instruction: Don’t self-censor. Don’t look for balance. Just quote the people being interviewed verbatim.

The next day’s paper was a path breaker in Singapore journalism with the word WHY splashed across page one and five other pages. Hardly any editing was done to the quotes; the result was an outpouring of voters’ dissatisfaction against those ruling party MPs who were aloof and disengaged from residents.

Another opportunity presented itself on a platter in 1998 when irate former Indonesian president Habibie pointed at a map and said, “All the green area is Indonesia. And that little red dot is Singapore.”

Initially, The Straits Times dismissed the taunt as a jealous neighbour’s misguided rant and published an innocuous article hidden in an inside page.

The New Paper saw the significance of Habibie’s statement and made it into a talking point. It served as a timely reminder to ordinary Singaporeans that the Suharto era of cosy and progressive ties with Singapore were over.

Today, that “little red dot” tag is proudly displayed as a badge of honour for a small state with big ambitions.

Then the paper had to deal with an attack by former NTUC secretary general Lim Boon Heng who accused it of practising yellow journalism in a commentary in a union publication.

There was no way the paper was going to let that go without a response. It published Lim’s editorial and its headline, Money Or Values, in full with an accompanying rejoinder titled Money AND Values.

Lim’s PR minder called to say: “I am sending you a Chivas Regal bottle.” The whisky bottle never came.

New editorial direction unclear

Together with The (old) New Paper, the DNA it so assiduously nurtured will disappear. Hopefully, a new DNA will emerge but what the editorial team doesn’t have is the luxury of time.

The leadership at TNP will blame outside factors like the threat from the online world and a slowdown in the economy for its performance crashing from 150,000 to 60,000 plus copies a day. They are right, but only partly.

A TNP editor once said that the paper’s pioneer journalists had it easier than the present leadership. He is right, again only partly.

To compare achievements across many years is fruitless as it will only blur the end goal, which must be to keep the paper afloat. What the paper needs is a formula that will get itself out of a deep and dark abyss it has fallen into.

From what I have read and heard, that formula is not obvious. The strategy revealed so far – to make the paper look serious and free – is baffling.

One possibility is that TNP wants to eat into the pie that Today has grown over the last 16 years. That is not going to be easy as Today has not only entrenched itself in the free paper space but has made itself a must read for those who want contextualised news.

TNP has always been a circulation play, depending mainly on street sales for profitability. Advertisers have always shunned the paper for its content and design. Giving up its entire takings from the sale of the paper for the elusive advertising dollar doesn’t make sense.

Add to problems such as the advertisers’ desire to move away from mainstream media to Google, YouTube, Amazon and other online platforms and you can see the scary scenario that TNP will face.

Cost-cutting seems to be the name of the game as some of the paper’s more experienced editors are moving to ST and other publications. Where does all this leave The (new) New Paper?

For one, it needs to find an editorial gap in the market place to exploit.

With ST trying to cover all angles, with BT having captured the market for business reporting, with Today providing sharper angles to stories for free and with the online platforms monopolising football news with instant reports, commentaries and action videos, TNP is in for a rough ride.

Unless the SPH management knows something many don’t.

Good luck.

P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist who was an editor at TNP from 1990 to 2000, former chief editor of Today, and a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.