Abstract
Because of its gambling nature, lottery gaming has been associated with bankruptcy, the destruction of families, crime and gambling addiction. Despite these stigmas, a Malaysian lottery company has managed to brand itself, especially its gambling activities, in a positive way. Using Fairclough’s framework of analysis, the methods used to present this lottery company and its activities in a positive light are deconstructed by examining its contents in an influential daily newspaper. The false positive associations of the lottery company revealed in the analysis suggest that the lottery company is likely using the newspaper as a subliminal messaging media to promote its activities, thus indicating a possible compromise in journalistic and editorial integrity.
Introduction
The inception of this article stems from an observation that we had of newspaper articles which narrate stories of ordinary people winning extraordinary sums of money from lottery gaming. These articles are published as news reports in an influential Malaysian mainstream English-language newspaper, The Star. Below is an example of such articles:
KUALA LUMPUR: The Magnum 4D Jackpot, which celebrates its first anniversary tomorrow, has made 13 first prize winners millionaires overnight. A total of RM113mil has been paid out over the past year. ‘This shows that the jackpot first prize has been won almost every month,’ Magnum said in a statement yesterday. The jackpot second prize had an even more impressive record of RM45mil paid out to 142 winning shares, throwing up a winner almost every other draw. To mark the anniversary, an expansion of the 4D Jackpot game’s System Bet will be launched tomorrow. ‘This new feature will definitely increase a player’s chances of winning as more combinations are allowed,’ Magnum marketing manager Suzanne Soo said. There have been many interesting stories of how the winners choose their winning number combinations. ‘The very first winner of the Jackpot first prize, a 40-year-old businessman, used his car number and his child’s birth certificate number to win RM9.7mil,’ Magnum said. Most of the winners said that they would use the winnings to improve the quality of their family’s lives. ‘They said they would buy a house, put aside money for their children’s education, take the family on an overseas trip and other things,’ Soo added.
However, upon further scrutiny, it was discovered that the odds of actually winning the top prize is much closer to nil, and that articles featuring a local lottery company, Magnum (and their Magnum 4D programme), in The Star are always positive and biased. This prompted us to wonder: as a mainstream newspaper publication, is The Star operating as a Public Relations (PR) media outlet for Magnum? Is there some sort of collusion going on between the two establishments? Textual evidence seems to suggest so, and we present our case in the analysis section.
We use Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional model to deconstruct this PR practice, and at the end of the article we also discuss whether or not The Star has glossed over its moral and journalistic responsibilities. To achieve these aims, articles were sourced from The Star’s online repository using the keyword ‘Magnum’ and only 18 news articles were found (excluding business/finance reports), dating as far back as December 2009. While this figure is rather small, these articles provide sufficient material for a qualitative analysis.
It is interesting to note that this phenomenon rarely occurs in other Malaysian mainstream English-medium newspapers, such as New Straits Times and The Sun Daily, and it does not occur in mainstream Malay-language newspapers like Utusan Malaysia. Readers of Malay-language newspapers are mainly Muslim, hence featuring enticing stories of gambling is considered a prohibited activity. As for alternative newspapers (such as Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider), this phenomenon is also quite rare. Possible reasons could include them being miniscule in relation to large mainstream publications like The Star, hence they might be seen as non-influential entities. Thus, one can presume that the lottery corporations do not view them to be effective avenues of public engagement.
Why is this an important issue to pursue? While Garret’s (2001) study shows that lottery sales play a role in contributing to a country’s gross domestic product (GDP), 1 it also reveals a worrying trend whereby lower-income groups tend to spend a substantial amount of their income on lottery tickets. This idea is also corroborated by other studies (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2006; Lee and Chang, 2005; Vitello, 2011; Wisman, 2006; Zeng and Zhang, 2007). The aforementioned studies also demonstrate that one similar trait shared by lottery players is the belief that they are able to beat the odds and win the jackpot, by skill or by chance. Their personal conviction reinforces their perception that playing the lottery is a risk worth taking, even if it means spending their income and savings. Lottery players tend to say that they spend only a fraction of their income, and in some cases this expenditure becomes part of the household budget (Casey, 2006, discovered this behavioural pattern amongst female lottery players in the UK).
Moreover, it has been noted that consumerism of the lottery tends to: (i) whip people’s emotions with prospects of big wins, thus encouraging hedonistic consumption which provides temporary gratification and satisfaction (Scholte, 2005); (ii) encourage greed, ‘destroying public morals’ (Comstock, 1892: 218); (iii) make the poor more vulnerable and desperate (Casey, 2007: 124); and (iv) encourage irrational, irresponsible and wasteful spending (Casey, 2007).
We are concerned that subliminal messages such as ‘it is easy to win big money with lotteries’ in news reports can be taken as confirmatory cues by the public and further encourage them to buy or to continue to buy lottery tickets. The findings of these studies should be taken as warning signs. To mitigate the harm that the lottery can cause, the public should be informed of its dangers and be made aware of how lottery PR articles – presented as local/national news – can be used to influence and cloud our judgement.
The next section provides some background information to Magnum and The Star.
Magnum and The Star: A brief dossier
Magnum initially started off as the gaming division of Multi-purpose Holdings Bhd (MPHB), an investment company that also deals in financial services, stock broking, hospitality and property business (Thean, 2010). However, following Magnum’s incorporation in 1968, and later privatisation, Magnum Corp. Sdn Bhd moved on to become the first private company in Malaysia authorised to ‘promote, operate and manage 4-digit numbers forecast betting’ (Gaming, 2009: para. 1). With 485 draw-outlets throughout Malaysia (except Terengganu, Kelantan and Sabah), Magnum 4D, a programme of Magnum Corp., has generated a turnover per draw-outlet of RM41.8m – this figure represents 37% of the country’s gaming revenue (Leong, 2006: para. 6; Wong, 2011: 3). In 2009, Magnum 4D introduced a new game called the 4D Jackpot, which offers cascading prize money that accumulates if the previous prize has not been won. The 4D Jackpot, has been a lucrative business that has generated average sales of RM40.3m in the second half of 2011, further consolidating Magnum 4D’s position as the leader in the 4D gaming market in Malaysia (Wong, 2011: 3). As a member of international associations of state-authorised lotteries such as World Lottery Association (WLA) and Asia Pacific Lottery Association (APLA), Magnum Corp. is bound to uphold the associations’ code of conduct regarding gaming standards as well as social responsibilities. Magnum runs charities and welfare activities via the Magnum Foundation. Apart from its main revenue from selling lottery tickets, Magnum gets other revenue from its numerous subsidiary companies.
On the other hand, The Star is an influential English newspaper in Malaysia that was founded in 1976. According to the circulation returns report released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (n.d.), The Star and its sister paper, Sunday Star, had the highest circulated English daily in West Malaysia, with a total figure of 581,434 between January and June in 2011. As of 2010, there was an estimate of 1.01 million readers for The Star, and 1.05 million for the Sunday Star (The Star Annual Report 2010, n.d.: 37). Additionally, in July 2010, the comScore Media Metrix (comScore, 2010) reported that The Star Online was the ‘most-visited local news brand’ in Malaysia, with a total of 788,000 unique visitors at an average of 16.2 minutes per visitor and an average of 18 pages per visitor. The newspaper provides a wide coverage of local and international news, as well as articles on a wide range of topics such as business, health, sports, entertainment and education. As a corporate company, Star Publications is listed on the Main Market of Bursa Malaysia and Securities Bhd. Amongst its major shareholders are AMSEC Nominees Sdn Bhd and Citigroup Nominees Sdn Bhd. 2
Lotteries: Gambling and/or gaming?
Lotteries have been called ‘gaming’, and in other instances they have been referred to as ‘gambling’. However, is there a difference between these terms? The Malaysian Lotteries Act 1952 (Act 288) defines lottery as ‘any game, method, scheme or device whereby money or money’s worth is distributed or allocated in any manner depending upon or to be determined by chance or lot’. Under this classification, Magnum 4D lotteries are to be considered ‘gaming’. Intriguingly, it is also worth noting that the word ‘gambling’ is not used in defining lotteries. This phenomenon contrasts with the UK’s Gambling Act 2005 which uses the word ‘gambling’ to explicitly define the act of ‘participating in a lottery’. It also categorises ‘gaming’ under ‘gambling’.
It is also important to see how these terms are used in more general and public discourse. The definitions of gaming and its relative variational forms, ‘game’ and ‘gamer’, are provided by the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries as follows:
Gaming:
the risking of money in games of chance, especially at a casino;
laying video or computer games;
manipulating a situation, typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous.
Game:
a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules;
an activity that one engages in for amusement;
a type of activity or business regarded as a game;
wild animals;
a particular competition, match or occasion when people play a game;
an organised competition consisting of several different sporting events.
Gamer:
someone who likes playing computer games;
a sports player who enjoys their sport very much and works very hard.
What is particularly striking here is that ‘gaming’ and its variations are context-sensitive because they can mean different things in different settings. If used loosely in public discourse and not within a legal context, the term ‘gaming’ can be abused in forms of doublespeak in describing lottery activities. On the other hand, ‘gambling’ and its variations are defined in the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries as follows:
Gambling:
the activity of betting money, for example in a game or on a horse race.
Gamble:
lay games of chance for money; bet;
take risky action in the hope of a desired result;
do something risky that might result in the loss of money or failure; hope to get money or achieve success.
Gambler:
a person who gambles.
Note the contrast between ‘gambling’ and ‘gaming’ (and their variations) found in the dictionaries. ‘Gambling’ is more context-independent as opposed to ‘gaming’. Introspectively then, it is ironic that Malaysian laws, which aim to make terms like lottery as explicit and clear as possible, would choose to settle for a context-sensitive word that can take numerous meanings and shape in different contexts. In any case, this section shows that playing the lottery can be classified as gambling and/or gaming. However, to use the term ‘gaming’ to describe lotteries, ‘gaming’ must involve a game of chance, risk, money and a potentially valuable prize.
Odds of winning lotteries
What then are the odds of winning a Magnum lottery? By ignoring the mechanisms behind the draw of numbers, a probability calculation of Malaysian Magnum 4D games revealed the following results:
Magnum 4D classic
Assuming independence of the 23 draws, the probability of a number winning first prize is 1/10,000 since there is a possibility of 10,000 numbers ranging from 0000 to 9999. Magnum 4D allows for a number to appear multiple times.
Magnum 4D Jackpot 1
Let a pair of selected four-digit numbers be A and B, ranging from 0000 to 9999 each. Jackpot 1 is won when each of A and B wins either the first, second or third prize with no tie. Then, the probability of winning Jackpot 1 is calculated to be 6/100,000,000. In other words, there is a winning chance of 1 in 16,666,667.
Magnum 4D Jackpot 2
Similarly, let a pair of selected four-digit numbers be A and B. Jackpot 2 is won when either A or B wins either the first, second or third prize, while the other number in the pair wins the special prize. Then, the probability of winning Jackpot 2 is 6/10,000,000. In other words, there is a winning chance of 1 in 1,666,667.
These findings indicate that the Magnum 4D lotteries are not in favour of the players. Other studies also provide corroborated evidence indicating the miniscule chances of winning a lottery. Ariyabuddhiphongs (2006: 90) reports that the probability of winning the traditional Thai lottery is one in a million and the probability of winning the 8/64 lotto is one in 64 million. In addition, Turner and Ferentzy (2010) report that the odds of winning the Canadian LottoMax is one in 28.6 million, and for the Lotto 6/49, one in 14 million. Abrams and Garibaldi (2010), who used economic models to quantitatively determine why playing the lottery is a bad investment and by applying their calculations to the Lotto Texas drawing, found that the probability of winning only applies if one were to ‘buy out’ the lottery. This would require the purchase of 145,000 lottery tickets (at an estimated cost of US$26m).
Because of the high chances of losing, Hurt (2006: 378) ranks the lottery as a game of pure chance and argues that gambling activities cannot be considered risk-based investments. Yet despite these low odds of winning, lottery gaming seems to maintain its stronghold in society.
Applying Fairclough’s 3D CDA
Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional framework is one of many approaches that can be used to examine the ways texts hegemonise and legitimise one’s position (and others) in a social hierarchy, and it is a useful tool to systematically demonstrate how Magnum enforces its status quo (such as being the ‘good corporation’) and encourages readers of its PR releases in the guise of news reports to support its brand and activities. Fairclough writes that his framework:
[brings] together three analytical traditions, each of which is indispensable for discourse analysis. These are the tradition of close textual and linguistic analysis within linguistics, the macrosociological tradition of analysing social practice in relation to social structures, and the interpretivist or microsociological tradition of seeing social practice as something which people actively produce and make sense of on the basis of shared commonsense procedures. (1995: 72)
Fairclough’s framework comprises three main parts that are highly interrelated: text, discursive practice and social practice (1995: 73). This relationship can be understood in a simplified way: (i) the text is the ‘product’ or the physical manifestation of the social practice; (ii) the discursive practice is a ‘tool’ used to create the text in order to actualise the social practice; and (iii) the social practice can be equated with the ‘will’, ‘desire’ and ‘motivation’ of the establishment/institution/individual.
Althusser’s ideology and Gramsci’s hegemony have played a role in helping Fairclough formulate his conception of social practice (1995: 86). Broadly speaking, ideology can be viewed as having five components: ‘(i) a set of values that is (ii) a property of an organisation (iii) designed to influence the acts of others regarding (iv) the goals of the organisation and (v) the appropriate means for pursuing those goals’ (Mayer, 1982: 14). Hegemony, on the other hand, can be viewed as constructing alliances and integrating subordinate classes to win consent (Fairclough, 1992: 92).
In a sense then, the social practice level requires an understanding of social theories. If Magnum and the whole lottery industry were viewed from this angle of social practice, their main ideology would be seen as: to make profits by encouraging others to engage in lottery gaming. They enhance their hegemonic powers in numerous ways, such as illustrating the patrons who have become rich as a result of lottery gaming, and by engaging in social charity work to show that they are the ‘good guys’ in the news media.
Fairclough discusses discursive practice as involving processes of text production, distribution and consumption. We will concentrate on text production for this article, in particular ‘the combination of diverse genres and discourses’ (also known as ‘orders of discourse’) and intertextuality (Fairclough, 1995: 134). Fairclough borrows the term ‘order of discourse’ from Foucault to refer to the nexus of practices representing different discourses, which shape (or are shaped by) the social practices of an institution or group. There is a difference between discourse and genre. Discourse here refers to ‘ways of signifying experiences’ (e.g. medical discourse, political discourse, journalism discourse), while genre refers to ‘the use of language associated with a particular social activity’ (e.g. news reports, oral narrative) (p. 135). However, in practice, Fairclough himself notes that genre and discourse in discursive practice overlap frequently and that it is difficult to see them in isolation (cf. p. 132). To put discursive practice into perspective in this article, PR is a type of discourse used to uphold the Magnum brand, and the brand is represented in The Star as objective journalistic news reports. In a sense, journalism is a type of discursive practice that aims to present truthful and objective reports. As for intertextuality, Fairclough writes that it is the process of combining other texts to form new text (p. 84). In this sense, journalists are then powerful individuals who are able to include or exclude whatever other texts or quotes they like in building their journalistic articles.
As for textual analysis, Fairclough (1992: 75–78) writes that it can be examined from four angles: ‘vocabulary’ (words), ‘grammar’ (words combined into clauses and sentences), ‘cohesion’ (the ways clauses and sentences are linked) and ‘text structure’ (large-scale organisational properties of text). There are two ways in which Fairclough suggests vocabulary can be investigated: by examining ‘alternative wordings and their political and ideological significance, upon such issues as how domains of experience may be “reworded” as part of social and political struggles’, and ‘how meanings of words come into contention within wider struggles’. Grammar can be examined by looking at sentence transitivities, agencies and speech acts. As for cohesion, one can look at the elements of grammar such as conjunctions, argumentation and other logic-linkage strategies. Finally, an analysis involving ‘text structure’ would look at the ‘architecture’ of text. For this article, our analysis of ‘text structure’ is combined with cohesion and seen from an informal logics perspective.
Social practices: Consumerist culture in lottery gaming
Understandably, Magnum is a profit-driven corporation that practises values of capitalism. The company’s primary aim is to encourage more people to buy lottery tickets, because by doing so, it increases their ‘sales’ and drives up their profit margins. To avoid any negative image or connotation of greed associated with the capitalist nature of the corporation, its representatives use euphemisms and brand the company in a positive light. Consider the following quote of Surin Upatkoon, Magnum’s senior executive director, which appeared in an interview in The Star.
Excerpt 1. Interview with Magnum 4D’s senior executive director (The Star, 2009b, ‘MD: We are ready for any challenge’)
What more can Magnum do to generate income if there is no extension of coverage or more games?
It is education. Educating people that for a mere RM2, someone can win a jackpot and be a millionaire. This is not gambling but gaming and it can be a fun thing, for if you win it can guarantee a lifestyle change.
In this doublespeak, the senior executive director does not equate lottery gaming with ‘gambling’, despite lottery gaming having the same characteristics as gambling. Moreover, he says that the public ought to be ‘educated’, which is an odd term since education, a basic right, is about the dissemination of knowledge. His interview reflects the capitalist mentality of the company, and he encourages the consumerism of Magnum’s products.
Because of its gambling nature, lottery gaming has been associated with bankruptcy, the destruction of families, crime and gambling addiction (Guryan and Kearney, 2009; Keating, 1998). Not surprisingly then, Magnum has employed PR practitioners to rebrand its image and to remove any negative stigma associated with its lottery gaming. As the textual (and intertextual) analysis shows, these strategies include attaching an array of positive values to the company, such as trustworthiness, ethical practices and consumer focus, incorporating the voices of individuals that further enhance the company’s image, and presenting these textual strategies as news reports. The following sections examine these strategies.
Discursive practices: Orders of discourse and intertextuality
The news articles that feature Magnum are an amalgamation of PR and journalistic practices, which are presented in the form of news reports. According to Motion and Weaver (2005: 52), PR is concerned with the strategic deployment of texts that facilitate certain socio-cultural practices and not others to ‘gain a position of power for [the PR practitioner’s client] by establishing a “regime of truth” in order to “strategically maintain and reproduce the status quo or transform society”’. They also add that PR practitioners aim to ‘articulate an image or idea with pre-existing attitudes or experiences that then will predispose an individual to accept that idea or image’ (p. 53). Not surprisingly, PR practitioners have been labelled ‘spin doctors’ by critics for disseminating manipulative messages that communicate half-truths and messages which are ideologically biased to and serving of their clients’ interests (c.f. Fall, 2005: 803). But it should be remembered that PR is like a double-edged sword: it can also be used by agencies to promote harm-reduction practices, such as the TV advertising campaigns produced by Victoria’s Transport Accident Commission in Australia to discourage people from driving under the influence.
Journalistic discourse, on the other hand, is concerned with news production. In a sense, journalistic practices (e.g. TV and radio broadcasts, newspaper articles) are a type of ‘academic’ approach to the dissemination of historical and factual accounts of what happened to whom or what, where and when. The journalist is required to go out into the field, collect narratives and testimonies, experience situations and report them to their audience. Another salient difference between journalism and PR is the interpretive practice power that is held by the ‘neutral’ and ‘moderator’ journalist (see Scollon, 2004: 161). According to Van Hout (2007: 326–327), the journalist ‘transforms multiple news discourses (press agency copy, press releases, interview notes, other news media) into a single narrative, framed as an authoritative account of a news event’ using intertextual strategies. No doubt journalists may have their own ideological predisposition when they are reporting stories; however, PR practitioners are already biased to tell positive stories of their clients because they are being hired by the corporation. These practices highlight the main differences between the PR practitioner and the journalist.
While a critical discussion of whether PR releases are journalistic news or newsworthy is undoubtedly warranted – we shall not dwell on the matter in this article. There are bound to be arguments that to certain individuals, PR releases such as reporting on Magnum events are news. Indeed, the definition of news is somewhat contentious, muddy, complex and dependent on its readers. As Chibnall (1977: 221) notes:
News is, at once, a commodity, a creative enterprise, and a public service, but the appearance of its nature changes according to the perspective from which it is being viewed and its role in the current enterprise of the actor who is viewing it. The definition imposed on the phenomenon will generally be in accord with that enterprise. This applies as much to the consumer of news as to its producer. For the man who wishes to be entertained, news is predominantly entertainment.
We shall treat Magnum’s PR releases as news, as it provides an avenue for the public to be aware of the world around them (Martin, 2003: 4–5).
Because Magnum’s PR team uses The Star’s journalists in order to achieve their goals in disseminating positive imagery of Magnum, the PR practitioners can be seen as ‘discourse technologists’. PR articles produced as news reports are a covert means to disseminate subliminal messages because of the common perception that the nature of news reports is meant to be ‘objective’, ‘balanced’ and ‘free’ of self-serving conditions. In the words of Van Dijk (1988: 289):
[Common people] have been trained to believe that scientific inquiry, just like news reporting, should be objective, nonpartisan, and disinterested. We have become accustomed to ignore its inherent contextual embedding, that is, its ultimate motivation, goals, and functions.
In a sense then, PR practices – especially those like lottery gaming that can create public harm – are unethical and should ideally be kept away from mainstream news discourse in a publication like The Star.
We now shift our attention to intertextuality. As producers of the text, the journalist or newspaper representative has the power to be selective in the inclusion or exclusion of texts. In this article, we shall concentrate on the ‘voices’, that is, who said what. There are four common voices which have been selected for the news reports: winners of lotteries, Magnum’s representatives, beneficiaries and endorsers. Two common topics are frequently attributed to the winner’s voice: (i) what method was used to win their prize; and (ii) how they intend to spend their prize money.
Excerpt 2. The voice of winners ‘I dreamt of these two numbers and went to the Magnum outlet the next day. The original number that I bought was 9797 and 5679, but as an insurance I decided to permutate the second number and paid RM48 for the combination. ‘Now I will use the money to expand my business. I have been playing the 4D Jackpot since its launch. I have won smaller prizes but I never gave up,’ the man said.
When representatives of Magnum are cited, they assume the role of ‘experts’, be it as trend analysts and experts of lotteries, or in the social issues and causes that their company claims to be championing or sponsoring. Consider the following quotes.
Excerpt 3. The voice of Magnum’s representatives A Magnum 4D representative said it was the company’s way of rewarding loyal players and followers. ‘Up to today, the Jackpot 2 prize has already been won three times. So it is proven that the Magnum 4D Jackpot is easy to win. ‘Those thinking that a person has to spend a massive amount of money to win big need look no further than our Jackpot 1st prize winner, who only placed a bet of RM12 to win,’ the representative said.
The firm was represented by its central regional manager Chan Chee Fai and Magnum 4D east coast assistant manager Lim See Chin … ‘We hope this contribution, along with active community support, will help them overcome some of their challenges,’ he said … ‘We urge Malaysians to make a difference in the lives of the poor and needy,’ he added.
The voices of the beneficiaries of Magnum’s charity programmes are also highlighted. Typically, they are cited as expressing gratitude for the gifts they received from Magnum.
Excerpt 4. Beneficiaries’ voices Vinashini Home founder S. Krishnan expressed his gratitude to Magnum for supporting a welfare home dedicated to caring for the mentally retarded and disabled. ‘It’s the second consecutive year they (Magnum) have contributed to our needs. ‘This time, the money will go towards building a new home to house our 70 residents,’ he said.
Magnum’s activities are endorsed by influential people. Consider the following excerpts from (i) politicians and influential members of society praising the company for its social deeds, and (ii) winners who have won lotteries confirming the possibility of winning due to Magnum’s new game system.
Excerpt 5. Endorsers’ voices ‘It makes me very happy to note that there are organisations like Magnum which are not only focused on making profits but are also committed in their corporate social responsibility by helping out the poor and less fortunate. ‘It is my hope that more organisations would carry out such programmes to complement the government’s efforts to help the needy,’ [MCA vice-president Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung] said …
[A jackpot winner] added that it was not impossible for one to win big when buying Magnum 4D Jackpot [tickets].
The selection of voices can also be interpreted as informing and, to an extent, ‘educating’ (or demonstrating to) readers how they can engage in lotteries and win big money. Additionally, readers need not be afraid of Magnum because this company has no issue of ethical malpractice – it engages in social welfare such as sponsorship and donating money and items of value to social causes. This is a noteworthy phenomenon because, on the one hand, the company presents itself as a civically conscious company, but, on the other, its lottery representatives deceive readers into thinking that lotteries provide an easy win.
Also, these news reports are biased because they do not provide holistic and contesting viewpoints – from specialists in statistics, economics and social welfare, for instance. Should they be included, these specialists would inevitably provide critical counter-perspective viewpoints and challenge Magnum’s claims – thus making the articles less PR-based and more objective news. At this juncture it might be of interest to ask: how did the journalists know who had won, or what events were being organised by Magnum? How were they able to get access to the voices of these individuals? There is no way of knowing what goes on in Magnum, unless the PR team contacted The Star, or The Star placed its staff members in Magnum. The latter is unlikely. In a sense then, these news reports have been ‘staged’.
Textual analysis
In our repository of articles, we note the absence of negative stories and an overwhelmingly positive representation of Magnum. This is an expected phenomenon given the nature of PR discourse. Based on the cohesion (rhetorical) aspect of textual analysis via logical arguments, we find instances of positive-based arguments that suggest: (i) Magnum 4D prizes are an extravaganza; (ii) it is easy to win Magnum 4D lotteries; (iii) not a lot of money is needed to win big; and (iv) Magnum is a great company with a big heart.
Argument 1. Magnum 4D’s lotteries provide big winnings (Foong, 2010)
3
If no one claims the grand prize of Jackpot 1 in today’s draw, the top sweepstakes will be revalued and increased to RM20 million.
No one has claimed the grand prize of Jackpot 1 in the draw today.
Therefore, the top sweepstakes will be increased to RM20 million.
Argument 2. Magnum 4D’s lottery can be won with simple methods (Law, 2010; The Star, 2009a)
The winners chose meaningful numbers (e.g. those on a new car chassis number, those on a child’s birth certificate, car registration numbers, personal lucky numbers) when buying Magnum 4D Jackpot lottery tickets.
These individuals won millions in prize money.
Therefore, it is possible to become a millionaire by choosing one’s own meaningful numbers.
Argument 3. One does not need to spend a lot to win big (The Star, 2009a)
The Jackpot 1st prize winner won RM10 million.
The Jackpot 1st prize winner only spent RM12.
Therefore, one does not need to spend a lot to win the 1st prize Jackpot.
Argument 4. Magnum is more caring than the younger generation of today’s society (The Star, 2010b, ‘Youths reminded of responsibility’)
The younger generation of today’s society is less concerned about the welfare of the less fortunate.
Senior citizens at the Federation of Chinese Associations Old Folk’s Homes are less fortunate.
Presenting Chinese red packets (filled with money) and goodies to 27 senior citizens is a sign of altruism and charity and caring.
Magnum presented Chinese red packets (filled with money) and goodies to 27 senior citizens, aged between 70 and 92 at the Federation of Chinese Associations Old Folk’s Homes.
Therefore, Magnum is more altruistic, charitable and caring in regard to the less fortunate than today’s younger generation.
Note that we are not particularly concerned with unveiling fallacies here because these thematic-based arguments may be true from a certain perspective. We are much more concerned with the ways the propositional arguments have been made and with the conclusions derived from the rhetorical structure of the propositions. It is argued here that the conclusions to the arguments presented in the excerpts can excite one’s emotions and that they have the power to make readers attribute positive feelings towards Magnum and its activities.
As for our analysis of grammar, we shall concentrate on Magnum as the primary agency in these articles. Consider the following excerpts that show Magnum ‘doing and causing’ positive events to happen.
Excerpt 6. Magnum as agent A Magnum 4D representative said [giving the Jackpot prize to the winner] was the company’s way of
Despite the economic slowdown, gaming giant Magnum Corporation Sdn Bhd
The verbs (including phrases) ‘rewarding’, ‘continues to dish out’ and ‘bring cheer’ are words with positive connotations of altruism that are directed to the recipient nouns: the ‘loyal players and followers’ and the ‘needy and unfortunates’.
Verbs and verb phrases such as ‘win/won’, ‘gave all his winnings’ and ‘use the winnings’ describe how the winners have empowered themselves (and next of kin) in terms of status and money. These verbs make the act of winning desirable. Consider the following excerpts.
Excerpt 7. Winners as agents A man who
Most of the winners said that they would
The ways in which these agents have been presented in the articles are similar to demonstrations or teaching instructions provided for newsreaders through exemplary events and experiences; a way of teaching them to choose winning lottery numbers as well as inculcating what people could do with their winning prizes.
Numerous lexical items that carry positive connotations have also been used in order to reduce negative associations and to intensify positive associations with the company. Consider the following excerpts.
Excerpt 8. Positive connotations associated with Magnum’s lottery gaming A businessman from Kuala Lumpur became an ‘We have had instances where customers won on numbers they had chosen from the forecast chart, but this is definitely the
‘This shows that the jackpot first prize had been won The jackpot second prize had an ‘This new feature
Words like ‘instant multi-millionaire’, ‘winning’, ‘winner’, ‘biggest win ever’, ‘even more impressive record’ and ‘will definitely increase’ are likely used to invoke strong emotional responses associated with being dwarfed in the presence of money, feelings of extravagance, and the possibility that anyone can experience these wins.
Words with positive connotations are also evident in news reports relating to Magnum’s social works.
Excerpt 9. Positive connotations associated with Magnum 4D’s social works ‘It makes me very happy to note that there are organisations like Magnum which are not only focused on making profits but are also ‘It is Magnum, he said, had also given out cash aid to the poor and needy during other festivals. Students who excel in their education are also
To give the impression that Magnum is civic-conscious, words and phrases such as ‘committed’, ‘social responsibility’, ‘helping out the poor and less fortunate’, ‘corporate philosophy and culture’, ‘caring and sharing’, ‘uphold steadfastly’ and ‘rewarding excellent students’ are used.
Discussion and final remarks
Based on analysis in the previous sections, these news articles run the risk of perpetuating a false notion of easy money. They may indicate a clash of interests in terms of the ideal in journalistic-news reporting integrity and ethics. The following excerpts from the National Union of Journalists Malaysia (n.d.) highlight the elements that comprise journalistic integrity and ethics in Malaysia:
Respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist.
In pursuance of this duty he will defend the twin principles: freedom in the honest collection and publication of news; and the right of fair comment and criticism.
The journalist reports only in accordance with the facts of which he knows the origin.
Any published information which is found to be harmfully inaccurate he will do his utmost to rectify.
He recognises in professional matters, the jurisdiction of his colleagues only;
Essentially then, when reporting news articles relating to Magnum, the public has the right to be informed of the perils that can be caused by lottery gaming. As The Star is an influential publication with a huge readership, it needs to be accountable to the public.
Whilst we do not deny that Magnum’s corporate social programmes are beneficial to society, to say that Magnum is a caring role model is disingenuous, because part of the charity money comes from people who have lost their lottery bets. If the company is indeed civic-conscious, Magnum should inform the public that there is a low chance of winning the Jackpot and that part of the losers’ money is channelled into its social programmes while enriching its stakeholders. Having said that, we are not of the view that lotteries should be made illegal, but giving the public a false sense of likely success is harmful.
Also, Magnum’s success in disguising the negative connotations of lottery as an act of gambling is due in part to the way lottery has been defined by Malaysian law. If laws were amended to define lottery gaming as gambling, inevitably lottery companies could not declare that ‘lottery is not gambling’. Thus, as is shown in this study, the use of context-sensitive definitions in the law could be harmful as they open up opportunities for organisations or individuals to exploit the law for personal benefit. This warrants the need for collaboration between policy-makers and linguists to carefully review current laws and policies to ensure their accuracy and consistency.
While Magnum’s gaming activities may be detrimental to its players, this does not mean that The Star ought to refrain from reporting any good works done by the gaming company. What is a matter of concern is the neutrality and objectivity of the news reports, something which an influential publication like The Star should uphold. News media organisations ought to take heed of Oppenheim and Swift’s (1998: 140) caution that ‘the direct and indirect alliance of the media with business inculcates the consumerist mind set’ and can brainwash the public to embrace ‘the greed-glamorising ambiance of glittering lotteries’.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.