Tuesday, May 09, 2006
A Message from a Media Insider

I've been in contact with someone from inside the media industry and I requested that he/she write a short piece for my blog to tell anyone who visits what it's like to be inside the organisation which has failed us in so many ways during this General Election, and before, and after.  There have been many calls for journalists, reporters, cameramen etc. to step up and tell the world what really goes on there, but it's always easier to stand outside a glass house and throw rocks at it, rather than stand beneath its roof and do the same.  I can't reveal the name of this person, nor any of his/her particulars, but nevertheless the truth of the message is far more important than the identity behind it.  Suffice it to say that the person has had experience in the coverage of the general elections these past few weeks.

I had no illusions about the independence of the local media when I first started my job as a [------] in Singapore. I knew that my work would be edited, and possibly censored for political safety, and I was mostly fine with that - no media channel anywhere in the world is entirely free from some form of editorial trimming, after all.
 
What I didn't bargain for was individual self-censorship, unspoken policies and rules, and the stoutness with which people swallowed their journalistic dignity and integrity (because it does exist, even strongly, in some places) to toe the party line. Incredible as it seems, reporters in Singapore do have the same fierce pride in their work as reporters anywhere else; I think this is especially evident in sections of the media that don't touch on politics.
 
But when it comes to political news, particularly something as sensitive as the elections, many of us leave our brains and consciences at home and resign ourselves to doing what we're told and writing what's being dictated. To some extent I appreciate the rationale of this - there really is a very close watch being kept on the media and when we're kept in line it's largely for our own safety.
 
However, as someone still young and naive and idealistic, it's hard for me to swallow the indignation I feel whenever I see the local media doggedly ignoring its otherwise sharply-honed news sense. Articles and TV programmes are edited to balance out pro-opposition views; awesome camera opportunities - like the opposition rallies - are studiously left out of media coverage; banal and unfair quotes and tactics are highlighted and headlined simply because they are tools of the ruling party.
 
There are many things journalists see that the eyes of the public are not privy to, and that we would like to report on but can't. Please remember that when you read an article or watch a broadcast that seems particularly, emetically subjective. And help spread the word that a lot of us in the media are sorry that we can't do the job we want to. It may not mean a lot to you, but it sucks for us that for every day that we covered the elections, people's opinions of us plummeted - despite the fact that we worked our asses off in 14-hour days with no breaks on weekends or public holidays to bring you our version of the news.
 
And for those who think it's as easy as quitting your jobs and following your conscience - grow up. This is a job. It puts food on our tables. We can all up and leave, but it's ridiculously easy to replace us with more party-line-spouting drones. With educated and politically aware journalists in the local media, at least civil society in Singapore stands a fighting chance. So despise and condemn us all you like, but whatever you believe in, it's highly likely we believe in it too. And it's also likely that we're doing something about it, in our own little ways, even if it's as small as writing about and expressing our dissatisfaction with the system from the inside.
 
Don't give up on us. We haven't given up on our ideals.
The message speaks poignantly for itself, but let's also have some understanding as to its context.  From what I have been gathering from people who send me correspondences as well as those I know face to face, SPH and its affiliated organisations are filled with people who are educated, articulate and passionate -- just like the one above -- yet disillusioned by the system.  Many in fact, have packed up and left.  The problem with the system is who's at the top.  We all know that ex-Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan is the chairman of Singapore Press Holdings.  Perhaps less widely known is what is alleged here, by Pranay Gupte, a foreign journalist who has worked with the Straits Times.  He claims that 'the paper is run by editors with virtually no background in journalism' and that his direct editor, Chua Lee Hoong, 'was an intelligence officer'.  He also says that '[o]ther key editors are drawn from Singapore's bureaucracies and state security services.  They all retain connections to the state's intelligence services, which track everyone and everything'.
 
Eric Ellis, an Australian journalist, also reports here, where he says that 'Chua Lee Hoong, the ST's most prominent political columnist..work[ed] with the secret police for nine years.  There's Irene Ho on the foreign desk.  She was also an "analyst" with Singapore's intelligence services.  So, says Cheong [editor-in-chief for the Straits Times], was Susan Sim, his Jakarta correspondent'. 
 
Ellis also talks about 'Cheong's boss, Tjong Yik Min.  From 1986 to 1993, Tjong was Singapore's most senior secret policeman, running the much feared Internal Security Department, a relic of colonial Britain's insecurities about communism in its Asian empire.  Now Tjong is a media mogul, the executive president of SPH, Singapore's virtual print media giant, which controls all but one of the country's newspapers'. 
 
It is worthwhile to note that Tjong has since left, in June 2002, but was replaced by Alan Chan, former Transport Ministry Permanent Secretary and previously Principal Private Secretary to Senior Minister, who is currently the CEO of Singapore Press Holdings.
 
You can read the press release about his appointment here, on the SPH website, which states without shame whatsoever that 'Mr Chan is currently Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport. He is also a Director of Singapore Power (since 1 June 2001) and of PowerGas Ltd (since 15 January 2002).  Mr Chan was previously Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Info Technology (1999-2001), Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1997-1999), Principal Private Secretary to Senior Minister (1994-1997) and Director Manpower, MINDEF (1990-1994). He was also a Director of DBS Group Holding Ltd from April 1996 to September 2001, and a Director of PSA Corporation Ltd from September 1999 to September 2001.'
 
Clearly the pressure coming from the head is overwhelming, and it is no surprise whatsoever that that pressure should translate down the chain, so that the executives chastise the editors, the editors chastise the journalists, and so on, if anyone steps out of line, and that perpetuates self-censorship because 'you might as well mutilate your own article before they get to it, and in any case there's no point in drawing attention to yourself'.
 
So of course things are tough, and will take time to change.  You've read the message from someone who actually works inside that system, and now you understand too what that person faces as a daily reality in the workplace.  Do feel free to leave comments which will, one way or another, get back to him/her.

Posted at 03:16 pm by gaylegoh

bluepooch
December 25, 2006   04:25 AM PST
 
After having lived abroad for many years and read many different types of English newspapers, it takes a good while to get used to reading our quasi-professional Straits Times. Well firstly, the standard of English is horri-gi-ble. Sentences are often phrased in a funny manner and expressed in childish tones which do not befit the prestige of a national newspaper. My BBC friend, a Cambridge first class graduate, once told me he found the local newspapers here very difficult to get used to.
Secondly, the political slant is sooo obvious, come on, it's like paying good money to read a party's advertorial blasting the virtues of its wares everyday... Whenever another country is mentioned in the Straits Times, you can be sure it focuses only on the BAD things that happen there, not the good. This gives us such an unbalanced view of the world and instills in us a false sense of security in our superiority as a nation. Thank God there is the internet.... (btw i never pay 80 cents to read the articles in the Straits Times, only to search for discount coupons offered by retailers ha ha!)
Name
December 15, 2006   02:54 PM PST
 
Elitism is a spoilt brat that carries an ornate bird cage with a emotionally wounded bird in it. And he in olden days went around boasting about the beauties of the cage and the bird. The wealth and power of his family of which he must DISPLAY so as to live in glory and in distinct of himself and his ancestors. Confucius went from state to state to seek recognitions (and probably position and and fame). He however did promulgate the virtues of humility and propriety.
NameSim Chin Boo
December 9, 2006   02:08 PM PST
 
Having read the ST Insight Article 'Why the elite envy', I am greatly disappointed with the analyses. First, the blame for the negative connotation was confined to the education system. It is guilty of course but that is because those incharge of it are responsible, not the students. When Wee Shu Min was censored for her 'elitist' blog, I never for a moment blamed her, instead I pitied her. It was her upbringings by the guardians, schoolings as well as the society that breed her attitude. Elitism is so pervasive in our society, one just cannot escape the snobbery, flaunt and taunt everywhere. We get to see showcasings of palatial abode, super expensive car, watch, fashionwears on televion, newspaper, magazine etc. Oh yes, no owner of the luxuries ever come to us to boast. Are you not upset because you are envious and jealous as suggested by some researcher and specialist? Let us make it clear that perceptions stir and arouse emotion involuntarily. One needs not neccessarily be envious or jealous to dislike something. Abhorence can arise like allergy without the sufferer knowing it. Pychologist may like to enlighten us on this and suggest remedy. Elitism is propagated and manifested by adults who believe they should showcase their achievements in power, wealth and calibre even knowledge. Dependents who behave elitist can only piggyback on the gloryshowing of their influencers. There were two famous sages, one confucius went from state to state in search of high position and recognition. His contemporary Laozi conversely seek neither position nor fame. Both are famous, what's the moral? Fame needs not come from boast, I respect Laozi.
NameSim Chin Boo
December 8, 2006   10:59 AM PST
 
With 5000 hotspots, the citizen medias such as this will soon have its' days. I like to thank Gayle Goh very much for the inspirations, the impetus to wake up the docile subservient lot. Over the last four decades, the masses have been and being engineer (social) and groom to become self-centred individualistic, unfeeling and worst of all greedy. The main newsmedias faults lie mostly in glorifying economic reports whether or not they benefit the people and whether they are evenly share by the masses. As I see it, the greatest damages are from the local publications of leisure reads which invariably glorify materialism and sensual gratifications. It must be said that much of these periodicals are published and or distributed by the main media owners. Superficially these publications indicate that we are well into epicurian attainments. Our hedonistic lifestyles is taken as the greatest evidence of our national achievements. The material pursuits consume almost the all purpose of existence. Hence compassion, empathy, ethics, justness and humility are relegate to secondary and maybe even unimportant human traits. It's obvious that money has been the causes of unhappiness throughout history. Be it that one is short of it to survive or another having too much of it to flaunt around, both are likely to evoke unhappiness. Here is one reason why high salaries of civil and government owned entities staff become acrimonious. The entertainment medias influence the cultural movements of the people and much distract them from the sociopolitical developments of the nation. Sex, fashion, jewellery, car, watch, beautification (dead and alive), wine and dine and palatial abode etc are much the touted and proselytised. Unfortunately, the mere publication and broadcast of such contents are shouted as proof of our everimproving living standard (first world) but not happiness. Why is the spirit not in syn with the material manifestation? Greed and jealousy (as opposed to envy), unless one is the richest,yougest and most beautiful (no one can be perpetually so) one can never be happy. So, what's the remedy? The medias that publish and promote materialism, vice and vain have to be expurgated if not boycotted. For the time being.
NameSim Chin Boo
November 26, 2006   12:48 AM PST
 
folks,you people are certainly capable of enlightening the people now through this media and there is no reason not to do it. Born in 1951, I do agree that those born prior 1960 had done poorly resulting in the political climate today. Dark cloud brings much needed rain to a drought. May you pour for the seedlings to germinate and the saplings to grow and flourish, kudos to you folks.
madcap
May 30, 2006   01:58 PM PDT
 
We should ask Tan Wah Piow why he disappears from Singapore and migrate to London?
out of the box
May 30, 2006   01:54 PM PDT
 
Since the ST is not very objective then it is better to watch CNN and BBC for more accurate news.
Robert L
May 21, 2006   01:23 PM PDT
 
Hi, there is one comment made in this series of responses that I think should not be ignored.

Posted by insider @ 05/11/2006 04:30 PM PDT
Extract:
"Would a jounalist making his fultile stand in the newsroom be any more effective than a certain opposition candidate going around with a loudhailer making lots of strong remarks, which even if true, have been discredited by a behaviour that's not acceptable by current society?"

I'm surprised over the remark "discredited by a behaviour that's not acceptable by current society?"

I'm pretty sure "insider" meant a behaviour that had been portrayed by the media?

After the James Gomez issue, I am truly surprised that anyone who posts in this blog can still believe in anything portrayed by the media, particularly those about Mr Chee Soon Juan. Isn't it better wisdom to revisit all your old opinions and wise up that they could all have been misformed?
pimp
May 18, 2006   12:32 PM PDT
 
"Albert Einstein once said that the world is evil, not because of the evil doers but those who see evil being done and do nothing."

Precisely why POOR PROSTITUTES and RUNNING DOGS are apt accolades for the 140th media. And i do mean all reporters, its just too bad. And guess what? At least the geylang whore doesn't complain about being one...
Ganga
May 17, 2006   12:31 PM PDT
 
I had made an objective observation in my own blog entry on 'Creative Journalism' (http://beyondsimplicity.blogspot.com/2006/05/creative-journalism.html) about the same time of this entry. I am happy to note that your 'insider revelation' supported my 'theory'. Sad to note, you are on your way to becoming infamous and, in Singapore, infamity is not considered meritocratic. I foresee you becoming a Honours Grad in Political Science at NUS and then having no alternative but to seek greener pastures overseas while feeling very strongly about Singapore - that's exactly the case for James Gomez...
gayle
May 15, 2006   06:06 PM PDT
 
i disagree that people with degrees in journalism would better serve our cause by churning out Burger King ads than writing articles that showcase of the opposition, censored or not.

you are right in that it's not the degree that counts, but what is made of it :)
mos
May 14, 2006   02:17 AM PDT
 
i have 2 friends in major advertising firms who had degrees in history and journalism respectively.

it's not the degree, it's what you make of it.
gayle
May 14, 2006   01:28 AM PDT
 
"Hi, I have a degree in journalism, can I have a job in your advertising firm?"
mos
May 14, 2006   01:23 AM PDT
 
Examples of other jobs in the private sector: advertising, public relations, marketing, etc.

Who says they can't up and change jobs?
Benjamin
May 12, 2006   11:22 PM PDT
 
Actually I think the recent flurry of critical responses in the Forum only serve to deflect the pressure from the ruling party (and ST) by creating a semblance of objectivity. When such ideas are being articulated in the mainstream media, what it serves is to reduce any future possibility of complaints against ST as a pro-PAP-biased paper.
insider
May 11, 2006   04:30 PM PDT
 
I don't know how old everyone is. And I'm not of an age to be qualified to make an authoritative statement on this. But here's a question to consider:

Has there been a change in how politics is discussed, privately and publicly, since 1965?

Perhaps, assuming youth, we are only seeing a small snapshot of the situation and are unable to see how things have progressed over the years?

The current situation is far from ideal, at least by standards determined by world leader America. But changes, especially at the national level, do not come overnight. And this applies not only to politics.

Perhaps, we need to learn patience. And perhaps, we have to accept that the change we desire may not come within our life times. Does that mean we give up and not try to work towards the goal?

And this is where I am heartened that, from time to time, a few journalists are trying always to push the boundaries. Sure, they'll get slapped to write the nauseating stuff from time to time, but would you rather they up and go, only to be replaced by parrots? Or would you rather they grit their teeth and wait for a better time to move forward?

Sure, elections are over. Of course the letters wouldn't have been published before polling day, not withstanding many touch on the results which couldn't have been written on earlier. Still, I am heartened that the forum editor, a man of many years in the organisation, maintains an independent opinion and is, for now, allowed to let that manifest on a public platform.

At the same time, I think technology has helped make possible discussions like this one. Blogs, online forums and who knows what else will come along are enabling public debate on media that is hard if not impossible to control. At some point, I think the govt will have to realise this. Also, traditional media will also sit up at some point bcos' their business will be ultimately hit if people move their attention to these other platforms. It's already happening even now.

So, analyse, comment, rant and rave as you would. But there's no point getting really upset with the supporting cast either.

Would a jounalist making his fultile stand in the newsroom be any more effective than a certain opposition candidate going around with a loudhailer making lots of strong remarks, which even if true, have been discredited by a behaviour that's not acceptable by current society?
gayle
May 11, 2006   03:47 PM PDT
 
skeptic - i don't mind at all, go ahead :)

fancl- according to the PAP, jobs are abundant. but i'd like to remind you that jobs for journalists who are not willing to cooperate with SPH are not abundant at all, simply because it controls the entire press. what are the suggestions you posited?
1) report online - i run this blog and i, to a certain extent, 'report online'. it doesn't earn me money, or buy my family rice.
2) report from abroad - pack up and leave their families behind? their whole lives? distance themselves from their homeland and go abroad to be labelled a 'quitter'?
3) write fiction - sure, they can write fiction if they want, but who's going to report the truth? while i commend writers like catherine lim for attempting (even though i have never seen her as a good writer, to be perfectly honest), allow me to point out that the singaporean needs not just voices of art, but voices who are willing to confront the real bread and butter issues and the concerns of the masses. someone needs to tell the *real* stories of singaporeans who live in poverty and their problems. we need journalists for that, who are willing to subvert the system in any small way they can.

we're all on the same side, the last thing we need is to rag on each other and finger-point. nothing will get done that way.
#17
May 11, 2006   01:42 PM PDT
 
thats also why many people have always held the opposition parties in high regards. =)
the screwy skeptic
May 11, 2006   12:17 PM PDT
 
hey... if you don't mind i'd like to link to this post and post an excerpt of this on my own blog. if that's not alright please let me know, thanks.
Windingdown
May 11, 2006   12:14 PM PDT
 
Your accusation that the media are “accessories” suggests that they function as some sort of inanimate trinket to prettify the lies. Which may well be true - the papers are guilty of perpetuating the myth for those already sold out to PAP propaganda. Take for instance, some apparently standard ST/CNA must-haves - first and last lines of articles must end on a PAP-positive note, PAP article/ headline/layout must get more prominence, PAP-related photos must look more abundant (be it rally crowds or MM’s hairline or beaming *ahem* young ‘uns swarming PM Lee for autographs).

But within those parameters, I would say journalists (rather than the papers run by ex-civil servant ceos) have been subverting that myth by telling the PAP what they may not want to hear, but need to listen to. Journalists, in an ideal objective world, work not to sway public opinion, but to report it. In Singapore, their most powerful tool is the direct quotes – the own-words of the Singaporean voters and the opposition, the blooper “fix-the opposition”-type quotes (that any press secretary/PR would have axed on the spot but which the editorial guillotine let through), the forums.

Before one accuses journalists of being willing accomplices to the National (Self)Delusion just because their rice-bowl depends on it, ask why they would risk their payroll to incur SM Lee’s ire by including all those allegedly “opposition-biased” view-points. He obviously wasn’t content with just the abundant headlines and hairline. And indeed, if elections are over and it makes no difference to public opinion, why even bother to rub it in for the PAP by posting controversial letters such as “He commends Sitoh but would vote for Chiam”?
fancl
May 11, 2006   11:23 AM PDT
 
if I understood you correctly: I get the feeling therefore its not the journalists fault. its the editors fault. Right, so no need to worry lor. Dont feel bad, since it wasnt your responsibility to begin with. So maybe one day you will become editor and then ...hopefully you wont say- its the Board's fault- i'm just the editor, or its the big man's fault, i'm just a member of the board?
fancl
May 11, 2006   11:19 AM PDT
 
According to what the ST puts out. NO one will starve in Singapore, jobs are abundant. If you no longer choose to be a journalist and help write such articles, you wont starve right? There are ALWAYS other jobs outside of news reporting. You can report online. You can report from abroad, you can be a writer of fiction.
gayle
May 11, 2006   10:40 AM PDT
 
i don't think you should be so judgmental. let him who has not sinned cast the first stone - let him who has left his job, forsaken his security, disappointed his family, and killed his career, for the sake of an ideal, cast the first stone at the journalist. in other words, maybe JBJ or chee soon juan can scold journalists, but not many of us here :)
Marc
May 11, 2006   01:22 AM PDT
 
I am sorry, but I find it hard to sympathise with people who help perpetuate lies on a daily basis. The journalists themseles may not be the main guilty party, but nevertheless they are accessories to it and thus should be held equally responsible.

Saying that its a job that puts food on the table is not a valid excuse. There are also many jobs that put food on the table without needing one to perpetual lies on a national scale and to cover one's conscience.
ridiculous
May 11, 2006   12:45 AM PDT
 
obviously we're stuck with the pap for five years, we never had a choice. no single opposition party contested even half the seats. that's quite a weird thing to say.
callandor
May 11, 2006   12:03 AM PDT
 
To the person who said that the media is currently publishing more letters about the opposition and what nots. Just realise that:

1. Election over.
2. Doesn't matter what stories about opposition, how good they are, are published, because the voting is already done.
3. that means that no matter how publich opinion sways, the vote can't be changed, and you're stuck with PAP for another 5 years.
4. Just wait till just before the next election, and watch the opposition get villified again.

Sigh. I'm really considering to not writing in SG.
anonymous journalist
May 10, 2006   11:58 PM PDT
 
Wah everybody hates the media. May I venture the opinion that not all articles are created equal? As insider mentions, there is an increasing number of neutral, objective, and - dare I say it - pro-democracy and pro-free-press reports, especially in Today and even ST. How about lauding the journalists who write those? THEY make a difference. Maybe not front page news lah, but I'm sure the people commenting on this blog who appear to be such experts on the media have definitely scrutinized all the political commentary and analysis buried inside Today and ST's pages - right?
random
May 10, 2006   11:49 PM PDT
 
Except that this is more than just an essay to earn you marks to pass your class.

The author obviously has a sense of journalistic duty, yet at the same time feels that he/she cannot fulfill this duty.

It's not their fault that the system is the way it is, and I don't think anyone here blames them for the system.

What I take issue with is the fact that the authour chose to justify staying in the job by arguing that he/she works hard, has idealism (which does not translate to end result), and that the job puts food on the table (as if the alternative is abject joblessness and starvation), and (especially) that 'if I don't do it, someone else will'.

(I try to avoid analogy again, but feel free to apply the above arguments to the job of the Nazi Concentration Camp guard I used in an earlier analogy.)

As arguments go, these are not very strong, especially coming as they did from a journalist.
at82
May 10, 2006   11:48 PM PDT
 
Does anyone know where is luckytan?!?

I miss him... sob...
jazzer
May 10, 2006   11:16 PM PDT
 
there seems to be some truth in what everyone is saying, but i think that everyone should just try to think of it in the eyes of the journalist who wrote this; whatever he writes, before it goes to print, will be edited by his editor, so it's not really up to him what ends up before our eyes is it? as someone up there said, might as well mutiliate our own work than to let someone else get their hands on it, or something to that effect...it's kinda like the essays that we all write, or wrote, in school. you're given a guideline, and if you stray from it, you lose marks...so can you really blame them?
fancl
May 10, 2006   10:59 PM PDT
 
i'm wondering if the FREE PRESS is an ideal that isnt worth working towards. It really sounds like its impossible for a journalist or even an editor to call it like he sees it.
fancl
May 10, 2006   10:57 PM PDT
 
there's a difference between finding an angle which i see as finding a story to hold the info together and withholding newsworthy events such as the giant crowds who attended the WP rallies (yes it was vaguely referred to much much later).
random
May 10, 2006   10:53 PM PDT
 
I am not saying that being a journalist is like being a thief, but that the *type* of argument is an invalid one.

As for whether a good journalist can make a difference in this job, it seems that the original author does not think so himself/herself - or else he/she would not be asking us to "spread the word that a lot of us in the media are sorry that we can't do the job we want to".

So if a good journalist cannot get the sincere stuff he/she writes published, and only the stuff that gets approved by the 'party line' gets published, what difference is there between having a good journalist and a bad one in the job? You can call yourself a good journalist, and you can console yourself with the fact that you still have idealism, but the end result remains that the masses only get to read party line.

It's not enough to say 'we work hard', 'we need the job to put food on table', 'we are doing something about it', and 'we haven't given up our ideals' when the net result is that you are still working for an organisation whose ends and means you yourself disagree with.

And when you cannot show us any evidence that you are actually doing or have done anything to change the system from within, it's a little hard for us to 'not give up' on you.
zyn
May 10, 2006   10:16 PM PDT
 
random: "The 'if I don't do it then someone else will' argument is no defence." -- I politely disagree. The analogy of "if I don't steal it, someone else will" is rather missing the point. It's not that the job is there to be done anyway, it's a matter of someone else coming in to do a worse job.

As others have pointed out, there's a difference between a bad reporter and a good one - i.e., between one who readily, unthinkingly parrots the party line and one who strives to make each report as balanced and unbiased as possible against the odds. If all the reporters who were even slightly dissatisfied left, you'd be left with the moronic ones who wouldn't even think twice about fairness and objectivity. And then really no hope liao.

fancl: uh prostitution is also a job what. it's ridiculous to say journalists are just looking out for themselves. in every story there's news and then there's the angle. the journalists bring you the news, but they don't often get to decide the angle, especially in political stories.

actually i think all this vitriol is completely misdirected. journalists are really just like civil servants, while editors are like MPs. there's very little an individual journalist can do if his/her editor doesn't agree, and, sure, some people quit their jobs if they hate their bosses but more often than not they grit their teeth and do what they can, hoping that one day they'll be the boss and get to do things their way.
brandonoid
May 10, 2006   08:57 PM PDT
 
here's a related article from the Malaysian papers: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/5/7/focus/14163585&sec=focus

that was linked from a friend's blog
insider
May 10, 2006   07:07 PM PDT
 
In the meantime, I think it's worth taking a look at the Forum pages in the past few days. Quite a few good letters have been published and I applaud the editor who's made the decision to put them there. Yes, choice of which story/picture to use, layout, etc, are all important, beyond the actual stories themselves. The same applies for the Forum pages. I just hope these pages remain a platform for good and reasonable discussion.
On the side, I read a comment from a reader that was directed at one of the more senior writers/editors. It was great and it brought a smile to my face.
For those of you who have something good to say, please continue to do so. Previous instructions from the top bosses include answering all reader comments in a timely manner. Who knows what interesting replies you'll get from the esteemed senior writers and editors?
fancl
May 10, 2006   07:00 PM PDT
 
Just because its called a "job" and puts food on the table doesnt mean journalists should compromise on their responsibility to tell the news as truthfully as they can. Otherwise its not a 'job' - its called selling out. some would even call it prostitution.
there are ALWAYS alternative ways. you ALWAYS have a choice. you can be a writer in other ways. It may mean less money and its NOT AN EASY CHOICE but it IS a choice. Too many journalists friends i know hide behind this "its only a job" thing and hurt our society and their readers as a result. Where's the sense of responsibility to others? it jsut about looking out for yourself? thanks for highlighting this.
random
May 10, 2006   06:42 PM PDT
 
The 'if I don't do it then someone else will' argument is no defence. It can be applied to any other practice, from taking the money from the wallet someone dropped, to being a Nazi Concentration Camp guard. The question is not whether someone else will do it - it's whether YOU do it.

(Yes, it also applies for acts of ommission, so kudos to the blogger.)

I believe most journalists go into the profession with idealism (surely no one wanted to become a journalist just to be a mouth-piece?), but what you do once you've found out the truth is the test.

All their idealism and intelligence will not make any difference if they are unable to translate them onto the business end of the trade, which is communicating with the masses.

If you don't want us to give up on you, then show us some signs that you are worthy of the hope.
zyn
May 10, 2006   05:40 PM PDT
 
uh. sorry, i must be in a minority here, but i don't see anything wrong with that.

even sm goh has had to backtrack on things he's said, presumably to toe the party line. can you blame him for that?

i honestly cannot imagine one MP having the power to change policies. any proposal he files to that effect - if he even gets that far - would be shot down before you could say "MM". same for journalists, i imagine. and - again this is perhaps the minority view - i see no reason an MP should quit his job over that.
Name
May 10, 2006   04:01 PM PDT
 
Imagine this article written by the ruling party MP. --> I don't really agree with the policies as it is against my MP-istic integrity, but I have to keep quiet as it puts food on the table....
zyn
May 10, 2006   01:13 PM PDT
 
Jol: Actually I think Today succeeds in its "subversion" simply because it's desperate to get any news that hasn't already been covered by ST. Hahaha.

Charissa: Yes, you'd think the role of the press would be to put the govt in place, but MM thinks otherwise - he's stated repeatedly and unequivocally that the media "will not be allowed to dictate Singapore's political agenda". Or something like that.

Agagooga: "I don't particularly blame them for their actions, but the "if I don't do it someone else will" excuse and accusing those who think they should quit of immaturity doesn't cut it." -- why not?
Kelvin Tan
May 10, 2006   10:20 AM PDT
 
I have to say it is very refreshing to see a 17 year old student like yourself "waking up from the Matrix" and realizing there is something wrong with our society.

As for the media, I would say it is the generation of your parents and other people from the 70s and 80s that did nothing when the media was being clamped down.

I would not blame the current batch of ST journalists at all, it is not their fault. Albert Einstein once said that the world is evil, not because of the evil doers but those who see evil being done and do nothing.

So kids from your generation inherited the media that resulted from those episodes. You can read the "The Media Enthralled" by Francis Seow for more history.
SM
May 10, 2006   10:10 AM PDT
 
insider - yes i was very amused by the myriad glimpses of possible subversion. Obviously not going to list them here lest it removes one more avenue of free expression in the media.

original writer - "This is a job. It puts food on our tables. We can all up and leave, but it's ridiculously easy to replace us with more party-line-spouting drones. With educated and politically aware journalists in the local media, at least civil society in Singapore stands a fighting chance." I agree.
takchek
May 10, 2006   07:54 AM PDT
 
You remind me of Teng Qianxi.
Agagooga
May 10, 2006   02:56 AM PDT
 
I don't particularly blame them for their actions, but the "if I don't
do it someone else will" excuse and accusing those who think they
should quit of immaturity doesn't cut it.
Charissa
May 10, 2006   01:51 AM PDT
 
Great piece on our darling propaganda machine. I would think that A) an independent press would be better. I think ithe situation would further improve f more independent press are allowed to be set up. Even if some might argued that no newspapers can be free of biasness, at least with more competition, we are offered a wide array of views.

I doubt people would be able to discern if an article is deliberately over-the-top support of the party a la lucky tan. I think many singaporeans (even younger ones) simply take articles at face value. I honestly find it hard myself to discern such articles as it even pains me to read ST.

I believe it is the duty of the press to ensure checks on the govt.
gayle
May 10, 2006   01:03 AM PDT
 
entirely agreed, jol; Today, once in a while, will surprise me with some insightful column that doesn't seem to have pulled many punches, but it also seems to fall prey to the agenda of those in control of it (SPH's 40% stake). and the selectivism in which issues dominate our media is also very telling -- the monopoly that one media company has allows them to turn this selectivism into a tool, just like -all- media releases will focus on the Gomez saga, and the SDP defamation suit. with a pluralistic press one might at least expect more diversity in views. it is true that all newspapers are subject to some kind of bias, but which situation would best mitigate the crippling effect that bias has on us? 1) an independent press, 2) a multiplicity of avenues to discuss a diversity of views and opinions.

insider- according to your moniker i am guessing that you may be another person working in the said media company? it may be possible for intended irony in over-extolling our government or "over-the-top support", as you say, but i doubt that can be discerned with surety either on the part of the layperson or the 'enlightened' reader, so i'm not sure how that would really work.
Jol
May 9, 2006   07:36 PM PDT
 
Unfortunately the problem is even more subtle than journalistic bias in terms of particular stories. The more important failure of the press is what gets treated as an issue and what doesn't. This is a product not only of overt editorial intervention of the sort your contributor denounces, but also, inevitably, of the monopoly of SPH and the mental control that past propaganda continues to exert even over so-called liberal journalists. (Frankly, I've yet to spot any.) I suspect there is a maverick editor at Today, one who sometimes and without fanfare puts out genuine controversies that are highly substantively opposed to the government simply because they highlight issues that are otherwise silenced, but that is as far as it goes.

To summarise, the real problem isn't that ST is crap (although it is). The real problem is that the ST is to a large extent all there is. The faults of the journalists who've chosen (or not) to work there in a given fashion are cathartic to complain about, but ultimately secondary. It doesn't matter how conscientious they are or aren't. As long as there is only one organisation which sets the agenda for discussion, no matter where that discussion goes, if no one else can introduce a different agenda, the root of the problem isn't going to go away. It is just not humanly possible for one newspaper company to replace an entire free press, even if it practised no censorship whatsoever.
insider
May 9, 2006   06:53 PM PDT
 
it's no surprise that many are angry with the coverage by the local media. the bias is as clear as day.
but can i urge the more enlightened readers to take a moment to catch the glimpses of possible subversion. often seen in the form of over-the-top support of the party a la lucky tan.
the really wretch-inducing reports aren't the ones that are obviously pro-govt. rather, those that take much care to iron out the bloopers by the great leaders, to paint them in good light, are the most insidious.
it is also rather scary that many, esp the older generation, treat the local media as gospel truth and do not consider even questioning its content.
this goes beyond politics, really, but i'd like to see a day where more readers are alert and discerning enough to read between the lines. otherwise, there is little reason for the writers to try so hard to inject reason without being hauled up.
perhaps the greatest irony is that even after being compelled to put up what must be the biggest wayang, the leaders say journalists (esp the younger ones) are pro-opposition.
Ginunngagap
May 9, 2006   04:03 PM PDT
 
Hang on in there, buddies. There certainly have been changes. Slow but sure. Keep your fighting spirits alive!
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments







Previous Entry Home Next Entry
gayle goh

<< May 2006 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

profile

Recommended Posts

Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam

worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak


friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko

shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)



disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed