I saw an article advert with a picture of my cat and I in Life! this morning. I say I cut out the bit with BBQ in it and call that the best thing that happened in my whole press experience. Certainly that hideous picture of me in last week's Sunday Times was harrowing. If any of you are ever photographed for the ST, the photographer may tell you, "Just relax! Don't smile. These are just test shots." Lies all lies. Smile till your teeth fall out, your gums quiver and your lips throb. Somewhere, someone will look at the photos and pick the ugliest one he can find. 'Candid' shot, he'll call it. I may be ugly, but eyebags, messy hair and that scowl, now that's Ugly.
Well, there will be an article featuring bloggers, myself included, in tomorrow's issue of the Sunday Times. They took a picture of me already, but I'm not sure if I'm breaking any rules if I tell you ahead of time what it's like. Just remember to take it all with a pinch of salt. I felt hugely pretentious while doing the shoot; all the while I was asking myself: why are you doing this? I mean, it was fun, hugely fun - especially when En and Hou from Students' Sketchpad and Zaki who runs a music/briefly political blog joined me, great guys all - but that's not what I am about. That's an uncomfortable part of having attention; you have no control over how you are portrayed. They wanted to know more about me, put a face behind the posts and whatever, so alright, I gave them that. But I hope you all know that's not really what's important.
Someone called 'sandy' posted a comment some time back asking why the surge of political posts here. She asked if it was just because of all this sudden attention. I may as well address this here; firstly, I had blogged politics long before the Kausikan issue, but that's not the important thing. Yes, I've made my blog considerably more centred around politics since the surge in readership, and yes, I've done that because of the sudden attention - but what for? Not for myself, I'm personally uncomfortable with so much of it. But for a message. They can write whatever they want as long as it keeps you coming back here to see for yourselves, to read and question for yourselves. I'm not going to kid myself, whatever small fame I have is temporal. People will forget about me, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. There are only so many bad pictures of yourself published nation-wide that you can handle. But what I hope they won't forget are the questions I've asked. Hopefully I've awakened an interest in something far greater than myself. Hopefully I've encouraged people to look deeper, think beyond. Hopefully something will last.
So yes, I have capitalized on the attention to be more political in my posts, because as more people keep coming, I blog increasingly to them - not just esoterically, to myself or my friends. This place used to be personal, if not private. I've surrendered so much of that since then. I miss posting random poetry, flashbacks, vignettes, even pictures of my friends and I on vacation, etc. I really do. Maybe one day when this furore is over I can go back to that. For now, I'll use what opportunity I have given to say something that matters more than which jazz lounge I was at last night.
Even as you read about me, remember that it's not about me.
Well - cheers, everyone. Sorry I'm a little late with another real post, these few days have been real busy. Work is piling up. Take care!
gambler June 1, 2006 09:00 AM PDT I'm willing to bet that the Powers That Be were so incensed by the publicity that you got fm SPH that the latter had to placate them with an unflattering shot. The same way they do it with the Opposition and never showing rally pics, until recently and only when it's all over.
gayle May 30, 2006 11:48 PM PDT Olievert: I'm sorry, that sounds like a terrible experience. The press will be the press, I suppose. Journalism is still an aesthetic narrative. What I write here also portrays issues in a certain selective slant even though I know there is always another side to things. If I spent time on those other arguments it would pretty much make my articles long-winded and unconclusive. That's why I rely on my worthy readers to bring up the other side and disagree with me as I know they no doubt will ;) unfortunately there's no such luxury in the press. I'm curious which book you wrote?
olievert May 30, 2006 11:40 PM PDT Hi,
You touched upon a point rarely mentioned or noticed by the public.
Through my own experience with the press, I learnt the hard way that when they portray someone, they paint a picture of who THEY think you should be; not who you really are. Yes, they judge and label you, while ensuring the content of the article fits this portrayal.
I once published a children's fantasy book, and received a short feature in our national paper. Someone came and took a deluge of photos of me, among them a few fun shots of me making a funny face.
For my interview I stressed the difficulties of creating a voice in our impoverished literary scene, and the qualities of determination needed in local authors to succeed.
Guess what? The Sunday Rag used one of those photos where I made funny faces, and mentioned little of my opinions. Instead I was painted as an impulsive, naive person who released a childish book.
Why? Because the journalists/editor already assumed children's book authors lack substance and the only angle to take is the 'fun and irrelevant guy' angle-- perhaps even before they met me.
olievert May 30, 2006 11:39 PM PDT Hi,
You touched upon a point rarely mentioned or noticed by the public.
Through my own experience with the press, I learnt the hard way that when they portray someone, they paint a picture of who THEY think you should be; not who you really are. Yes, they judge and label you, while ensuring the content of the article fits this portrayal.
I once published a children's fantasy book, and received a short feature in our national paper. Someone came and took a deluge of photos of me, among them a few fun shots of me making a funny face.
For my interview I stressed the difficulties of creating a voice in our impoverished literary scene, and the qualities of determination needed in local authors to succeed.
Guess what? The Sunday Rag used one of those photos where I made funny faces, and mentioned little of my opinions. Instead I was painted as an impulsive, naive person who released a childish book.
Why? Because the journalists/editor already assumed children's book authors lack substance and the only angle to take is the 'fun and irrelevant guy' angle-- perhaps even before they met me.
:P May 30, 2006 01:33 PM PDT its simple enough, because it is a government controlled publication, and anything that doesn't flatter the government enough will not be visually flattered.
john riemann soong May 28, 2006 09:54 PM PDT Aristotle: I don't think the government is as repressive as you portray it to be. It only attacks when you threaten to make direct change (run for elections), or do anything that presents itself for incrimination.
I've yet to see it charge anyone, besides the communists, for speaking out alone.
That is not to say it isn't repressive, it just isn't that repressive, and if we can continue speaking, we can make an impression and cause indirect change.
Thinker May 28, 2006 02:48 PM PDT Gayle
You are great as you speak up for the underdogs. Keep the garmen on their toes and tell them where you disagree with them. They will not jail a kid but adults speak with an iota of risk.
Thinker May 28, 2006 02:46 PM PDT Gayle
Keep writing as you are a great writer. I enjoy reading your articles. Keep engaging the MFA guys on political issues and ask them if they allow dissenting views. We are pro-Singaporeans but we have our minds too.
Aristotle May 28, 2006 02:44 PM PDT Gayle
You are speak freely on political issues as the garmen will not jail a student. But if you are over 21 you may land yourself in jail and rue the day you were born.
Aristotle May 28, 2006 02:43 PM PDT Gayle
Your articles are interesting.
300dpi May 28, 2006 01:50 PM PDT choosing the photo for print is the job of the picture or photo editor who sits in a plush office, nothing to do with the photographer.
Curious May 28, 2006 12:17 PM PDT The SPH, or maybe only the editor of the column in Sunday Times or the photographer, must be utterly insensitive about the photos printed. This is not a candid shot article. The photographer could have simply shown you the photos taken and asked for your choice. Such insensitivity only reflects on the quality of the newspaper.
john riemann soong May 28, 2006 09:44 AM PDT It really depends on how one defines "cynical". I think "disillusioned" is more of the word, because there's plenty of idealist tendencies in there.
k81 May 28, 2006 06:25 AM PDT "Why the surge of political posts?"
Because most folks think it's refreshing to hear from a cynical GEPer who's supposed to ride the bandwagon to a gov't scholarship. That's why.
Mr Brown and Mr Wang are always worth reading, but a GEPer disenchanted with the system? Man, it's like the opposition winning a third seat in Parliament! LOL
john riemann soong May 28, 2006 04:58 AM PDT As for personal blogging, I guess that's why people keep multiple blogs. ;-)
They can be linked, or cross-correlated, but they can also be adapted for different audiences.
:P May 28, 2006 12:20 AM PDT that's way to go gayle, that's the spirit! Hallelujah!
gayle May 28, 2006 12:19 AM PDT The photographer was a nice guy, I don't think he was deceiving me. I also don't buy into a conspiracy theory that SPH chose bad photos of me to make me look fugly and hence not have people visit ;) I think the journalist probably worked with the photographer to choose a picture he thought fit the slant of his article, and it's just too bad for me it's awful.
john riemann soong May 27, 2006 11:14 PM PDT I understand you're only being cautious by saying it's temporal, but who knows? The Student's Sketchpad is on a roll.
And I really wouldn't make a big fuss out of the pictures. I can't make up my mind though on whether it's possible to have the photographer intentionally deceiving the vocal people it photographs.
beat May 27, 2006 04:40 PM PDT sph is using you to increase readership and by putting up a less-than-flattering picture will likely create a dent to your blog's visitation. notice the pictures taken of our up-and-rising 'p65' politician cum athlete cum loving family man in yesterday's paper? well, the paper dont get 140th for nothing.
ps: but of cos, sph also makes exception. if you write and think like 'xiaxue', you would get very satisfying pictures.
Rob May 27, 2006 02:05 PM PDT Wat were u doing in a jazz lounge, u underaged girl. I bet some ppl up there will see this article, arrest u and that will be the end of u.
So blog while u still can!!!
Ron May 27, 2006 12:27 PM PDT Hi Gayle,
For everything under the sun there's a season, and you hit the nail on this one by 'exploiting' the increased in readership here to do this....
"But what I hope they won't forget are the questions I've asked. Hopefully I've awakened an interest in something far greater than myself. Hopefully I've encouraged people to look deeper, think beyond. Hopefully something will last."
IMO, you did a greater job in achieving that than our 'broadsheets' and 'idoit box' lately!
Have a great weekend and continue to do what your heart beat for...
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.