Will you pay to read Straits Times Interactive? (II)

last SG · 2006-03-10T10:05:58+00:00

Pay to read Straits Times online? I don't even access their webpage these days!

Homebody SG

Same here. I've stopped reading ST news online ever since they started charging and I don't buy newspapers anymore.

Rather, I read free online newspapers of other countries.

I figured if local news are big enough, they will be reflected in other countries' news. If not, why bother to know?

charlize SG

They are indirectly telling to you to go read other news sources lah.

THe bloke who decided on this charging scheme grew a conscience. Laughing

dragg SG

the bloke who came up with this idea should be sacked.

Mr. Green

charlize SG

No, no.

He is doing Singaporeans a favour. Laughing

dragg SG

he was only trying to do his career and SPH's shareholder a favour.

he incurred the wrath of a lot of singaporeans.

LazerLordz SG

SPH's shareholders?

Who cares about them, whether they gain dividends or not ain't my business.I'm not paying to read a newspaper that is so blatantly one-sided and pro-government that the meaning of journalism and objective coverage have tied themselves together with red string and jumped off the roof.

There are capable journalists in SPH, but the extreme self-censorship rankles me a lot.

Gazelle SG

I wonder if ST will publish this complain if someone would to write to the forum. Mr. Green

dragg SG

they definitely wont.

Mr. Green

ndmmxiaomayi SG

Couldn't help but disagree with the blue part. I feel that they have to balance both. A company is set up after all to make profits. They have to make profits so that they can report to their shareholders. If they made losses, shareholders will quit and it will be harder to run the company and we may have to pay more instead.

There are other sources of news about Singapore, like Channelnewsasia. Foreigners can still get to know us. Besides, just do a search on Google for Singapore news isn't that hard. There are also locals who are discussing politics like what we are doing here.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

No wonder outsiders call Singaporeans an apathetic group of people. How can you not care about what is happening in Singapore, your own country? Must it be news that are as big as the Shin Corp then you will read?

Politically biased or not, it is always good to know your own country's politics, how is it affecting you, how will it affect your future. If you are going to know nothing, then you are at the losing end. Even illiterate people will at least listen to the news.

LazerLordz SG

Read all angles, even the fact that some papers are biased, is a fact in itself and is a good discussion point.

We can learn even from the negative aspects.

lwflee SG

Just look at the poll on that page:

BUDGET 'GOODIES'
Most Singaporeans will get some money from the government later this year, as a gesture to share the 'fruits' of economic growth.

Now, with this type of journalism, why would anyone in their right mind want to subscribe? The paper seems to state as fact that the goodies are given out "as a gesture to share the fruits of economic growth". That, as we all know, is at best debatable.

The effectiveness of the whole paragraph (essentially to introduce the poll) and the poll itself would clearly not be detrimentally affected had SPH decided not to add those words in. Rolling Eyes

[/quote]

Yi Peng SG

I think all papers are biased. Even BBC and CNN are biased.
For those who think neutrality is the buzz in new reporting, look up other planets.

charlize SG

Originally posted by lwflee:
Just look at the poll on that page:

[QUOTE]BUDGET 'GOODIES'
Most Singaporeans will get some money from the government later this year, [b]as a gesture to share the 'fruits' of economic growth.[/QUOTE]

Now, with this type of journalism, why would anyone in their right mind want to subscribe? The paper seems to state as fact that the goodies are given out "as a gesture to share the fruits of economic growth".

The effectiveness of the whole paragraph (essentially to introduce the poll) and the poll itself would clearly not be detrimentally affected had SPH decided not to add those words in. Rolling Eyes

[/b]

How you want them to report?

"Most Singaporeans will get some money from the government later this year, as a gesture to entice them to vote for the incumbent party."?

Laughing

vas SG

Agree Mr. Green

lwflee SG

Of course there is bias. It is inherent in almost every written piece out there. You cannot realistically cover an issue from ALL angles; There is always some cuckoo out there that has funny ideas of his own. In fact, arguably, the very act of covering an issue can be seen as bias since that means that some other event is not being covered.

But the BBC at least tries to balance their reports by providing the more reasonable alternative views and to allow people with reasonable alternative views a right of reply.

Yi Peng SG

BBC got into trouble before the invasion of Iraq with their unsubstantiated piece about Tony Blair lying. The CEO had to answer for it.

Newsweek got into trouble with their piece of Quran toilet flush hoax.

CBS insists even today that the memo gate was true when it clearly was a hoax. Screw them.

Thats the kind of biased reporting we get from the west nowadays.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

All papers are biased. You try writing a neutral paper and see what will happen to you. Even if it's a fact, you will get into trouble. What those journalists did is to play around with the words so that it looks more objective instead of biased. All of us do it anyway. Just that we didn't realize it.

Gazelle SG

SPH's balance sheet is nothing if they were not given the de facto press house status in Singapore. Restricting information will only hinder growth for the economy and the country.

lwflee SG

BBC got into trouble because one of their journalists said that the govt had "sexed up" the dossier on Iraq's WMD. The source of that report was supposedly an insider, Dr. Kelly, who committed suicide after it was leaked that he was the source. So it wasn't completely unsubstantiated. They had an insider and the journalist concerned made an erroneous judgement call.

Note though, that the public inquiry held to investigate the issue did say that the PM might have "subconsciously" pressured intel to use stronger words than usual.

That was in 2002/2003. Today, we still have not found WMDs in Iraq.

The CEO and the journalist concerned has resigned. Tell me that is not accountability. Tell me that is not a commitment towards objective reporting.

Can't say much about the US media since I do not usually read them.

« Previous Page Next Page »