Double Standards in News Reporting and Commentary ?

Atobe SG

While the Government has always pushed for high standards in News Reporting by separating Editorials from mixing News Reporting and Commentaries, it has never complained when such poor standards of News Reporting involved Opposition Parties in Singapore News.

Yet when overseas correspondents send news reports of Singapore Government activities interlaced with personal commentaries from personal observations made, the Singapore Government is quick to condemn such reporting methods.

MINISTER CAUTIONS LOCAL MEDIA
Don't mix news and comment
By Paul Jacob

AGAINST the backdrop of growing competition in the local media scene, Information, Communications and the Arts Minister Lee Boon Yang has cautioned industry players against the temptation to editorialise when reporting news.

HEAD TO HEAD: The competition between SPH, led by chief executive officer Alan Chan (left), and MediaCorp, by group CEP Ernest Wong, has come under scrutiny, with ministers raising doubts about the viability of media competition here.
He described such an approach towards news or the reporting of news 'with a twist just to be different' as inappropriate here.

It would, he told members and guests of the Singapore Press Club at a lunch talk, 'confound readers as to the intent and impact of the issues being reported upon'.

The media's role is to report news accurately, factually and objectively for Singaporeans, he said.

Through its ability to 'influence the hearts and minds' of people, the media had a major influence on public opinion, he said, adding: 'People can be swayed by what they see on TV or in the bold newspaper headlines. Your role is to inform and educate Singaporeans without compromising the nation's overriding need for social and political stability.'
Dr Lee did not single out anyone for his warning.

Asked for comments, Associate Professor Ang Peng Hwa, dean of the Nanyang Technological University's School of Communication and Information, did not want to be drawn into speculating whether Dr Lee was referring to the approach which freesheet Today sometimes takes.

But he did not think that it was necessarily a bad idea to mix news and comment because from a reader's point of view, it made the news 'more easily digestable'.

Today editor-in-chief and MediaCorp Press chief executive officer Mano Sabnani declined to respond to queries.

Mr Cheong Yip Seng, editor-in-chief of the English and Malay newspapers division of Singapore Press Holdings, said its newspapers did not believe in mixing the two: 'You do a disservice to readers who want the news accurately reported because they can make up their own minds on what the news means. That does not mean we do not offer editorial comment. We provide it elsewhere, in the space for comment and analysis.

'This long-standing principle has served The Straits Times well over the years. There is no reason to change it.'

Dr Lee said the parameters within which the media operated did not mean there was no room for alternative views to be raised.

But these should be presented separately from news reports and be clearly identified as being the view of the writer or commentator.

The Government was prepared for 'robust criticisms and differences of opinion'. But it would give as good as it got because staying silent could be construed as a sign of weakness and over time, 'erode confidence in the Government'.

He also cautioned journalists against campaigning for political viewpoints or issues from the positions they have in the media, which give them a 'unique opportunity to influence the public'.

They should do so, instead, from within the political arena: By entering the political contest, declaring their intentions and campaigning as politicians.

The Sars outbreak, Dr Lee said, provided a clear example of how the local media 'played its part'.

Instead of being sensationalist and panicking the public, it worked with the Government and carried reliable reports putting developments in context and explaining what needed to be done.

Separately, in an interview on Channel NewsAsia last night, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew also said the Sars experience gave local media a leg-up, proving 'that it has a role to perform in a crisis which no other media can perform'.

In his speech to the press club, Dr Lee also lauded the standards achieved by the media here, saying The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao were well-regarded in the region and beyond as credible and reliable sources of information.

CNA was also acquiring the same reputation, he said.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,219679,00.html?

duotiga83 SG

I couldn’t agree more…....

Atobe SG

With a timid Press that will not speak out on the Rules of News Print Publications, and no Singaporean dare to stand up to take the cudgel for a more liberal press, the Government is dreading the independence of Foreign Correspondents in publishing comments of the local press scene.

Even for Singapore commentators, purposefully vague OB Markers are placed by the Government to prevent robust commentaries from concerned Citizens.

Outspoken SINGAPOREAN Personalities are forced to enter the 'Political Arena' if they wish to comment on the 'political interests' of Singapore; are warned that they should be prepared for any of their private 'skeletons hidden in closets' to be dug out.

Foreign writer 'crossed the line'
His commentary in Today engaged in domestic politics, says Lee Boon Yang
BUSINESS writer Michael Backman was interfering in domestic politics when he wrote a commentary last month in freesheet Today calling for press laws in Singapore to be abolished.

Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang yesterday singled him out as an example of foreign journalists who had 'crossed the line'.

He called the Oct 8 commentary 'Is S'pore being paranoid' in Today an attack on the Government's media policy that had to be countered with 'a strong reply'.

Reiterating the line for foreign journalists yesterday, the minister warned them against using the local media as a platform 'to influence Singaporeans with their ideas of governance or the policies of the Government, including policies on the media'.

The London-based Australian writer had, Dr Lee said, argued 'in strident terms' that Singapore should abolish the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 'and free up the media on the Western model'.

The Government was not against the presence of the foreign media, writers or journalists here - and indeed encouraged them to be here as part of Singapore's aim to be a global media hub, he said. But in Mr Backman's case, his commentary 'clearly crossed the line and engaged in our domestic politics'.

'Over the years, the Government has adopted a more consultative approach and encouraged freer debate on national issues and politics in the media and many different fora,' said Dr Lee.

But one out-of-bounds (OB) marker that must remain is that foreign journalists stay out of Singapore's politics, which is for Singaporeans to decide, he added.

He did not believe this clearly spelt-out position would impede Singapore's development as a media hub.

In fact, the numbers show that Singapore has not done too badly: About 190 foreign correspondents from 85 news agencies and broadcasters are based here, while 32 foreign newspapers and news periodicals are printed in Singapore.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,219696,00.html?

Atobe SG

Another interesting News Article printed in this Friday's Straits Times - 15 November 2003, from which perhaps SINGAPOREANS could draw some food for thought with regards to our situation.

With a Ruling Party that is totally insecure, and constantly plugging loopholes that can weaken, or will pose any threat, to their grip on the Singapore Political Scene, this article should will challenge the premise on which the Ruling Party insist that Singapore is too smal to have competition in the media, in essential services, and most of all in Politics.

True democracies stay vigorous when tested
By TOM PLATE
FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

WHEN you hold yourself up to an exceptional standard, the world will expect exceptional conduct.

By self-advertisement, India is the world's largest democracy - a system of government uncommon to its region. Israel, to which India lately has pulled much closer diplomatically, is the shining democracy of the troubled Middle East. In important respects, both India and Israel are exceptional and essential.

But there are problems.

Let's take Israel first.

In a speech in Los Angeles before a distinguished Los Angles World Affairs Council audience, Mr Abraham H. Foxman surprisingly and vehemently rejected the Israel exceptionalism standard.

'I am not aware Israel held itself up to a higher standard,' said the United States director of the Anti-Defamation League, in response to a question from the audience on Israeli exceptionalism. In fact, he added, 'No thanks!'

Why? 'Please don't set for me a standard that will lead to my destruction.'

How's that again?

'Let us live normally! Don't you tell us to turn the other cheek. Don't set up standards for us that we can't meet.'

Mr Foxman's new book Never Again? argues that the world is witnessing a revival of anti-Semitism and a counter-response is urgently needed. Referring to near-daily terrorism, Mr Foxman said: 'In Israel, it takes a hero to get on a bus - or to even sit in a coffee shop.'

The logic of Mr Foxman's overreaction appears to be that in order to save Israeli democracy, it may be necessary to destroy it - or at least whittle it down. The danger in going this route is that, in the end, you may have little left of what you set out to preserve, and on the descent to the anti-democratic basement of your neighbours, you sacrifice the world's admiration and support which were essential to your survival. Having driven yourself down to the Hobbesian level of your worst enemies, you now risk the fate of your isolation among them. Mr Foxman's advice is bad for Israel.

The other democracy that sometimes acts uncertain about the continuing value of the democratic process is India, which Mr Ariel Sharon visited in September, the first visit by an Israeli prime minister.

Take the issue of India's free press, to which Indians frequently point with pride as an exemplar of exceptionalism. Its press surely is exceptional - as, unquestionably, is The Hindu, a great newspaper and perhaps the most respected English-language daily in India.

So why were some of its top editors arrested earlier this month on orders of the provincial assembly of Tamil Nadu?

The arrests were the vengeance of the Speaker of the regional assembly. The charge was breach of legislative privilege. The particulars of the arrest order claimed that a newspaper editorial in The Hindu used 'abusive and intemperate language' against the local government. Also arrested was the editor of Murasoli, the local Tamil newspaper, which had republished one of the sharply worded Hindu editorials.

Indian observers say the crackdown was not an isolated incident but part of a larger effort in the northern region to stifle dissent against government policies. The local government claims that, on the contrary, it was the arrested journalists who brought Indian democracy into disrepute by criticising it.

The latter is curious reasoning - akin to the proposition that democracy has to be destroyed in order to save it.

Fortunately, there are many Indians who do not subscribe to such absurdity. Among them is its Supreme Court, which recently issued a stay on the assembly's order, resulting in the journalists' release.

The speaker of the Tamil Nadu assembly may still try to strike back. But these brave Indian journalists do not shrink from the challenge. Indeed, they seemed almost disappointed that the drama did not go on. They believe that democracy is at its most vigorous only when it is aggressively and thoroughly tested.

This view has wide support. Indian democracy, however flawed - as are all democracies (including the world's most prominent) - is a huge plus for that developing country and the region.

That's why Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, ordinarily a hardliner on most issues, praised the high court's ruling. His stance is good news for India: Mr Advani could well become the country's next prime minister.

In Israel, too, many people prefer true vigorous democracy to anything like democracy-lite. When the going gets tough, as Americans say, the tough get going: The time to abandon democratic principles - of justice, due process (even for enemies and those captured in conflict) and open debate - is not when the heat is on.

That's precisely when the commitment to democracy is most needed.

The writer is a UCLA professor. E-mail: [email protected]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,220103,00.html?

BillyBong SG

On a personal note, i find the so-called competition between mediacorp and SPH more of a farce rather than spirited distributors bent on out-doing each other.

They issue comparisons between streats and today, both of which are free newspapers, and attempt to convince the population that one of them is better than the other.

How do they base this? On daily distributed figures no doubt.

Has common sense ever occured to these companies that by producing free papers, "consumers" will simply grab rather than select their reading materials? After all, where there's a today newstand, there is a streats distribution corner as well. Hence, people on their way to work need but pick up several copies of each at one go. They can then ironically "distribute" the extras to their office mates who will feverishly dig into the daily news provided by their colleagues.

Or perhaps they believe that the naive and "uneducated" masses will be taken in by their advertising and see it as legitimate competition?

Even the newpaper has joined the bandwagon, self-proclaiming theirs as the no.1 tabloid in s'pore. Have we become so conceited in our quest for the number one spot? How often do we get tabloids like "The Sun" or "The new york times"? What about papers from across the causeway?

Then again maybe i'm asking the wrong question. Perhaps we should ask: Why aren't these papers made readily available at various news stands?

Is it a question of private importers unwilling to have them brought over or is the time-lag an important criteria for sales? (western papers come over a day late)

Or is there some governing body who censors the number of newspapers in our country?

Viper52 SG

Its interesting that the Minister is calling for no editorialising when foreign journalists report on Singapore, when the local, government-controlled news media themselves repeatedly add snippets in stories supposedly from wire or foriegn sources, to slant issues certain ways. A practice which has been exposed a number of times.

A very blatant act of double standards, I agree.

Is the government that leery of others doing news analysis for Singaporeans, preferring such analysis to be from its own stable of journalists?

Viper52 SG

The "competition" between 2 or more GLCs (who report back to the exact same people/organizations) in Singapore's "key national industries" has always been a farce. Take for example the whole NEL fiasco, here are some points that points the spriit of competition in Singapore (or lack therof)

- Letting a single company run BOTH the bus and rail services in Singapore NE corridor. How can that be competition? The way I see it, true competition in the NE transport system can only come about when bus and rail services are being run by different companies

- Take TIBs service 106. It used to run from Bt Batok-Serangoon. Yet when the NEL started running, it was one of the services re-routed (now serving Bt Batok to Marina Centre - thus avoiding the NE corridor totally) by LTA to "avoid duplication". Had TIBs been a truly commercial interest, it would have fought tooth and nail to prevent the re-routing, to keep competition alive between bus and rail, instead of rolling over and playing dead.

Do the bereaucrats in charge actually know what economic competition means?

Or is there some governing body who censors the number of newspapers in our country?

Yes, I believe MITA determines how many copies of each foreign publication is allowed to be circulated in Singapore.

Even if it doesn't, MITA has, at the very least the power to decide, how many copies you can sell in Singapore (gazetting) should you cross swords with the wrong people in Singapore.