SPH does have a right to be given reasonable doubt. Reason? I
don't know what's their intention for writing such an
article.
The use of such words, is not merely an escape clause for the
journalists. It's at the very least, responsible journalism. If
something could be true or untrue, the word "allegedly" is used.
It's used most commonly in reporting crimes, if a person is being
suspected, but no confirmations yet. For example, Mr X allegedly
stole something. He may or may not have stolen anything. Everything
will be confirmed once investigations are completed. If the
newspapers wrote Mr X stole something when he's only a suspect, the
man do have a right to sue him, because it is deemed as a
fact.
Same goes for this case, SPH could be trying to encourage a debate
on it, but have stirred up the wrong emotions instead.
I definitely don't support the use of such words as a way to escape
responsibility, since its main purpose is about responsible
writing...
