Latest Wikileak:gov interfere in the media reporting

Darryn · September 2, 2011

How to start a newspaper in sg when need to apply for so many license. So the only way to balance up for those reading ST is to go over to alternative sites like TRE to get another version to balance up. If ST can be slanted to one side, I don't see why people would get so worked up about reading news from alternative sites that are "slanted" to the other. Alternative sites may instead be reporting the real facts.

Stand for election also another problem, election deposit is one. Next is how to build up a strong party that can knock out 2/3 the seats to make a difference and change? Even WP with 6 people inside can just do this much (the PA saga). So 5 years after 5 years, just hope their % keep dropping 5-10% each round and they disappear evetually.

errr...

that's kind of the point that I was trying to make...Turbo was suggesting that the reporters were somehow deficient for working for ST -

I was trying to suggest that for them to "toss away their ricebowls" is the same sort of courage as running for election or starting your own paper - so that it was an unfair barb that was being thrown from behind the security of a keyboard.

I was (and am) suggesting that if he wants to throw that sort of barb about them "having the courage of their convictions" perhaps he wants to start his own paper or stand for election.

But I rather suspect that is more than he is willing to do, and we will see all sorts of justification why it can't be done - but by gosh darn - those reporters are just complicit and they should have more courage.

Felipe · September 2, 2011

Just to stretch a point, are you OK with condoning those in tyrannical regimes tasked with "interrogating" (torturing) political prisoners? How about the footsoldiers in the Nazi regime whose job it was to force innocent people into pits before opening fire upon them? You could just as conveniently argue that all these people performing distasteful and dishonourable functions were "building their careers", couldn't you?

Consider this: while some of those guys may actually have been coerced into doing those things by the threat of repercussions against themselves or their families if they'd disobeyed, noone held a literal gun to the heads of these journos and editors. They had far more of a choice - whether to continue shielding their paymasters and failing to fulfil their true public role, or to just quit and find a more honourable occupation - here or elsewhere.

In any case, I don't think you're using "self-serving" correctly. In what way am I serving myself by justifying the actions of WL? I just happen to believe that WL serving the interests of the world at large (not just myself), including Singaporeans, supersedes any qualms that someone may have about revealing the names of some people who failed to act scrupulously.

You either believe in the absolute freedom of the press, or you don't. Clearly, you don't. I still believe that responsible journalism is of the utmost importance, but to my mind, that responsibility encompasses things like "not printing lies or half-truths", "not weaving suppositions into facts", "protecting your sources", etc. I do NOT consider shielding public figures who've acted wrongly from public scrutiny to be responsible journalism.

Giving the journalist or whoever the benefit of the doubt, some of them enter the profession without knowing about the negative pressures ahead. And when it comes to the crunch, they simply have to make compromises, if not, their livelihood may be affected. Gun or no gun, we're living in a different time where not having a job or money to feed one's family can be as bad as or nearly as being held at gunpoint. Staying alive would be essential in war time, while staying employed during peace time. I do sympathise with the named journalist as she probably isn't the only one.

In any case, this is something the world knows, in terms of what SG's hold on press freedom. As usual, if the govt disagrees, it can always sue for libel which it previously did. The only thing is these days, I'm starting to see less suing despite the surge in claims about them.

Sosaria · September 2, 2011

I don't think we can blame the rank-and-file journalists. If anything, their editors are more guilty of sacrificing standards for the sake of careers.

If a young person here is interested in journalism as a career, he or she does not have many choices, right? No choice, got to start off toeing the line, writing from the angle that they're told to take. Perhaps, as they gain experience, somewhere down the line, there may actually be chance to move on and work for a freer press. But to ask this same young person not to consider journalism job just because of some noble ideals of other people is asking for too much, IMHO.

I'm perplexed, though, how this wikileaks info mentioned full names and all... you mean US diplomatic staff actually interviewed these people and took statements? Who'd be daft enough to volunteer such info as well as their full names and all??

To be fair though, there's no such thing as a "free" press wherever you go. Even if you write car reviews or arts reviews, there are always subtle pressures from sponsors, etc. Even in the West, ultimately the media is owned by some rich, powerful, influential fellow. This guy will definitely suppress any news that affect his interests or those in his favour.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Sosaria

Sosaria · September 2, 2011

... I do sympathise with the named journalist as she probably isn't the only one.

...

As I was saying, why would she say such a thing? To a representative of a foreign nation, and giving her full name ?? [confused]

And knowing that it'll be put on record?

Even if there was no wikileaks, why take the risk, and for what gain??

September 2, 2011

Actually for Wikileak, take it with a pinch of salt.

those thing they posted cannot be verify as its like telling ISA to come out and verify their finding.

No wonder get HBP easily reading ST, too much salt

King_of_abalone · September 2, 2011

Pang sim lah, nothing will happen to her one... Her surname also Lee mah

Johorat · September 2, 2011

As I was saying, why would she say such a thing? To a representative of a foreign nation, and giving her full name ??

And knowing that it'll be put on record?

Even if there was no wikileaks, why take the risk, and for what gain??

So you are doubting the authenticity?

In any case the journalists concern can always issue a public statement denying involvement and I am sure ST will be more than happy to publish it.

1fast1 · September 2, 2011

It's self serving in the sense that you are speaking from a pulpit of absolute morality and expecting people to break their ricebowls.

"Absolute morality"? Please don't put words into my mouth and thereby invoke strawman arguments. The only "absolute" thing I advocated was "absolute freedom of the press". I have stated that I believe in this principle, and that it is also my belief that you do not. I didn't even judge you vehemently for this, so where do you get off accusing me of moral absolutism? You're the one who brazenly accused me of being "self-serving" with very little to back that up, remember? Who's judging whom here? [rolleyes]

To dial down the rabid-factor, the crux of our difference in opinion is this: at what point does public interest supervene privacy considerations? You have a line in the sand, while I have mine. I have never advocated unbridled disclosure of personal details by the press where it doesn't serve a purpose, and where disclosure could harm an "innocent's" interest - for instance, the press almost never reveals the identity of rape victims, and I heartily agree with this principle. But this sort of thing is actually covered by most sets of journalistic ethical codes anyway.

It has not been suggested that they published "lies" - but rather that they "coloured" the news towards the correct tone.

"Objectivity", BTW, is one of the cornerstones of journalistic ethics. Look it up. Objectivity means you're not supposed to be "colouring" anything, especially not on the say-so or influence of politicians with a clearly vested interest.

If you are using this as the "correct" way to do things, I sure hope that you are blameless.

Wear a pair of Nikes? Then you support child labour

Eat KFC? Then you support cruelty to chickens

The argument list goes on.

Yet another specious strawman argument. While it's irrelevant, I do neither of those things (I wear other brands of shoes, for reasons wholly unrelated to ethics, and I don't eat meat, this time for ethical reasons).

This line of reasoning is arrant nonsense, anyway. To expect someone to dissect every single facet of his or her life for ethical violations is ludicrous. However, it *is* reasonable to expect someone who's working in a profession with a well-defined ethical code (that is fairly universally recognised) to abide by that code. Physicians, lawyers and journalists all have well-worn codes of ethical behaviour. I would expect each member of those professional groups to abide by their respective codes of ethics. If they find they're not willing or able (for reasons beyond their control) to behave ethically, they should have the decency to either resist or quit and do something else.

Surely, you wouldn't expect your doctor to break his code of professional conduct (for example to reveal embarassing medical details about you) because a politician in power put pressure on him?

So why are you so quick to forgive journalists who would compromise their objectivity and be willing to "colour" their news?

The folk mentioned in the cable could actually be quite courageous - to even go to this extent they have obviously already "argued" with their seniors over issues - just how far do you expect them to go?

As far as I mentioned in the previous para. A profession is not something to be taken lightly.

There was mention of young journos who saw no future in practising in Singapore because of the strictures imposed by the powers-that-be. I consider these guys to be acting more honourably than journos and editors who stay in service and disregard their ethical obligations. These people quitting in droves may be a very positive thing *if* they make a big stink and tell everybody (including the relatively independent online news sites in Sg) why they're leaving. At least this way, people will open their eyes to the problem, and the gahmen will find itself under pressure to reform itself (what a hope, right?). At least that would do more than a bunch of journos and editors living out their lives in quiet desperation (until Wikileaks decides to 'out' them).

And to some - the "correct" way to write the story IS the way that reflects the government viewpoint. There are all sorts of opinions you know - nobody holds a monopoly on truth or absolute moral authority.

Now it's MY turn to say "Oh wow." Your comment is quite revealing of your hidden biases.

I don't want to get into a philosophical or epistemological argument with you on the nature of Truth. I can deflect your argument very easily here - THESE journalists and editors clearly did not feel comfortable with what they've been asked to do because they were personally complaining about it. They definitely did not agree with the gahmen's notion of "truth", but they felt coerced into writing it that way. So your point is completely irrelevant here.

To pretend that you do, the way that you did in your post is pretty "self serving" in my book - you have written as though the reporters are morally deficient for not throwing away their rice bowl - well I put it back to you, what have you risked for the "correct" political viewpoint?

What have YOU done to get the system changed?

Why don't you put your own financial future on the line by starting a newspaper to give these sorts of "correct" journalism a voice?

Have you stood for election to try and change the system?

To answer all this:

I have never joined a political party, nor do I intend to. That's my choice. I do my part by expressing my heartfelt opinions vocally (to friends) and in writing (on online fora such as this) in the hope (forlorn, maybe futile) that I'll influence somebody out there to think for themselves and critically evaluate what's been presented to them like cerebral pablum by the mainstream media. I will never stop saying my piece when I feel I have something to say.

To pick on my reticence in putting myself in the political limelight is juvenile, and frankly beneath you (or so I would've supposed).

It is also a false analogy. A closer one would be as follows: if I'm ever pressured by my boss or a political overlord to violate the ethics of my chosen profession (and I'm not telling you what that is, as it is none of your concern), ethics that I hold sacrosanct, then I will resist. If the pressure persists, I will quit and find greener pastures. So I don't find it hypocritical to expect these journalists/editors to have done the same if they felt they were being coerced into ethical violations.

Since you've seen fit to make this a personal challenge of sorts, let me return the favour. You've stated before that you're part of the PA. You've also stated in this very forum that you disagree with the PA's stance on allowing the defeated P@P candidate to remain on as PA advisor. You've expressed disappointment with the lip-service paid to the "apolitical" nature of the PA.

But what have you actually done to combat this problem? To do you credit, you have spoken out at the PA level - the (admittedly meek) query about getting an "inspirational speaker" in lieu of the P@P advisor, and mooting the idea of a town hall debate. These were pertinent queries, but you were stonewalled. Have you escalated the issue to the public press? Have you written in to the ST to complain about these things? If so, kudos, but if not, I guess I have the right to ask "why not?" since you asked me a good many things.

errr...

that's kind of the point that I was trying to make...Turbo was suggesting that the reporters were somehow deficient for working for ST -

I was trying to suggest that for them to "toss away their ricebowls" is the same sort of courage as running for election or starting your own paper - so that it was an unfair barb that was being thrown from behind the security of a keyboard.

I was (and am) suggesting that if he wants to throw that sort of barb about them "having the courage of their convictions" perhaps he wants to start his own paper or stand for election.

But I rather suspect that is more than he is willing to do, and we will see all sorts of justification why it can't be done - but by gosh darn - those reporters are just complicit and they should have more courage.

I believe I've already addressed all your points above, but let me leave you with this. You weep for these journos/editors who've been "exposed" by WL. But let's look at the case of Dr. Joseph Ong - that Temasek Review editor who was publicly pilloried by the mainstream media. Irrelevant private details about his education and profession, and lurid details about his sex life were publicised by the MSM. Perhaps those very people you're weeping over had something to do with it, I don't know. What I do know is that it's likely that Joseph Ong was brazenly targetted the way he was because he was seen as a "soft target", since he was a political enemy of the MIW (so retribution from "on-high" was an improbable thing). Was it fair that a "private citizen" had such an egregious expose of his private life splashed all over the public press? Mind you, this did not even have anything to do with a violation of his own professional ethics or anything like that.

It is this cowardice of the MSM in Sg that I find most despicable. While they lavish soft sawder on people who can hurt them, they resort to using the crassest tabloid journalistic tactics against people who are otherwise defenseless. It's most stark when these people are seen as enemies of sorts of the establishment - and the whole thing just begins to smack of obsequious and craven toadyism. At least if they stuck to their guns and treated everyone equally (i.e. giving equal respect to the privacy and dignity of P@P and oppo members/sympathisers alike), then I'd have more respect for them. As it stands, I have very little.

PS: Isn't it ironic that you're the one with the Edmund Burke quote in your sig?

Porker · September 2, 2011

Dey your English quite powder

Relax can and go drive your neighbour's 996

1fast1 · September 2, 2011

Dey your English quite powder

Relax can and go drive your neighbour's 996

Why don't you come and chauffeur me around? I tip quite well, I promise. But I draw the line at sitting on your lap, for obvious reasons. [:p]

Duckduck · September 2, 2011

has wikileaks changed its name to Captain Obvious?

Darryn · September 2, 2011

I'm on the phone so reading this whole thing and thinking is tough.

The point to be made, and I'll say it again. Your original post suggested that a journalist should be uncompromising in the way they write the news or refuse to write

What I am suggesting in return is that this is not fair. There is much I have done in my working life that I do not agree with. At the time I made my arguments, presented my case and then fell in behind the decision of my senior. To suggest that something should be otherwise is niaeve in the extreme. The courage of your convictions and the truh of your opinions is fun, but it sure as heck doesn't feed the family.

The reporters were doing much the same. I don't think for a moment that our journalists lie. But reporting is in the phrases you use. This is where the political bent of the editor and story comes in.

To put it bluntly, one persons expression of individuality is the others Beng mobile. To some LKY is a courageous leader with a strong sense o proprietry, to others he is a tyrant and a bully who stacks the deck in his own favour.

I make a living out of presenting arguments in a positive way. I never lie. I never hide the truth. What I do is phrase my strengths to elicit positive emotions. What is wrong wig a journalist doing this?

For your information, I have also written to the editor of stomp, and my local MP a number of times complaining about poorly fact checked and tabloid journalism on that travesty of reporting.

I have also argued against certain things I don't agree with within my role as a GRL. Some things I still don't agree with. Your post suggested that I should go further than disagreeing to putting my whole future at risk. This is what I take issue with.

"Absolute morality"? Please don't put words into my mouth and thereby invoke strawman arguments. The only "absolute" thing I advocated was "absolute freedom of the press". I have stated that I believe in this principle, and that it is also my belief that you do not. I didn't even judge you vehemently for this, so where do you get off accusing me of moral absolutism? You're the one who brazenly accused me of being "self-serving" with very little to back that up, remember? Who's judging whom here?

To dial down the rabid-factor, the crux of our difference in opinion is this: at what point does public interest supervene privacy considerations? You have a line in the sand, while I have mine. I have never advocated unbridled disclosure of personal details by the press where it doesn't serve a purpose, and where disclosure could harm an "innocent's" interest - for instance, the press almost never reveals the identity of rape victims, and I heartily agree with this principle. But this sort of thing is actually covered by most sets of journalistic ethical codes anyway.

It has not been suggested that they published "lies" - but rather that they "coloured" the news towards the correct tone.