Latest Wikileak:gov interfere in the media reporting

[Brianjones]

To TS I hope you will be fine... But do take care

[Silver_blade]

Like someone has said...there is nothing we did not know...except that this report came with names.

 

This report aside...some of the stuff WikiLeaks has published do compromise someone's safety... especially those that involved spy, etc. While I applause some of their stuff, some are just gone a little too far.

[Civic2000]

To TS I hope you will be fine... But do take care

 

What offence has he committed? Treason? Act of subversion?

[Civic2000]

New WikiLeaks cable:

Straits Times U.S bureau chief admits 'government exerts significant pressure on editors'. Story to follow.

 

The above is from Sg.Yahoo.com

 

 

TS - Not to worry. Don't be scared, you have done nothing wrong..

[Mockngbrd]

this one le?

 

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=3386189

 

5.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Mockngbrd

[Shull]

We need the foreign media to air our govt's dirty linen in public.. Let the show begin..

Edited September 2, 2011 by Shull

[King_of_abalone]

This is a serious allegation. You must be able to back it up.

[1fast1]

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

That's a pretty self serving justification.

 

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.

[Johorat]

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.

 

These are not findings but transcripts of gov documents which is suppose to be confidential.

 

So far which gov has come out to deny what was reveal by wikileak?

[Bystander50]

There is no need for TS to delete the post.

 

Yahoo news also reported it and it'll propogate to the other news website.

 

WikiLeaks: Significant gov

[Bystander50]

Paging for Best_ctzn, he still owe me one article from his beloved ST.

 

Wonder if that article he keep insisiting can still be considered as fair and unbiased reporting.

 

 

[Darryn]

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

[Piyopico]

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

You new to S'pore ah? Start your own newspaper? Wanna buy your own gun for self defense? Dun talk as though things that you take for granted back in your own country can be done here. Obviously these can't be done.

 

 

[Darryn]

Errr...

 

You CAN start your own paper if you wish. You can also start an online version.

 

Where did I say own a gun?

 

 

[Piyopico]

Errr...

 

You CAN start your own paper if you wish. You can also start an online version.

 

Where did I say own a gun?

 

I am just using the gun issue as an analogy that there are lots of restrictions.

 

Start your own online newspaper? Can be done but must still inform MDA. However for the sake of argument, we should be using print media. Not some online thingy.......

[Falcon1668]

To TS I hope you will be fine... But do take care

If not he will repent? u will assure that he will repent?

[Darryn]

I am just using the gun issue as an analogy that there are lots of restrictions.

 

Start your own online newspaper? Can be done but must still inform MDA. However for the sake of argument, we should be using print media. Not some online thingy.......

 

I know - I am familiar - I have helped on two magazine start-ups.

 

[Bystander50]

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

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.