I don't see anything wrong with States Times.
Brainwashing public to follow PAP regime is its task.
That is what it is designed for.
Don't like state propaganda then don't read states times. No one forcing you.
States Times, I support you, continue to lie, spread disinformation , distract peiople, publish state propaganda, censor news, praise PAP regime and attack opposition, brainwash public.
You have my total and complete support.
Of course I myself never read States Times.
States Times, you want to go brainwash the public, that is okay with me.
That is your freedom of speech.
But don't go and try your nonsense with me.
Don't even dream about it.
It would be quite a foolish thing to try to brainwash me with state propaganda, States Times.
Very foolish.
She is right. Singapore, despite its global ambitions, is only a small village of 3million plus. Is there a need to know about grits and the cowboy's loss of horse-shoes the way bigger nations report their news? Can we relate to it so much information that may not be relevant to us?
Worse still - newspaper are private organisations and no matter how noble one would like to believe, it exists on profits. Without money it will belly up. So in order to win subscriptions, they will have to 'sensationalize up' news - scandals, rumours, etc that will only undermine our society so that they make profits. Do we need more news agencies?
She is also right. I am a peasant. Everyone singaporean is. None has a drop of royal blood. But we are not stupid or devoid of opportunities in life. We bow before no man or principalities. We are a republic.
When the day comes that the majority are suffering and an elite few enjoying life on citizens back, will see me unearthing my pitchfork and head towards them, irregardless of whether if anyone else is following behind me. If sufferings were my own doing, that i will remain silent for i am responsible for myself. But if everyone else is suffering and a minority few enjoying life, then something must be done.
But that time had not come. The malls are still packed. 90%+ of singaporeans are still employed. Hospitals still accept the poor. Children are still being educated. Our news agencies had been keeping us inform on relevant data. Even offering help to the unfortunates in our society through relaying of information without resorting to sensationalism. And do remember they were the ones who uncovered the NKF scandal. Not bad for a small town newspaper.
So my pitchfork is still kept away. But in this downtime where everyone else is suffering, from the PM to the roadsweeper, i'm keeping my pitchfork well oiled and sharp. The minority who attempts to destroy our society by sowing suspicions, discord, etc, will face the end of my pitchfork.
The minority who attempts to destroy our society by sowing suspicions, discord, etc, will face the end of my pitchfork.
xtreyier, you are from which dialect tribal group?
i guess he was playing the game Left 4 dead
paper? wat paper? toilet paper?
if u r taking newspaper, its nt even worth using as toilet paper. only good to wrap wat left in the toilet bowl
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:i guess he was playing the game Left 4 dead
i heard he played throwing of shoes
if it fit the pleasant like me, so be it, knowing more stuff can sometime be bad, as a pleasant, i got no fxxking time to listen to elite doctor stories, everyday working and toiling to meet end needs is already enuf..who cares so much about Dr or prof problems. Died died lor...no big deal.
Never really like any papers from SPH. All propagandas.
Rather read the Herald Tribune or Reuters.
Originally posted by Hawk Eye:Never really like any papers from SPH. All propagandas.
Rather read the Herald Tribune or Reuters.
Herald Tribune and Reuters is propaganda.
on the contrary, since you say All SPH stuff is propagandas, if i can find one that is not, than you are a liar who is spreading propagandas about SPH being propaganda.
chim right?
Originally posted by Hawk Eye:Never really like any papers from SPH. All propagandas.
Rather read the Herald Tribune or Reuters.
You mean the paper is no good ar, if dun like, please dun throw, we can use for recycling. Save our Green Planet!
Of cos Herald and other international paper hv better qualities lah, SPH is trying to save cost of operating mah.
The mainstream media’s clear bias for the political elite
Written by Ng E-Jay
29 March 2009
When the Straits Times ran an article on March 21 entitled “Report card on Class of 2006″ quoting an anonymous People’s Action Party (PAP) cadre as saying that Dr Fatimah Lateef, an MP of Marine Parade GRC, had some trouble connecting with management members of Chinese temples in her ward, the mainstream media was quick to give airtime to both Dr Fatimah Lateef as well as SM Goh Chok Tong to rebut this claim.
The report in the Straits Times had quoted the PAP member as saying that Chinese temples had clashed with Dr Fatimah Lateef over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding of events like deities’ birthday celebrations, and this could be to the detriment of her standing with residents who are Buddhists or Taoists.
This prompted an almost instantaneous reaction from four community leaders, namely, the Chairman of the Inter Racial Confidence Circle at Geylang Serai, the Honorary Chairman of Geylang Villagers’ Association, the Honorary Secretary of Geylang Lorong 29 Liaison Committee, as well as Mr Tang Song Hee of the Thong Kheng Charitable Institution, who had their joint letter to the Straits Times forum page published in the print edition on 23 March. In their letter entitled “MP has no trouble connecting with Chinese temples”, they defended Dr Fatimah Lateef’s record of communicating well with residents and supporting their religious and cultural events.
On 26 March, SM Goh Chok Tong also weighed in on the issue. In an article entitled “SM Goh says newspaper report on MP Fatimah Lateef inaccurate”, Channel News Asia quoted him as saying: “I do not like the inaccuracy because it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay MP, could not reach out to the Chinese temple people, (and) the hint that maybe, she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out to these people. That is the implication … … The suggestion that a minority MP could be biased against others who don’t believe in your own religion is, I think, a very serious one. I do not think the reporter or the journalist writing it realised the implication — a Malay MP could not reach out to the Chinese. I think that is very bad for the PAP. Fortunately, that is not true, so better put it right.”
On 28 March, TODAY newspaper also ran a full-length article entitled “MP Fatimah Lateef speaks up” giving Dr Fatimah Lateef ample opportunity to present her side of the story. Like SM Goh, Dr Fatimah Lateef also expressed concerns that the original offending article might stir emotions along racial lines. She also vigorously defended her active involvement in various temple activities, such as the birthday of deities and Seventh Month celebrations, and emphasized that there had been no miscommunication with any religious leaders.
On the surface, it might appear to the unsuspecting reader that the mainstream media is merely playing its role of responsible reporting and allowing public figures to clear the air about themselves when misunderstandings arise. However, other examples abound in which the mainstream media falls far short of this ideal, especially when members of the Opposition, as opposed to the self-appointed political elite of the PAP, are involved.
07 June 2008, the Straits Times published a column by ex-ISD officer and current Political Editor Ms Chua Lee Hoong, in which she penned a full scale propaganda piece against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and attacked Dr Chee Soon Juan’s religious beliefs by unceremoniously questioning whether “Christians will accept his pattern of behaviour as being particularly Christian“.
Ms Chua then remarked that Dr Chee could be suffering from antisocial personality disorder (APD), even going to the extent of saying “if he does, we have got to feel sorry for him“.
To put the icing on the cake on this worst kind of gutter journalism, Ms Chua’s article was published when Dr Chee Soon Juan was in jail together with his sister for contempt of court, when he had no chance of responding to the article. (Read the full article: Ms Chua Lee Hoong, why do you even bother?)
In June last year as well, there was a tragic incident involving Opposition candidate Mr Tan Lead Shake’s brother, in which the latter died after being stabbed by a china woman. Rather than reporting the tragedy as they normally do for cases involving ordinary civilians (read: non-Opposition members), the mainstream media was quick to pounce on the fact that the victim was Mr Tan Lead Shake’s brother, and highlighted the political connection repeatedly in all their news articles. The mainstream media even went to the absurd length of calling Mr Tan Lead Shake “slipper man” all over again, and mentioning his poor performance in past General Elections. (Read the full article by Mr Law Sin Lin: Singapore Press — Rushing To Infernal Self-Condemnation.)
More recently, in early March this year, the TODAY newspaper published a column in the print edition repeating lies and falsehoods about Dr Chee Soon Juan’s historical political relationship with Mr Chiam See Toong — falsehoods that have been been perpetuated by the mainstream media countless times over the years. Reporter Mr Loh Chee Kong took aim at the Singapore Democrats and accused them of practising the “darker side of politics” by “ousting” Mr Chiam from the party in the 1990s, completely and irresponsibly ignoring the fact that Chiam resigned from the party on his own accord, and that he had done so after executive committee members voted against a motion that he himself tabled. The Singapore Democrats were not given any chance to clarify the situation in the mainstream press. Dr Chee Soon Juan’s letter to TODAY was only published in the online edition, where the readership is many times smaller than that of the print edition. (See here and here.)
Besides giving SDP members highly unfair and biased coverage in an attempt to assassinate their characters in the eyes of the public, the mainstream media is also not above targetting ordinary civilians when it suits their purposes.
When news of an alleged “stabbing” incident involving final year Indonesian undergraduate student David Hartonto Widjaja at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) campus surfaced a few weeks ago, the mainstream media descended like a pack of rabid wolves onto the story, caring not for impartiality and honest reporting, but on spinning David as someone who possibly was suffering from mental problems, as well as an aggressor and a suicidal man who got out of control.
The likes of OMY, Today, Channel News Asia, Asia One, and to a certain extent The Straits Times, misrepresented critical information in their stories and engaged in unsubstantiated speculation regarding pertinent facts of the case based entirely on the testimonials provided by friends and colleagues of the alleged victim, Associate Professor Chan Kap Lup. (See here and here.)
When news of Dr Allan Ooi, the SAF Medical Scholar who committed suicide in the south Australian city of Melbourne, broke, the mainstream media initially painted him as a melancholic young man who possibly took his life over a failed romantic relationship, and deliberately downplayed the possibility that his suicide could have been due to the rigid and lengthy scholarship bond that he had been made to serve as well as his overly stressful work environment. It was only after contents of his farewell letter was released to the public that the mainstream media toned down their unbridled speculation over his alleged failed relationship. (See here, here, and here.)
In an earlier article entitled “Protection from harm: One set of rules for political elites and another set of rules for common folk“, I pointed out that the self-appointed political masters from the PAP appear to be treated differently as far as protection under the law is concerned. Clearly, the examples I have listed also attest to the fact that the mainstream media treats them differently from ordinary civilians and Opposition politicians
The political elite is given very comprehensive coverage in the mainstream press, which allows them ample opportunity to paint as good a picture of themselves as possible, but at the same time denies others the same privilege. In contrast, Opposition politicians like Dr Chee and other members of the SDP in particular are frequently slimed by the mainstream media with no opportunity to respond or engage the public.
This media bias and abhorrent lack of professionalism points to an urgent need for media reform. Unfortunately, as long as the PAP is in control of the mainstream media and exerts a repressive influence on free expression via the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the alternative side of Singapore politics will have to find expression on the internet instead.
Originally posted by Yxxxone:
A wonderful blog! Thanks for posting the link here.
I never knew it existed.
From the number of comments posted in your blog, I
dare say it has more hits and more comments than say TOC.
I have been observing that blog and seems like it is getting less comments compared to earlier in the year and last year.
I heard that the people behind TOC used to be from ....
i dont know whether the TS is trying to insult the singaporeans reading ST or the ppl managing ST.
anyway, you can have my word, many ppl like myself buy ST to read the "money" section, " sports" section and" internation news". i dont bother to read local news. the local news are reported by third grade reporters.
pathetic!
and" internation news"
Read ST for foreign events is also quite worthless.
You won't know much about foreign politics through ST.
Originally posted by skythewood:Herald Tribune and Reuters is propaganda.
on the contrary, since you say All SPH stuff is propagandas, if i can find one that is not, than you are a liar who is spreading propagandas about SPH being propaganda.
chim right?
When i said that SPH stuffs are propagandas, it is my own claim. You can choose not to believe it and i gain nothing from it if i want to lie about it.
So, if i throw back the question at you telling you that since you said Herald Tribune and Reuters are propagandas and if i can find one that is not, then you are also a liar who is spreading propagandas about Herald Tribune & reuters being propaganda right?
Not chim anyway.
Originally posted by Hawk Eye:When i said that SPH stuffs are propagandas, it is my own claim. You can choose not to believe it and i gain nothing from it if i want to lie about it.
So, if i throw back the question at you telling you that since you said Herald Tribune and Reuters are propagandas and if i can find one that is not, then you are also a liar who is spreading propagandas about Herald Tribune & reuters being propaganda right?
Not chim anyway.
notice the diff between my statement and yours? You said all, i didn't...
so finding one that is not won't prove i am lying, as finding some propaganda will be able to substantiate my stand about my statement... but for you, just one can prove you wrong, because you use "all".
yup, not chim.
Originally posted by angel7030:
You mean the paper is no good ar, if dun like, please dun throw, we can use for recycling. Save our Green Planet!
Of cos Herald and other international paper hv better qualities lah, SPH is trying to save cost of operating mah.
I cannot totally say that the paper is not good. Perhaps i'm more unsatisfied with the way they selectively present political informations. Look at the many fallacies and scare tactics they have committed!
Oh yeah, i would only recycle their papers to save the planet.
Originally posted by skythewood:notice the diff between my statement and yours? You said all, i didn't...
so finding one that is not won't prove i am lying, as finding some propaganda will be able to substantiate my stand about my statement... but for you, just one can prove you wrong, because you use "all".
yup, not chim.
Am i lying or not, it does not affect you anyway right? However, its up to an individual on how they want to see things.
Decision factor must be based on looking into both parties and come up with a conclusion, to be fair.
So if you say that i lie, what am i lying about? What am i comparing SPH papers with? Herald Tribune & Reuters? No, thats not the case cos its only my opinion, my claims.
Originally posted by Hawk Eye:Am i lying or not, it does not affect you anyway right? However, its up to an individual on how they want to see things.
Decision factor must be based on looking into both parties and come up with a conclusion, to be fair.
So if you say that i lie, what am i lying about? What am i comparing SPH papers with? Herald Tribune & Reuters? No, thats not the case cos its only my opinion, my claims.
hai yah, small issue... you say never mind than never mind loh...