Reporting Hong Lim Park

Something big happened in Singapore yesterday and it was on the front page of….the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong. The kindest thing I can say about MSM here is that they don’t track events as thoroughly as the foreign media. But I know that’s a lie. So we have to read foreign versions of what happened in Singapore, filed by wire agencies and other publications. Or you get bits and pieces of what happened through social media and YouTube clips. I would have liked a comprehensive report on what the speakers said done by professionals who have a stake in this country’s future.

But I, a Singapore citizen, didn’t get it.

I suppose MSM found themselves in a tough position. There’s some OB marker somewhere they can’t cross, or won’t cross. So there was a piece in the Sunday Times which summed up the event. Bare bones. Not even a Page 1 picture. The organisers of the Say No to Population White Paper said 5,000 people attended, reported ST, which also cited AFP’s 1,000 to 1,500. The police, whom the MSM usually relies on for the definitive crowd size, said they didn’t monitor the crowd size yesterday. Unbelievable! Anyway, if ST could have quoted AFP, then it could well have come up with its estimate of crowd size – which it didn’t.

But why quibble about crowd size? It’s enough that it’s sizeable, and filled Hong Lim Park on a rainy day. And it was about a political issue. Finally, Hong Lim Park seems to be living up to purpose it was set up for a long, long time ago. Not just a forlorn place with a speaker every couple of months or so talking to a couple of people, but a place for civilised discussion and civil action.
That so many people turned up (who says Singaporeans are apathetic) over something so close to people’s hearts that even Parliament had tried to resolve makes this big news. Yet I see a constrained/restrained MSM. It is as disheartening as the label that the MSM did NOT attach to those Chinese SMRT bus drivers – that they were on strike, whether legal or illegal. It is as befuddling as the way MSM handled Professor Wolfgang Lutz’s assertions earlier this week that we got the ideal TFR all wrong. While it was still top news in ST, it was stuck at the bottom of the page.

What would have made my Sunday reading experience even worse is if they had ignored the Financial Times article on the mysterious death of American Shane Todd. A friend actually said it would not see the light of day in MSM because the incident crossed national boundaries and indicated sloppy police work. I replied that MSM would have no choice but to “recover’’ the story given that it’s gone viral.This wasn’t just a blog post that can be dismissed; it looked like investigative reporting done by the much respected FT. MSM did, with a police statement calling for evidence to be turned over, although I wonder what MSM would have done if the police declined comment…

Go buy my ex-boss’ book, OB Markers, if you want to know more about the relationship between The Straits Times and the Government. Mr Cheong Yip Seng gave away a lot of secrets, ending his book on a bright note – that things can only get better with more information forthcoming in the light of a better-educated audience and the internet.

I’m beginning to think he might be wrong.

You know, it’s popular online to rant about the inadequacies of the MSM, a pity since on most news fronts that do not involve the G, they do a decent enough job. It doesn’t help that newspapers’ premium news articles are behind a paywall, because those who have a bias against the MSM will simply NOT subscribe. While there are business considerations for the paywall, I firmly believe that restricting access is not good for any messenger. While the MSM might make more money, they are not going to be able to raise their profile or reputation for good reporting and writing behind a wall. Interesting conundrum.

I know from reading Nielson reports that most people still rely on MSM for their news. The trust level is high.

This is a sacred trust.

It shouldn’t be eroded by downplaying news that runs against the so-called national narrative.
It would be a pity would be if more and more people treat MSM the way the G is increasingly being treated – that they can’t be trusted. So you don’t just have one institution in trouble, but two.

You wouldn’t read about this though in the MSM.

Shy MPs

So Ms Lee Bee Wah screamed and the contractors got cracking. It got the stalled lift upgrading going and ready in two weeks in her Nee Soon ward. Her residents are surely grateful to their MP. Ms Lee isn’t worried about putting her name to her blasting. Now would she have been okay with having her name published on something about the by-election, especially if it’s not complimentary of the PAP?

I ask this because I can’t help but notice that yet another PAP has spoken to the media “on condition of anonymity’’ in ST. The first anonymous PAP MP had spoken about the innocuous subject of the choice of Speaker last month. This time, this anonymous MP indicated that the party was beguiled into thinking that it would win Punggol East, because grassroot activists reported that residents were receptive when they knocked on doors on Wednesday, the last night of the WP rally. Then he/she added: “But of course only the PAP supporters were at home, the rest were at the rally.’’

I suppose he didn’t want to be named because it wouldn’t look good on him or the party. And it’s a coup for ST to get an MP to admit to something like this. Then I think he/she should just shut up then. Has it come to this that even MPs won’t even put their name to what they say? And they are supposed to speak for me in Parliament?

AFTERNOTE: The MP concerned is Teo Ser Luck

Draft of an unpublished story

I suppose MSM is waiting for PAP’s Teo Ho Pin’s response on the sale of the town council’s computer information system before it decides to publish anything on the matter. Typical move, except that too much of the action is taking place online to be ignored. Even if sources are un-named, they are worth reporting for wider public consumption. Better still, if the MSM can go out and GET them named, or at least get confirmation of the facts.

So, here’s my attempt to piece the story together from what’s online. Moderately. Carefully. Oh, so carefully….

MORE questions regarding the sale of a town-council developed computer information system to a People’s Action Party company have surfaced, with one individual purportedly escalating the matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

The unnamed individual has asked the police to look into how the tender was awarded to Action Information Management, according to documents mailed to TR Emeritus.

Another individual, who declined to be named for “professional purposes’’, has also dug out what he claimed to be the original tender notice announced on June 30, 2010. He charged that it was lacking in details compared to other tender notices. The notice also levied a a $214 fee for interested applicants to “find out more’’, he wrote on The Online Citizen.

These disclosures, which have yet to be confirmed by the CPIB or the town councils, are the latest of a series of questions that is being asked by the online community, which was first alerted to the circumstances of the sale by blogger Alex Au.
The issue came to light after a report card on town councils’ work was made public with Workers’ Party run Aljunied-Hougang TC lagging behind conspicuously behind in the corporate governance category. This was because, WP MP Sylvia Lim said, it had yet to develop a computer information system after the vendor, Action Information Management, terminated its services following the WP win in the ward.

Mr Au and other online commentators unearthed a trove of information about the vendor: That it was a $2 company, which bought the system which the 14 town councils had developed for $140,000. It leased the system back to the town councils for a fee of $785 a month. Ex-MPs S Chandra Das, Lau Ping Sum and Chew Heng Chin were named as directors.

PAP’s co-ordinator of town councils Dr Teo Ho Pin confirmed that the company was People’s Action Party owned, while the company declared that its action to terminate the contract with the opposition-run TC was in line with a contractual clause that it allowed it to do so if there were “material changes in the composition’’ of the TC.

Dr Teo charged that the WP was already developing its own information system, had asked and been granted two extensions and could have asked for a third extension to the lease if it wanted. Ms Lim hit back, accusing Dr Teo of not addressing more fundamental questions of the contract termination.

Online commentary appear to be focused on the following issues:
• Accountability – Whether residents’ funds were used to develop the computer system and the logic behind having it sold to a third party, which happens to be PAP owned, and re-leased for a fee.
• Transparency – Of five interested applicants who paid the fee for more information on the tender, only AIM put in a bid. Drawing parallels with the Brompton bike case, comments included whether the tender process could have been extended to allow for more bidders to take part and whether there was any impropriety in the process.
• Political connections – Implicit in the commentaries is whether AIM’s move to terminate the Aljunied-Hougang TC contract is a purely partisan decision rather than motivated by business or public interest considerations. If so, the on-going saga raises the question of the role of political parties in business and how these businesses operate in the political sphere.

Said former journalist Bertha Henson: “It’s disquieting to read what’s online. The Government has always maintained that its tender processes are above-board. A political party too should maintain the same strictures lest it be accused of using business for political or private gain – at the expense of the public interest.’’
PAP’s Dr Teo said he would give a fuller accounting soon.

PS. I interviewed myself as a quote but apparently the technique just puzzled people…hence, deletion

A media list for 2013

It’s that time of the year when the media does a look back and a look forward. On everything from photographs to entertainment to politics – accompanied by predictions of what is to come. On everything, except on themselves or what is expected of them in 2013. At the risk of being accused of pious preaching, here is one news reader’s wishlist for the mainstream media in 2013. Most very do-able. Some already being done some of the time. Here’s to a higher level of journalism!

1. Reject one source stories. By that, I don’t mean merely adding another “voice’’ to the story which says he/she welcomes this or that. I would like to see someone else confirming the news or giving an intelligent facet to the news. By one source stories, I also mean all voices coming from one agency/company/ministry – who are just likely to parrot the same line – or FB and blog postings from individuals that are simply reported without any value added.

2. Expand the list of usual suspects. Aren’t you tired of seeing the same ole people/experts giving comments on issues? Surely there are more academics, economists and political observers around to give a point of view?

3. Reject anonymous comments. You know, recently, there was an article in ST in which a PAP MP who declined to be named (!) gave his views on who could be the next Speaker of Parliament after Palmergate. I can’t believe this! An MP who wants to be anonymous and won’t put his name to what he’s said! Anyways, there are too many “declined to be named” people in the news – and it’s not as though their views (sometimes very innocuous ones) will cost them their jobs or their lives.

4. Get the core story right. I say this because some articles pounce quickly to obtaining reactions or putting in the big picture context without getting the core story right in the first place. You know what I mean, some thing happens and the story morphs quickly into who is at fault or what it might have been instead of just making the news CLEAR in the first place.

5. Bring back explanatory graphics. Nice to have flora and fauna infographics but what about news infographics that explain changes? BT today had a nice graphic on what the US fiscal cliff is all about. Also, what about more charts etc that makes it easier to read numbers? This also means text can be devoted to explaining the implications of the statistics rather than a recital of numbers.

6. Get the corporate hand OUT of the news. I know media companies want to make money and there is always tension between editorial and corporate arms. It’s disconcerting to see pages sponsored by businesses which accompanying editorial that trumpets the business. For some time now, even front pages are being “bought’’. I wonder what Today will do when the hammer comes down on exec condos. For some time now, CityLife@Tampines has been boasting about being the first luxury-hotel style EC on the cover. I hope editorial can keep the advertiser at bay…

7. Steer clear of commentary in the news. Most times, this is adhered to. A news story is a news story and while there might be legitimate analysis or interpretation, there is no outright comment made on the news by the journalist. The thing is, analysis or interpretation should be attributed – unless it’s such a no-brainer that readers would have reached the same conclusion themselves. If not, it will be the news media which is doing the validating or re-affirming – and I don’t think that’s on.

8. Cut down on self-indulgent columns. Unless they are witty, entertaining, make me laugh or cry or offer me an insight I didn’t have, I really don’t know why anyone would want to read about the private lives/habits/quirks/woes etc of a mere 20something, 30something or even 40something journalist. Go blog!

9. Help the reader with “running stories’’. Not everyone follows the news every day and an article really has to be written in its entirety for the fellow who just landed in Singapore. This is true especially for court cases. A “case so far’’ which details what had gone on before would really help the “new’’ reader follow developments.

10. Stop using acronyms in the text of the story. By saying Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) at first mention and then assume readers will remember what SHB stands for when the acronym is used later is really too much to assume. Most times, the readers have to re-read to remember what SHB stands for. Just say bonus plan. Likewise if it’s a company or organisation or association that is unknown, don’t fling acronyms at the reader. The company, the organisation or the association would do. Longer. But clearer.

Change or no change

I found ST’s page 1 story on casinos a bit baffling. I always thought that newspapers report changes, but here is a headline which says that Govt’s approach to regulating casinos HASN’T changed: Iswaran.

It’s fine by me if the talk was that the approach is being changed or there is fear and anticipation that it will be changed. Although to be replaced by what, I can’t tell.

Anyway, the story was about changes to the Casino Control laws which have been much talked about, particularly on limiting the “financially vulnerable’’ people’s access to casinos. If there is a change in approach at all, it is that the G is hoping to further minimise social ills – which the MPs roundly applauded with some even wanting more done. I suppose this should count as a “tightening’’ of approach – not a change?

In any case, there I was trying to figure out if I am right about the “real’’ changes (go count the number of times change/changes was used in the article) and I was getting stymied by G reiterating its approach… Only later did I get the news that some committee is being set up, in addition to the curbs on the “financial vulnerable’’. In contrast, I thought Today did a better job of giving the news quick although it did ramble in the end trying to take in MPs’ comments.

On the other hand, I couldn’t find any reference to Teo Chee Hean’s admission that infrastructural development didn’t keep pace with population growth in ST. Maybe I went blind trying to wade through the parliamentary reports. If so, I stand corrected. But it was highlighted in BT and angled that way. It was in Today too, but under the headline that the Population paper will be ready in January. I don’t think that’s a new point – and maybe it’s just a way of capturing what the DPM said.

The WHY question

I have four why questions after reading today’s newspapers.

WHY did the telcos even have a cap on overseas connection speeds in the first place? ST reported today that they have lifted the caps, in place for two years. When people use the word “cap’’, you sort of think this was involuntary but there was no sign in the report that this was mandated by the IDA. Nor does it say that they would have to pay overseas players more for more speed.
In fact, StarHub says it lifted the cap to meet customers’ need for greater speed to do stuff like live streaming. That sounds nice. SingTel said the cap was imposed so as not to breach IDA’s rule that network capacity cannot exceed 90 per cent. So does this mean the rule can be breached now?
As a cartoon on the ST Forum Page points out (really odd place for the cartoon given that it comes BEFORE the story, which is in a different section altogether), have we been over-paying for speeds?

WHY was the salary level for Personalised Employment Pass set so low in the first place? The newspapers said this limit has been bumped up from $34,000 a year to $144,000 a year. You know…for something so premium, $34,000 sounds just a bit more than what you would need to get a credit card?

Okay, it’s a small proportion – just 7 per cent of 174,000 EP holders. But shouldn’t we demand “higher’’ quality foreign talent for the premium perk of not being tied to a specific employer? I am all for raising the salary limit – no issue with that at all. But I wonder what is the point of shortening the validity period from five years to three years. Aren’t these people the sort of foreigners we would want to sink roots here?

WHY is SingTel’s re-branding exercise on BT’s Page 1?
SingTel’s PR people should be congratulating themselves today for saving the company the cost of Page 1 advertisement. In fact, we’re not told the cost of this glitzy campaign…business secret I suppose? In fact, I don’t know very much of what it wants to do. Its boss was quite a tease, judging from the report. There’s going to be some new social media product, but we don’t know what. There’s going to be a new programme guide – which “nobody has seen before’’. SingTel had better live up to its hype. It’s also going to be more active in responding to customer feedback and complaints – which I thought should be part of customer service improvements.

WHY, oh why, oh why did no one ask Michael Cunningham which were the three novels on his short-list for the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction that was not awarded???? Even if it’s a secret, there are so many ways to get it out for him, like asking him what he thought were the top three American novels of the year. I so so so want to know!

That $7,000 cabby

That $7,000 cabby
How do you catch out a person on a lie? Or maybe he wasn’t lying, just exaggerating, stretching the truth, so to speak. I get asked this question many times. I say that it boils down to rigorous reporting. Ask the question, make sure the person understood the question and then ask more questions to verify the answer. Don’t repeat the same question, silly! He’s not deaf, you know…

Then ask for evidence, and ask for other people who can confirm or back up the answer. In other words, you simply cannot rely on what journalists call a “one source’’ story. The heart of journalism is verification.

So it is with some sadness that I had to read about the cabby back-tracking on his $7,000 answer. He hit that mark only once; it wasn’t a typical monthly salary. I was even more distressed to read the reporter’s response to this back-tracking. In essence, she said that this was what he said, that her question was clear, she had a colleague to back this up plus video evidence.

But this isn’t enough, is it? A journalist doesn’t swallow everything an interviewer says, especially if what he said is incredible. If that’s the case, a journalist is no better than a tape recorder. The interviewee isn’t under oath either, like in a court of law, so he can really say anything he likes and doesn’t have to be too careful about the truth.

The thing is, if you are a journalist, you can’t call a person a liar to his face, not even if you have proof. After all, he’s doing you the favour by answering your questions. In fact, he doesn’t even have to speak to you. So you are left with your arsenal of questions. It’s which question to fire, how many you decide to shoot, from what angle, which direction, until you are sure the target is right. So it is with the cabby…

Q: Wow! $7,000 a month is a lot. You have a log book or not? Can I see?
Q: Isn’t it very tiring? What does your wife say about driving six days a week like this? You must be earning more than your wife?
Q: Any of your cabby friends make that kind of money? Do they know? You didn’t tell a single one? You are talking to a reporter now you know. I am going to write this…
Q. $7,000 a month. All the time? Are there some times you make less? Bad month or something?

I suppose we can speculate about why the cabby chose to give a different story now. That he was being ridiculed, faced pressure from his colleagues and so forth. May he DID make $7,000 a month and is now saying something different to take the heat off himself. Except that he quit what he said was a good job. Maybe he really wanted to say that $7,000 a month is do-able if you worked hard and smart. That when he said his taxi was a “money machine’’, he didn’t mean he was minting money but that his livelihood was dependent on it. Maybe he got carried away speaking to a reporter. Some people do, you know. They make things out to be bigger, better than they really are. And it’s no fault of the interviewee…he isn’t the expert.
The journalist is.

Bits and Pieces

Too much of a gift for some
Some parents aren’t happy that the children from the Gifted programme seem to be getting a smooth ride into secondary schools. They can enter the schools they want with their PSLE results (sure to be good) but are using the Direct Admission programme and “choping’’ places. In other words, could they be edging out the less academically gifted peers who might be talented in other ways? Sigh. Seems every step up the ladder is fraught with difficulty. What’s strange is that the Integrated Programme schools can actually take in 100 per cent of enrolment this way. But MOE says they take in only half. That’s nice. But why even give them the leeway to take in 100 per cent? What’s also strange is that the MOE doesn’t want to say how many students in IP schools got through this way. Why not? But it revealed that 40 per cent (of this 50 per cent of 100 per cent) wouldn’t have been there based on PSLE scores alone. I suppose the MOE is trying to say the schools are being “responsible’’ but there’s no reason to be coy about giving numbers I’m sure.

What a nice headline
Life after politics is “nice’’ for George Yeo. That’s nice. But I don’t think I have ever seen a more inane headline: It’s nice, George Yeo says of new job. Times like this I pity the poor reporter who did the interview. So many facets of the story and that’s all the headline writer could come up with..nicely done indeed. Why not focus on what his job is about – Spotting openings in China for his Hongkong employer. Come to think of it, it’s a bit of a pity he isn’t doing it for a Singapore employer. As past foreign minister, he’s more than able to open doors for businesses which want to spread their wings. One thing he said which I thought we should keep in mind. All that attention/hype about China learning from the Singapore model – let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. We’re just one of many it is looking at, he said. Good point. In fact, I’m not even sure if China learning from us should be considered a compliment!

Parents’ Paper
My Paper has gone through a revamp. I’m not sure how different it is from the past content-wise except that it has pledged to do more on parenting. I think it’s decided not to compete with the other newspapers by turning sports into more lifestyle stuff rather than games and competitions. It’s Page 1 is different: no more page 1 story but blurbs etc. It should get a better blurb or summary writer though if today’s issue is what we can look forward to. I mean, it starts with “in a sign of resilience’’. That’s about the manpower report by the way. Looks-wise, I think it’s gone a bit old-fashioned with the fonts. But that’s just me…

Facilitating only….

There’s one word which I am beginning to swear at – facility and its plural variant. Things that are physical are now a facility or facilities. It is the case for the mega ITE campus on ST’s page 1. It’s a facility and there are facilities, like a swimming pool, within this facility. And this facility is actually a merger of smaller facilities, which are the standalone ITEs.

Oh, and a productivity centre which was launched yesterday is also described as a facility. Likewise a business centre opened by Boston Consulting Group. You realise there is no longer space for recreation, but recreational facilities. Or space to play sports but sports facilities. I remember the days when facilities was a polite way to ask for the way to the washroom – as in, where are the facilities, pray tell.

And while I’m ranting…there’s also this word called facilitate. Nobody helps anymore, they facilitate.

Okay, I digress. Actually my main beef is about the way the media seems to wow, ga-ga and rah-rah whenever something new is set up. In fact, they actually write that you should go “wow’’ – like how “visitors to the ITE will be wowed by a massive atrium…’’. And how students will “benefit’’ from an authentic learning environment. And how one student is “eagerly’’ looking forward to studying there. A page 1 story on the facilities isn’t enough, readers will be wowed by a massive graphic in the inside pages.

This exuberant reporting extends to any kind of facility, like sports halls, shopping malls and gardens, whether commercial or state sponsored. If it’s state-owned, I wonder why the more critical question of whether these facilities are worth the taxpayers’ money aren’t asked. For example, what is going to happen to the current five ITE campuses that are going to be move to this mega-campus? I read in Today that they will be returned to the state, although what the state intends to do to these five facilities isn’t answered.

When the media goes rah-rah over commercial facilities, I cringe. So we get a blow by blow on how many shops etc there will be and the wonderful play and eating facilities. I think to myself that the developers and private companies should take out an ad.
Look here, I am just asking for neutral reporting that would benefit the reader.

I think Today did the ITE story better. Four new courses, how many students, where they will move to, when, how big etc. Methinks ST tried too hard to factor in the big picture of an ITE that’s super, when it should just give info in some coherent order.

By the way, the ITE said it hoped the mega campus will change the “perception of the public to ITE education’’. In the next breath, the same ITE spokesman said that “locals sometimes still think that ITE is this dingy little workshop’’. Locals??? Gosh. I have to put my grass skirt back into my dingy little kampong house…

Finally, the facts…

My ex-boss has written a tell-all book. I read it yesterday evening and closed the book with mixed feelings. Cheong Yip Seng was the man who brought me into journalism, and to this day, I have always considered him the top newsman in Singapore. Not by virtue of his position as editor-in-chief of the Singapore Press Holdings English and Malay language newspapers division, but as a consummate professional. That is, if politics didn’t get in the way.
I would ring him at home after office-hours when I find difficulty angling a story or was unclear about how to proceed with the reporting or writing. My colleagues were aghast that I would bother Cheong, as we all called him. But a short conversation answering a few sharp questions he posed would always set me right. I would hang up and start banging away at the keyboard. He missed news reporting and editing; that was clear to me. One weekend many moons ago when I was helming weekend coverage of the sinking of navy ship, RSS Courageous, he actually called me to ask if I needed him to come in to help. He was the only editor who offered to do so – and he was my top boss. I told him how much space I was giving to the story and he told me this: “Let it rip! Open more pages!’’ I was stunned. Anyway I doubled the coverage.
Cheong is the only journalist to have survived the bruising media environment and to retire gracefully. He did so by navigating the political environment skilfully. And because those who worked with him trusted that he would still do his utmost to ensure we practised good journalism, albeit within the OB markers. Of course, younger journalists wanted wider fairways and chafed when we thought them to narrow. Cheong would do his best to persuade us to his point of view, especially at his famous coffeebreak editors’ meetings. Sometimes we agreed with him, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we wished he would simply order us to toe his line. After all, he was editor-in-chief. But he never laid down the law. Always, in the end, we did as he wanted. He allowed feedback and dissent to surface and, in my case, I would do what he wanted because I appreciated his frankness and his earnest wish to get us over to his point of view. Also, I knew that Cheong was usually right. Butt heads with the G over one incident and risk the fairways becoming so narrow that we couldn’t do very much?
Cheong’s book, OB Markers, is remarkable for the revelations that senior editors had thought should be closely guarded secrets. The phone calls from ministers, slap on the wrists, face-to-face meetings were something that we do not talk about in public. Now here is Cheong telling all. It is a factual account and I myself was party to some of the discussions which took place. I wonder how the reading public will view the book. Here are some scenarios:
a) Ahah! I knew it!
Patrick Daniel, Cheong’s successor, had wondered if this would be the reaction. Will the book only confirm a perception/misperception that the ST is a “docile’’ press, one veteran had asked. Cheong replied that there wouldn’t have been so many run-ins if the ST was docile. Truth to tell, there have been occasions when I thought the ST reactions to G’s overtures (that’s the mildest term I can use) could be more vigorous. But you know something? If you are not in the business and not privy to some information, it is easier to shoot from the hip. I have always tried to take the view that Cheong was thinking for the long-term, hoping that time and technology and the unstoppable trend towards political openness would allow journalists to better practise their craft. Actually, journalists do have a lot of room to do good journalism which does not touch on the politics of the day. Over the years, there was less “interference’’ over non-political stories. On these stories, we “went’’ with the newspoint as well as with Cheong’s three principles firmly in mind – accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.
b) Wow! The G really doesn’t trust the media
That’s true. Even to this day. The catchphrase civil servants threw at journalists when the reporting does not go their way is: You have an agenda. My usual response would be: “Where got so much time to come up with an agenda? What’s the agenda anyway? Bring down the G?’’ It’s laughable. Most times, the accusation comes from thin-skinned civil servants and politicians who want only favourable stories that put them in a good light. On several occasions, I have had to face newsmakers who do not “like’’ my questions, considering them too aggressive or do not “like’’ my writing because it was too racy. The flip side happens as well. They also “like’’ some of my stuff, which almost makes me wonder if they thought I was their PR machinery….I try to comfort myself when we get hit at by both the People’s Action Party and the opposition – if we are equally disliked, we must be doing something right!
c) The media people are really cowards….
Then there will be those who think the media should have “fought’’ back. That we should report “everything’’ and let the people decide how to view the articles. After all, as Cheong himself said, it is not likely that the Internal Security Act would be invoked against the media or that its publishing licence would not be renewed. True enough, but the G’s hold over the media is far more sophisticated. You should read Cherian George’s Freedom from the Press for indications. Editors have come and gone. But more importantly is what these people who advocate a “fight’’ really want? Too often, they are the first people who will say “don’t quote me’’ when asked to put their views in print. They expect others to lead while they watch on the sidelines. I always say “I am not going to be martyr for you’’ and will just do the best journalism I can. In any case, I will say that I don’t believe in full freedom of the press. On bilateral relations, for example, I will be guided by the G. When you do not have full possession of the facts, you put your country at risk by running uninformed accounts. I am not about to be responsible for Malaysia turning off the water supply!
d) The media here has such a tough job…
The thing about journalism is that we do not write about the difficulties of the craft. We just tell you about the information we have, not about how we got it or the hoops we have to go through, the telephone calls we have to field, the late night changes. It’s all part and parcel of reporting and writing. Cheong’s book gives a good insight into this. Sometimes the job is so tough that good people leave. Too narrow a fairway, too controlled an environment, too many considerations before even the writing starts, too many missed dinners PLUS the constant heckling that journalists have to endure, now tuned louder because of the Internet. I have on too many occasions had to console younger journalists upset at the jibes they receive – from both the G and the vociferous, nameless netizens – even as they try to do the best job they can under trying circumstances. I tell them to keep doing their job and trust that their bosses will take the flak and not deviate from ethical journalistic principles. As a senior editor, I try to convince them to “trust’’ us. That we do not roll over all the time. That we hold firm against the tide. But even I find it tough. Which was why I quit.
I am now waiting for public reaction to the book. Which scenario will pan out? Cheong said that if it resulted in some re-calibration of G-media relations, it would have done some good. Maybe it will realise that too controlling a hand will simply drive thinking people away from journalism. Maybe it will realise that this control, however subtle, puts ST’s credibility at risk especially with a better educated people with better access to information. The G should trust that journalists are not out to undermine Singapore. But it, too, should not undermine their editorial integrity.
Thank you, Cheong, for the book. It must have been tough for you to write it. The wonder is that you got Lee Kuan Yew to endorse it as “worth a read’’! Times, they are a-changing…