The Straits Times explained
After the censure and comments in Parliament, Han Fook Kwang reluctantly explained the position of the ST's coverage of the Aware saga. He would not want to, for his view is that the ST only reports factually and correctly and the readers are left to their own conclusion. Then why were there accusations that the ST coverage was biased? Why would a non partisan reader like me found the ST coverage more on a single factor, the religious encroachment into a secular organisation and the skimming through of another major issue, the CSE curriculum that Aware was teaching to the children? Sure the ST did reported on this. But Han Fook Kwang also admitted that the coverage could have been better on this. The question is that the ST, the reporters and editors, are all professionals. Didn't they see or know that their coverage was lob sided until the public had to point it out? Lob sided articles are fair game in cyberspace where objectivity and professionalism are not the hallmark of netizens. Netizens mostly do not care a dime about being professional or being objective, being fair. Many do not claim to be. In the case of the professionals, such traits and approach are their bread and butter and cannot be lightly dismissed as another case of irrational exuberance. Did they got carried away by the event? Han Fook Kwang's letter in the ST claimed that 'Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening and to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw their own conclusions.' He also said this, 'We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects.' And he stands by the professionalism of his reporters. "The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another.' This is most assuring.