An article in the ST yesterday by its editor Yap Koon Hong more or less
says this is excusable given certain conditions when factual reporting
is difficult. The article is in response to the criticism across the
world, in the main media and social media, on Ching Cheong’s infamous
report on the 120 hounds used to devour Jang Song Thaek, the uncle of
Kim Jong Un and the second in Command.
What Ching Cheong set out to do, by quoting the report from a China
source, Wen Weipo, to infer that China was showing its disapproval of
the young Kim is understandable and acceptable. Many analysts adopt this
methodology to understand the nuances in the news coming out from China
to get a feel of the thinking in Zhongnanhai. What is unacceptable is
to convey the false information as truth. Did Ching Cheong’s article did
that or did he in some way conveyed that message or simply did not
dispute or qualify the authenticity of the news?
The negative reactions to Ching Cheong’s article by so many sources,
including reputable western media, say it all, that he did wrote in such
a way that the misinformation could be construed as the truth by many
readers and thus the rebuke.
But why is Yap Koon Hong trying to justify that a fifty fifty case is
acceptable? His reasoning, it is difficult to get news or the truth out
from North Korea. So half truth or misinformation can be published or
else there will be no news to report. His second reason, unbelieveable,
is that many truths would also be questioned or be reputed by the
readers and not believed. Does this mean that since truth is not well
received, what’s wrong with printing half truth, or to stretch the
reasoning further, untruth?
There is a world of difference between printing half truths without
qualification and can be read by the unsuspecting readers as truths, and
printing them with qualifications that their authenticity is unclear or
unsubstantiated. The readers demand a very exacting standard from the
main media to print the truth and nothing but the truth. Half truths or
rumours must be stated clearly as such.
Would the readers be willing to compromise the quality of news on the
excuse that unverified news can be passed on as truth without
qualifications? If this is the standard for news reporting in the main
media, you can expect fictions to be all over the pages to sell papers
for sure.
There cannot be compromise on truthful reporting. Even then, selective
reporting is already the norm. When would the main media lower its
credibility to report on questionable truths and facts and claim it is
alright to do so? What is the meaning of integrity of news and
professionalism of the reporters and agencies? Where is the point of
morality if main media are allowed to report half truths as news and
truths?
Shifting morality and integrity to fit the circumstances cannot be
reasons to compromise on the responsibility of main media to report the
truth for sure.
What do you think?
11 comments:
Doesn't matter can or cannot print half truths, but smart Sinkies should be able to differentiate between truths, half truths and lies lah.
In fact, smart Sinkies may not even want to read the mainstream media, for that matter.
Smart Sinkies only want to make money, lots of it, whether PAP or WP govt, in Sinkieland or Timbuktu. And they will.
...smart Sinkies should be able to differentiate between truths, half truths and lies lah.
Anon 8:43 am
Tiok. And that's how they can make lots of money. And not get cheated as well.
And maybe smart Sinkies know it will be easier to make money under PAP govt than WP govt?
No wonder they did not join WP or any other opposition.
PAP is best. Or best available, rather. That's the truth.
What you people saying are half truths. Why don't you tell the truths, that the smart Sinkies are not joining the PAP and you end up with tin cans and more tin cans?
Look at what kind of policies and the mess being created and you will know the calibre that have joined.
Full truth or half truth or blatant lie, does it really matter?
As long it is entertaining and cause me no harm lah.
too bad smart sinkies only 40% of the population. the other 60% is sheep.
Sinkies are indeed smart.
They know that there are so much half truth that they now treat all truth as half truth.
Problem solved, so who needs to speak the truth anymore?
patriot
DO IT MATTER IF MSM PRINT FACTUAL NEWS?
daft can differentiate?
if msm claimed kuan yew droppings can cure cancer and will be auction off for some charity?
many will bid for this shit
if offered free on a specific date.... daft will start queueing 49 days before that date
knnccb .... papigs return our cpf@55 ...
msm is as creditable as the epouch time published n distributed by the falungong
like those tabloids, free for all
daft love free gifts, will swallow everthing wholesale
what more .... even some highly educated believe kong hee claim; god said SORRY to him
i believe him too ... used to have people calling me god when i was young and hot bloodied
knnccb ...... papigs, i will cursed u until m deathbed; akan datang
The world is full of bullshits and the press is one of the tools used to spread those bullshits.
If the Shit Times reporter Cheong had written that Jang was literally fed to the dogs, that itself is an opinion. But to specially report that Jang was fed to 120 hounds witnessed by 200 people, that is no longer an opinion.
When so smelly with shit, still want to argue some more. So lack of professionalism, really shame on these reporters ?
Post a Comment