If I were the chairman of SPH, I’d commission a witch-hunt to root out the subversives in the Straits Times newsroom if I wanted it to remain “constructive” and “nation building”.
Yesterday, ST carried on its front page BG Yeo’s plea to read the leaked comments in context (which incidentally he hasn’t provided).
But go read yr SunT. On page three in the midst of a long-winded and gibberish article, there were three prominent pictures of S’porean diplomats and what the US cables claimed they said. One got the impression that sumeone in the newsroom wanted to focus our attention on the alleged comments.
Now this was taking things out of context. And the ST proudly proclaims itself “nation building” and “constructive”.
Even the Oz newspapers who were criticised for writing articles taking the leaked cables out of context, didn’t do this kind of highlighting.
Shareholders of SPH have to be concerned lest newsroom subversives makes it lose its very profitable status as the cheer-leader for the government.
Remember a few months ago when its coverage of Mrs Lee’s death was undercut by its revelation that only about 5,000 people paid their respects. The other reports and pics gave the impression of a nation in deepest mourning. http://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/sph-civil-war-in-the-newsroom/
Seriously, as pressrun.net has pointed out, context is impt but as I’ve blogged yesterday George Yeo or his officials shld supply the context http://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/spore-inc-err-what-abt-giving-us-the-context-george/[Note this para was added at 8.55 am]*
BTW, the alleged comments ring true given the published and authorised public views of our diplomats and ministers. They can’t be accused of being double-headed snakes. At the most they were articulating official tots in undiplomatic language.
*And I’ve juz read this CNA report that MFA says it doesn’t comment on leaks. Pray then how can we be asked to judge the leaks in their context? [Update at 3.47 pm].