Who reflects reality better, netizens or MSM?

In Media, Political governance on 07/09/2011 at 7:20 am

Dr Derek da Cunha stated in ST recently that “online chatter” was irrelevant to 7 May GE and 27 Aug PE.

He should get several tight slaps, along with “Kee Chui” Chan (of “lunatic fringe” fame) and “Cowboy towns” Lee.

Reading thru the leaked Wikileak cables, one gets the impression that they reflect very accurately what we netizens are saying is the reality on the ground. Not what the local MSM is saying is the reality.

Hell’s bells, our coffee-shop chatter abt ST reflects accurately what  ST reporters told the US embassy staffers on how things work in ST. [Text of the leaked cable] Compare that with what the MSM says abt itself.

True one of them, Lynn Lee*, has recanted what she told the Americans (all misrepresentations she howls). But a reasonable person can be forgiven for not believing her version, but preferring to believe the American version. Jus look at ST’s coverage of the GE and PE.

And it seems that US staffers agree with us[Link], rather than the MSM, on the quality of new PAP candidates in 2006.

So PM, Kee Chui and Dr da Cunha, acknowledge that we netizens reflect reality with less distortions than the publications and stations of our nation-building, constructive SPH and MediaCorp. Give us that respect, since we don’t get the 30 pieces of silver that each SPH and MediaCorp journalist or editor gets, at least that’s what I’ve been told.

Even if the American staffers are wrong abt who is the better reflection of the reality on the ground, they are employees of the hegemon. Their views matter.

*I’m disappointed that my heloo Siew Kum Hong has yet to unfriend her. American informants stick together?

  1. There is no reason for the Americans to take side in their internal assessments. On the other hand, there is every reason for PAP and ST to take side on many local issues.

  2. Heh I am not one to come out in favour of ST but I think you might be a wee bit harsh to call them American informants. It’s akin to me visiting JB and chatting with some JB politicians, coming back home and filing a report to my superior dictating what I heard from them. Cocktail talk from strangers does not equal to spies/informants lah

  3. Well then beware of your “Cocktail talk” then. Anything can be used against you or your organization. Be on your toes dude!

  4. “But a reasonable person can be forgiven for not believing her version…”

    Saying that a reasonable person needs to be forgiven for her/his belief implies that her/his reasonability is questionable in the first place – which also casts doubts on the credibility of your ‘analysis’.

  5. Siew Kum Hong an American informant? That’s new. Where did you hear that one?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: