But then i wondered to myself, “Acherly hor, wahrao eh, why gor this zhabor got so much balls put this in SG most read newspaper?”

Then i remembered that SG’s “Number 1″ newspaper that suprisingly NEVER puts anything that offends the gahmen, politically incorrect and all that shizz.

Anyway, Ms.Misquoted-by-government-propaganda-paper, what i suggest you do, is go ask the New Paper for interview.
Sure accept one :D

Anyway, all the Gen Y people – look here. I’m also an employer and I would like to think enlightened – we were cited before for stating in our ads “age is no barrier” – we have offered jobs and internships to young people (yes, those under 25). And some of these have been disappointing. Interns who don’t turn up on starting day (despite signing the letter) without informing us and only contacting us a few days later after we asked. Sleeping on the job, going for 3 hour lunch breaks while everyone else is pulling 14 hour days and the worst of worst – asking for an extension of deadline to do a task and later handing up work while admitting that nothing was done.

I’m not saying everyone is like that, but there are people out there who seem to think (actually I can’t tell what they are thinking cos it is incredulous to me), so not everyone is an angel. I’m not implying that Agnes isn’t, just blowing steam and hope the rest of you are more responsible than some of these chaps I have encountered.

FYI, I’m from WKW SCI. I can vouch for the fact that we learn ethics and etc etc in class but it’s entirely up to the individual to apply them in everyday life.
I’m so glad that I won’t be working at SPH after I graduate. Phew…

We have yet another student from WKWSCI vouching for its integrity. The more we hear from these students, past and present, the more we come to grips with the damage inflicted by the ST writer and her own lack of credibility and integrity.

Shawn, working for SPH is not all that bad. It is working there without a spine of your own that contributes to the ‘BAD’ factor.

As a human being, we owe it to ourselves, if not for others, to be fair to all. It is self-betrayal if one is to advance one’s own cause at the expense of others.

How can such a person sleep peacefully at night is beyond my comprehension.

If you do, then you might know how damaging it is to be painted in such a bad light.

Now imagine Ms Lin is going for a scholarship interview, a few days after that article came to light. Can you say for sure that the interviewer’s impression of her will not be tainted?

She is fortunate that she appears to have some sort of scholarship or study award already. They won’t revoke it because of that one article (even if that article painted an accurate picture) but one can only just begin to imagine the damage to her reputation.

Not to mention the fact that far more people read Sh!t Times than TOC. I’m assuming again here, so correct me, if for some reason TOC has higher readership figures. Of course, quality counts, but quantity is what I’d consider when assessing damage to one’s reputation.

FYI, I’m from WKW SCI. I can vouch for the fact that we learn ethics and etc etc in class but it’s entirely up to the individual to apply them in everyday life.

I’m so glad that I won’t be working at SPH after I graduate. Phew…

Hmm, if u read the interview on the reporter by TOC, you will notice that the report has admitted to omitting facts due to space. Wat else is there to prove?

I mean to be a reporter, surely her command of ang mo is not light. Surely it’s confirm much heavier than me. Just look at the way i write man…

Thus by leaving out those facts, surely she knew wat kind of reaction the public would ve.

To 112) passerby
As for writing to ST to rebutt the article, haven’t u already realise tat often ST do not post letters tat is not to their advantage? If TOC did not take up this issue, i believe the gal would still be kanna flame till now since it would be her article on her blog vs the ST. Though i doubt many of us here care about ST. =X

This TOC article is not as one-sided as you’ve made it out to be.

From the many comments; especially from those who have worked in ST’s newsroom, their accounts of how things are conducted there tells us more than what is written here.

It’s up to us to make the choice to believe who might be lying and who might be telling the truth. And, I think most of us here have the ability to discern for ourselves.

There is no need for Agnes to defend herself when we already know the response from Nur Dianah. She had admitted to leaving some ‘facts’ out because of space and time constraints.

This report, like the one featured in ST, is based only on the “victim” ’s own rebuttal. Note that the reporter did not admit that she had distorted Agnes’s comments..

I feel that to be fair, if Agnes feels that she is really misquoted, she should write to ST forum to reveal the actual content of their interview, and then demand apology from the reporter/ST for all the anguish inflicted–if what she had claimed in this (TOC) article is true. It is only fair that we also hear ST side of the story before we make our judgement YET AGAIN!

Else I feel this article by TOC is unfair to the reporter–as ST’s is to Agnes.

The Straits Times, as a national newspaper which readers have to pay for, owes a service to the general public to report accurate facts in its entirety, did a great injustice to Agnes Lin for its overgeneralisation in the story.

However, the quagmire is the stance of The Online Citizen – should it, as a citizen journalist website, offer a slanted view as well in its pursuit of responsible journalism? Or should TOC, in this exclusive, have taken efforts to try to seek a balance in its story?

Yes, we are thankful for TOC to offer comments deviant from what is thrown up within the mainstream media. But really, perhaps more could be done to get the government and the mainstream media to treat the TOC with respect. Yet blazing down the path which the ST took within this article failed to leave netizens (who, the mainstream media believes, are irresponsible purveyors of untruths) in good light.

On a sidenote, I believe that Terence, in his above comment, meant that we ought to cut reporters, as a profession, some slack, rather than specifically Dianah. A simple “no comment” to local journalists would in fact, stymie the growth of the journalism industry in Singapore. It does remain the ownership for journalists to be accountable to their interviewees. But the public could help by re-affirming with the journalists themselves that their quotes are taken into proper context prior to the story going on print and causing collateral damage to reputation.

And the extrapolation that WKWSCI “breeds inaccuracy, misleading readers, deceit, biasness, and fiction writing” is an insult to the integrity of the school. As a student there, I can honestly pledge that the school is doing all it can within its means, to champion responsible reporting and promote critical analysis and thinking.

Being new, we wanted to have the angle in BT to help open doors to the big management of Shopping malls and cinemas we’re talking to, to get our product in the door.

The article was a disaster, using words like “Eager Beavers” in the headlines and taking quotes out of context. Ongoing deals were KIV-ed, lost, kaput. Learnt a bloody hard lesson, and keep that article laminated.

I’ve since been working hard on another startup, we’ve closed a VC round, and setup office in SV, and looking likely to do a round there as well, and have never accepted or gotten any significant local PR coverage and have been mostly under the radar past 3-4years. My CEO got bad coverage from TNP and TODAY, which only further reinforces our belief of sensationalism.
Think “Against the advice of his lecturers..” as a start line to the story.

Having said that, my contacts in BT did help with a good article after our financing round, on the back prime page as well. :) It did help somewhat, but we’ve customers all over the world and not really in SG, so not overly concerned. Many good foreign websites do pick up our releases..

Bottom line is, journalists write what will move their papers, PR agencies pitch the angles their clients want, and the ordinary folk direct to journalist will always be eaten for lunch by the “old media” press.

given the amount of attention that Nur Dianah generated, the episode could well put her in a position to receiving a big bonus for 2008 and ….. she could then herself get that S$4000 Chanel bag.

never volunteer to be interviewed by any journalists …. least you want to be portrayed differently or be totally misunderstood. It happened to me before.