Nonetheless, I agree that the problem lies with the lack of competition. The last time SPH and Mediacorp tried to take on each other, the government intervened with the argument that the market is ‘too small’. Rather, was the government actually afraid that media firms in competition, in order to produce better quality news to serve their customers and measure up to their competitor, will be churning out more truthful reporting and critiques that will inadvertently shine many a light on the unethical practices and dubious track record of the ruling party?

SPH got the short end of the stick, I remember, by having lost its television stations, while Mediacorp could keep its broadcasting monopoly while retaining a share of the print media market via Today. Perhaps because SPH is on a slightly looser leash than Mediacorp, the government would also rather keep SPH away from broadcast news where it was less likely than Mediacorp to sing its praises and instead could make potentially critical even if brief comments about the ruling party, given the fast-paced nature of broadcast news?

http://www.ips.org.sg/events/all/Seminar_New%20Media%20Challenges_181208/Seminar_Balji_181208.pdf

And that advertisers and ad agencies don’t understand society has undergone a hard gear shift. Yet, ad money has stagnated since 2000 and >50% of ad revenue comes from outside Singapore now and not companies like, say, Singtel

Why?

What the online media needs to do is to get creative in the way it prodces offerings to the people who pay. As things stand, the online media is nice to those of us who want to get something of our chest but other than that, it’s not offering advertisers anything remarkably different.

Unless we, as an online community can be more than just a forum for grumbles and actually come up with a viable offering the main stream press will probably continue as is.

In alluding to Focaullt, I see that the next generation needs to be more than just successful Yes Men. As a nation we have moved beyond the need for a monolithic movement towards prosperity. We need to be on the cutting edge. We need to be adaptable, equitable, and progressive thinkers. We should start challenging ideas (and not the people who thought of them) and have the moral and professional courage to voice them out. In order for any organization to progress beyond stagnation, it needs to value dissent, create niches of opportunity, and redefine paradigms.

I personally feel that we should look at this purely at the organizational level. I think we need to revise our perception of the printed media as the hallowed canon, and think about how we could all contribute to this long neglected aspect of innovation and excellence. I think in every organization, almost everyone can follow orders, and practically everyone complains. How many of us actually have the moral and professional courage to offer constructive criticism and offer suggestions for improvement?

I think many of us will be rudely shocked to find out just how receptive the leaders of the organization, even the government, actually are when it comes to new revolutionary ideas that would improve the quality of our systems and processes.

was/ is Today newspaper more upstream than any other mainstream newspaper when he was in charge?

did Today ever provide an alternative views for us before?

citizen = elites, expats, and ministers
everyone else = slaves to above

What was quality of The New Paper or Today when Mr Balji was its chief….

Role play lah…. everyone just role play…..

I believe TOC is currently doing a good job online. The govt may have underestimate the powers of the internet journalism – same issue with the Malaysian govt and the US Republicans. All paid a political price for it.
————

aiyo Gilbert, why you say it out loud? you think people not watching what is going on meh. dont make it too obvious leh. low profile leh.

FT will either adapt to the SG’s modus operandi or feel stiffled and left. In the end, nothing will change until the environment changes that permits free fourish of ideas and their expression.

“Another issue is, curtailment. I can sense the desperation of SD above as he tries to bring his style of writing across to make his point. The curtailment by TOC has made him a totally different writer, as far as I am concern, minus all the beauty of his writing style. This is no good and I have asked TOC about this in a few other threads already.”

I really appreciate what you are trying to do here. Yes, it’s true what you say. To be honest with you, I feel quite marooned inside my own skull as I have never had to write with a policeman in my head before; so yes, I agree with you curtailment does certainly aggravate this already acute sense of entrapment.

However please don’t get me into more trouble, as I said, all I want to do here is to keep to the house rules. Let me just say this; it is not easy to be a Liaison officer of the brotherhood. I wish, I could elaborate but present circumstances prevent me from talking further without having to mention a certain person and grp.

———————————————————————————————-

Good Afternoon WK

I agree with you, a certain contrived reality is certainly at work here. Along with probably lashings of spin doctoring on the part of Balji.

I think we have to remain very cautious abt what Balji is forwarding here as a matter of observation and principle. Personally, I don’t take his masala dosai stricture of “young journalist” seriously. Neither can I see any thinking man doing so either.

While he is quick to train his sights on “young journalist,” which he describes as; “the biggest threats to change in the media,” and even goes on to add rather imperially, “I don’t see that kind of talent in our young journalists.”

Balji himself displays the same short comings; when he FAILS to account for WHY the press corps has found itself suddenly stricken by a complete failure of the entrepreneurial imagination needed to prosper in the electronic age?

Neither does Balji dwell deeper into the crux of WHAT may actually account for the rot and HOW did this lamentable state of affairs even come about; instead he seems to elide that part of the narrative so completely, that one really needs to question why he even went through the trouble of presenting his thoughts in the symposium. I really cannot understand, I would give you all examples and references to back up what I just said, but due to current restrictions, I cannot.

This I consider to be a travesty of rational logic as it’s nothing short of an attempt to ascribe blame for the failure of the press corps to those who have the least control over its destiny viz-a-viz young journalist (I would gladly have linked an article here to illustrate the point succinctly and even drive the point home most forcefully but again. I cannot mention due to certain restrictions imposed on me).

Instead of dwelling deeper into these cogent issues; Balji himself is guilty of the same list of accusations that he levels upon the “young journalist,” who he squarely points to as being responsible for this lamentable state.

This of course would only be believable, if we did not know, he himself was once an integral part of the same apparatus of assimilation he now seems to have no compunction heaping damming strictures on.

I do have a lot of sympathy with the younger journalist. I don’t think that was good sportsmanship.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Observant regular readers of The ST, may have by now noticed the kind of respect being accorded to LKY. When LKY was the PM every sentence he uttered in public was given front-page treatment; when he became SM the equation continued unchanged; everything he mouthed = front page; since his assumption of the MM title, nothing much has changedf. But when GCT was the PM, it was usually prime page, not front page, for him. The chief editor of The ST should have been sacked, for not according the same respect for GCT. How many of the speeches made by GCT, whether as PM or SM, were published front-page? Has The ST been acting with bias? Review past issues of The ST and you will get your answer.

Articles that appear in The ST about the introduction or use of new technology in Singapore, whether in pharmacology or some other area, are usually written with half-truths, for instance, which nation/corporation invented the new technology is usually omitted in the article, if it was something that Singapore imported. While the reporter would usually not be shy in describing the wonders of the new technology and in projecting the image of Singapore being the first in introducing such technology in this part of the world, the fact that it was invented by a foreign country and the identity of the manufacturer are usually left unmentioned. Why? Otherwise it may discredit the purpose of writing the article – which of course can be readily seen as an attempt at blowing one’s trumpet. With false pride, presumably.