Breaking News:
Former president of Taiwan, Chen Shui Bian, has been sentenced to life imprisonment for corruption.
Breaking News:
MDA lifts ban on Martyn See’s film, Singapore Rebel, 4 1/2 years after film was made. (See here)
Breaking News:
Former NMP Thio Li Ann says The Online Citizen “victimised” her, according to report. (See here)
Fang Shihan.
Adversarial relationship between MSM and New Media will only increase the already high levels of apathy.
In another pitiable attempt to rebuild the credibility of the mainstream media, Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, Acting Minister at the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) took yet another potshot at New Media. As senior political correspondent Clarissa Oon reports, Minister Lui not only accused New Media of being biased but also adversarial.
“Balanced” – Newspeak Synonym of “Nation-Building Media”
Speaking at a dialogue session with the Singapore Press Club and Institute of Public Relations of Singapore (IPRS), he praised the Mainstream Media (MSM) for being competent, comprehensive, objective, professional and accurate. According to him, MSM reflects the reality on the ground more accurately than any other sources. He also cited recent surveys by AC Nielsen and the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that a majority of Singaporeans used MSM as their primary news source and found it credible.
Ironically, Oon’s account sounded more like a description of the contents in a handbook than the balanced news report that Minister Lui applauded in his speech. Reading her version of the event, he seemingly instructed MSM on the appropriate responses in ‘battling the influence of online media’. The headline also showed his seniority or consultancy position, with respect to the MSM: “Advice to MSM: stay balanced”. In addition, he revealed his strong dislike of some allegedly one-sided socio-political blogs, using these examples to dismiss the legitimacy of New Media at large.
Depending on which version the reader sees, the story turns out remarkably different. The government-issued speech transcript reveals nothing of his reported contempt of New Media. Two examples displaying the biasness of New Media were cited by Minister Lui – a video that showed an elderly woman collecting cardboard without revealing that she had a 3-room flat that was fully paid for (as if a fully-paid flat represents a recurring income stream), and web sites that accuse the Singapore government of being corrupt. These were not mentioned in the transcript at all. Neither was his reported comparison of the media in Singapore and Malaysia. Despite the loss of detail, the watered-down, tidied-up version of the actual event still reveals much about how this former military man reacts or would react to changing media landscapes in Singapore.
Setting MSM against New Media
As the former Chief of the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), Minister Lui displays the temperament of one who only knows of control and battle, not cooperation. Reacting defensively to what he perceives as an onslaught, he asks, “How do we hold the ground that we [MSM and the Government] have so painfully gained over the many years of credible and trusted journalism?” He also differentiates his perceived enemies from his apparent allies. “Some of their [New Media] practices, some of their approaches, actually detracts and subtracts from what you have painfully gained and built up over many, many years,” he said.
Fortunately, MSM is not a quasi-military channel. Even as Minister Lui bravely tries to adapt his military style to his civilian outpost MICA, he reveals his desire to control information. Either from continued surveillance of online debate or to repackage the same state-issued information in forms more palatable to younger consumers. This by no means contributes to the credibility of MSM, especially when mainstream journalists have no recourse to make their grievances public.
In an apparent war cry, Minister Lui hailed, “These [credibility and broad readership] are strengths that we [MSM and Government] must hold on to, and these are strengths that we must guard jealously, preserve and strengthen.” Can MSM and New Media co-exist credibly and peacefully? Is there even anything to jealously protect, or to guard with respect to media credibility? The continued cannibalising of relationship between MSM and New Media will only serve to alienate the already disillusioned Singaporeans.
With both forms mutually demolishing the credibility of the local media at large, there seems to be few channels of information that local audiences can receive without sacks of salt. Indeed, if the MSM and its patrons do dismiss New Media as illegitimate, inaccurate and without a large readership, is there is need react antagonistically? Quite the opposite, the solution to a declining MSM news readership, and the increasingly popular use of online news is to cooperate, filling up the gaps where the other has left off. Both sides should work towards expanding news readership by providing a multiplicity of perspectives, and not drive the readership pool into a small puddle.
Protecting the Monopoly of claiming Societal / Political Truth
Despite its (probably) good intentions to regulate media, the Government is mistaken if it thinks it can or should regulate the media through MICA. Minister Lui maintains that there has been credibility ‘ground’ gained over the years, though insiders say that the current mainstream media is only a shadow of what it once was – in the 1980s. Journalists have stopped being critical and are instead focused on being politically correct. A well-known media observer had remarked that media senior executives have become too ‘well fed’ and thus, have become risk averse. What has resulted, as a consequence of government policy, is something the government clearly does not want – loss of its main communication channel, less touch with sentiments on the ground and an apathetic nation.
Unlike scientific or mathematical truths when 1 +1 always equals 2, the truth in politics or society at large is always a multiplicity of perspectives. It is an amalgamation of witness reports or observers who analyse the issues at stake with care. By denying this core fact about what ‘truth’ is, foolishly thinking that the news behaved as it would in military organisations, Minister Lui becomes an obstacle to finding Truth, which lies in between a plurality of sources. By retaining local readership with local news provided – albeit by amateur local reporters – online, New Media is in fact doing MICA a favour by keeping Singaporeans un-disillusioned and interested.
Need there be such a sharp distinction drawn between MSM and New Media? After all, if every party works towards the betterment of Singapore society, is the end goal not the same? Perhaps the only barrier to official recognition of New Media as a ‘real’ media due is the Newspaper and Presses Act. So here’s a challenge: If New Media is indeed, pale in comparison to MSM, lift the Act and let it grow. New Media is not an enemy of the State. New Media is as much as a stakeholder as MSM in the Singapore Society.
Read also: Lui Tuck Yew should take his head out of the sand by Ng E Jay.
And: “Adversaries” are patriots as well by Ravi Philemon.
—
@ 100) It does not matter whether the cat is black or white; as long as it catches the mouse, it is a good cat.
You see the signs that even PAP knows that they sucked:
Their new book’s title doesn’t mention PAP.
The wave of change is coming.
Lui,
you hear the people’s voices here already or not?
you respond oready not?
why not you say something?
#103 FPC,
“The wave of change is coming. ”
i was like you in the last 2 elections.
the result proved that there was no change.
i hope its me and not u who is living in false perception or denial.
change can only come when the fat lady sings.
everything else is false impression.
to #72 smallvoice585
Correct, that issue, in that instance would only have 1 truth, whether the rapist is fit to return to society, or not. But to let nature take it’s course, and then to use time to see which person was right kind of defeats the purpose you know. I mean, the WHOLE POINT of getting those two psychiatrist in the first place WAS to preempt the rapist’s actions, if any, and to determine if he/she was fit to return to society. In your scenario, that purpose is fully and wholly defeated. What is the point of having your pointless “truth” then? What is the value in knowing the “truth” if it is brought out via a failure to protect more children from being raped?
Is there honestly any point in that? It’s like arguing over whether a person will shoot you if you give him a gun, and you give it to him, only to have him shoot you. What’s the bloody point?
I suppose what I’m trying to say is this. While there may only be one “truth”, the means to figure out or attain that “truth” should not defeat the purpose of gaining the “truth” itself to begin with. As mentioned above where you end up being shot at anyway. It’s totally pointless, in such a scenario, to bother with trying to find out the truth anyway, ‘cus you’re just gonna follow through with it. So why bother?
Kasaru
post #106 on September 13th, 2009 11.59 pm
JW’s analogy in post #38 on September 11th, 2009 6.03 pm
is not a good 1, so why is there a need to further discuss it?
can anyone say with absolute certainty how the future will unfold?
as for
“will a convicted rapist and child abuser after being in prison for sometime is being considered for release. One psychiatrist thinks she has been cured and is safe to be released , whilst another psychiatrist is not convinced and thinks she is still a danger to society if freed.”
factors beyond the control of both psychiatrists does have an influence on a person’s behaviour.
things like:
. social intergration
. support from family & close friends
. availability of profession help at reasonable cost for counselling to further reduce the tendency to re-commit the crime
. personal history of the offender
also, such analogy does not take into account the odd chances of things panning out in ways that defy indicators that point in opposite direction. both psychiatrists will never know the future, they are making accessment/s based on limited, past indicators to draw a conclusion. a conclusion based on probability (of re-offending), not predicting future events.
Yes, the MSM is “credible”, so that’s why I still buy it.
It’s credible for it’s foreign news, cos it’s not from their own journalists.
It’s credible for it’s sports, 4D and TOTO results.
It’s credible for it’s obituaries section.
As for the rest it’s good for wrapping up my veggies
Dear #98 smallervoice,
You said –
“Only 19th century positivist dinosaurs will argue that there is only one rightful perspective on every single event/issue/occurance today. Especially with issues that deal with human society. Unlike “the natural world”, human society is based on human perceptions which are relative. there exists no “real” society outside the amalgamations of perceptions we have about it. which is why there are multiple viewpoints.”
My answer -
I did not say that there is only one viewpoint on anything. Obviously, there will be multiple viewpoints in human affairs, but out of all those viewpoints, only one will conform to reality. Conformity to reality is what truth is! Since there is only one reality, there is only one truth.
Dear #106 kasaru,
You said -
“While there may only be one “truth”, the means to figure out or attain that “truth” should not defeat the purpose of gaining the “truth” itself to begin with.”
My answer -
The truth stands by itself. It is not for you to predict the truth or for you to use such predictions to prevent any future disasters. Yet, it is important for you to seek the truth however ugly it may be and to accept it the way it is. Only with such honesty can one live a life of value. Only with such acceptance can one be at peace with the world.
Would this guy stand for election in a ward?
The only ‘credible’ section from the MSM is its classified section. I have to rely on it due to the nature of my work. All other sections, seems more like incredible!!!
Especially the way they spin about opposition news and the way those dogs wrote about their master.
First World Media indeed. Perhaps MSM journalists might want to consider ‘exchange programmes’ with North Korea, Cuba, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Rwanda to teach these Third World countries a thing or two about ‘journalistic ethics’.
For me I have to rely on MSM. Cannot live a day without it!
Blogs.. well.. it takes time a lot of time to catch up and reach the same credibility. I believe not there yet and dont try to be. Meanwhile you can still go on fishing and once in a while you come with a hat-trick but only just a flash in the pan! Isnt what i said not so?
Dear smallvoice585, #72
I think you did not grasp the illustration given earlier.
Suppose a man is thinking of selling his stocks, (call APEX); should he sell or should he not sell? Let’s say he sold is stocks (APEX). Two months later the stocks rose significantly, his decision is not correct. However, one year from the date he sold, the stocks (APEX) fell by more than 80% for which he sold. His decision is correct.
So your statement, ““There is only ONE truth on any issue….So, truth is not variable.” is wrong because it depends on the time frame you are looking at the issue.
Fang Shihan is correct, “…the truth in politics or society at large is always a multiplicity of perspectives.”
Your assertion needs tuning.
JW,
////I think you did not grasp the illustration given earlier.
Suppose a man is thinking of selling his stocks, (call APEX); should he sell or should he not sell? Let’s say he sold is stocks (APEX). Two months later the stocks rose significantly, his decision is not correct. However, one year from the date he sold, the stocks (APEX) fell by more than 80% for which he sold. His decision is correct.////
this is a very different analogy from the one you posted in
post #38 on September 11th, 2009 6.03 pm
its very difficult to grasp what you main point is… -.-”
////Fang Shihan is correct, “…the truth in politics or society at large is always a multiplicity of perspectives.”////
this article is about different media outlets, not the truth in politics or society at large. more accurately, how the facts are chosen or ignored (hence, different perspectives), then presented to its target audience. i think this is what the article is about.