Freedom refers to the press being able to publish what it wants with minimal restrictions.

Credibility, on the other hand, refers to whether the contents published are factually accurate, balanced and thorough.

While freedom does have an impact on credibility, they are not the same.

It is like the internet – especially in the earlier days when there is practically no restrictions on what can be published on websites, mainly because it was new territory and the laws have yet to be updated.  More freedom does not mean more credibility.

Now, the Singapore press is hardly infallible, and certainly has been guilty of wrong representations.

But vis-a-vis individual newspapers around the world, are articles published by the Straits Times less accurate than others?

Just because there is more freedom for the press in other countries does not mean that they will publish more truthful articles.

Take for instance the reporting of Michael Fay incident in the 1990s.  Facts wrongly reported by the US press were not retracted.  The Straits Times had a field day reporting all the factually wrong things published by US newspapers.

Having more freedom for the press only means opposing viewpoints can be voiced out more readily, if there is enough support for it and if the views are backed by one of the newspapers.

Credible press is only possible if the press can be held accountable by anyone for factual errors, not just by those who can afford lawsuits.

“As I’ve read in this forum, Cherian’s brother-in-law is Minister of Environment & Water Resources Ministry & his wife is a senior staff in ST.”

Even more reasons why I cannot take Cherian’s article seriously.

Sure, we’re all reading the one-dimensional news in the local media everyday – and had enough of it.

Cherian George was an ex-journalist that’s true. But that doesn’t mean we have to take his criticism as being valid.

You might be interested in reading what an Israeli soldier has to say about Palestine and perhaps even believe it, but I’d find more validity in something written by someone who’s not directly involved.

As I’ve read in this forum, Cherian’s brother-in-law is Minister of Environment & Water Resources Ministry & his wife is a senior staff in ST.

Thanks for the heads-up. I only wanted to comment on Cherian’s piece where he says that the RSF Index is flawed. I have no inclination to comment elsewhere. I was hoping that Cherian engages us here.

The point i wanted to make is that, while i accept Cherian’s argument that the index is not rigorous enough, for us to score so low, there could be a semblance of reality.

I wonder whether he agrees to this.

Your views seems popular. There is an article named ‘Temasek Holdings, Financial Disclosure and Charles Goodyear’ in the Young PAP website, Editorial tab, Economy category. Press Freedom was discussed in the comments, It would be exciting if you can go in and challenge.

I hope you don’t mean to say we should not take Cherian George seriously just because he is a former journalist. Why not just focus on his argument? I’m sure his argument is not that water-tight that we have to focus on his background just to make a point.

In any case, I think your logic is also flawed. “FORMER” journalist- means he has both experience working in the sector and am no longer beholden to toe organization lines. If there is anyone in the world who could bitch abt press freedoms (and the lack of it), it will be these former journalists who experienced it first-hand and am no longer on dependent on the organization for livelihood.
You and I can talk on and on abt freedom of press without never knowing for sure what kind or how bad the censorship really is.

Plus, personally, I think one can learn more if he reads from another perspective. e.g. if an Israeli reads a Palestinian newspaper about the suffering of war. Makes life more than one dimensional!

Why bother about how our so local experts feel. We do know our own situation here.

Without the internet and relying on our own local media alone, there is a likely possibility that we may not even know how we are being rated (especially those not so flattering ratings).

The writer did say “national perception of press freedom index”, so apparently some degree of “local moral high ground” is equally being involved here..

The writer also did say “What we can conclude from Singapore’s low ranking is merely that whoever the respondents are in Singapore have a worse opinion of their country’s press freedom than 132 other countries’ respondents have of theirs.”

Now what does they mean ?

It could mean that the press freedom here may well be much worst off or better off than the current position depending on the “”"”quality”"”" of respondents, having the subtle message of alluding to the selection process.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf

Singapore is ranked a grand 151st out of 195 countries globally, still in the lowest quartile of all countries surveyed and almost exactly the same percentile – approx. the 76th in the RSF rankings and 77th in FH’s.

Singapore is also 32nd out of 40 in the Asia-Pacific region, faring only better than the usual suspects with the surprising iclusion of Sri Lanka, probably because of their current security considerations; in this category, Singapore is ranked higher than Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Brunei, Vietnam, China, Laos, Burma and North Korea.

Freedom House’s homepage is here:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=470

Over to you, Mr Cherian George.

If so, I wonder if Cherian George can now study Freedom House’s methodology and explain why FH’s ranking of the media in Singapore is even worse than that of RSF’s.

That is the subjective part….
If you ask an ang moh if he thinks he has done a good job, he will say so if he thinks so (gives a 5). Asian or Chinese, etc, may like to be more humble and will at best give a 4. So in a ranking, does the ang moh outperform the chinese?

A yes/no answer which forces the respondent to make a decision is instead more objective (for measuring purpose), because both the ang moh and the asian/chinese can only choose ‘yes, I have done a good job’.

It’s also a fact that Singapore’s editor in chief Lee Kuan Yew wants his “media” to control and manipulate the minds of the people. LKY has defined the role of the newspapers as disseminators of govt policies and programmes in a way that they could easily be digested and accepted by the people . His newspapers are not to engage in a crusade of a cause/causes unless approved by the ruling PAP.

Therefore, Singaporeans like me don’t need agencies such as RwB to rank our propaganda rag.

Thank you very much for your article. I do believe that the index was seriously flawed too, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it. I had suspected the result was because of the usual Caucasian tendency to take the moral high ground and talk down to us in the third world, but I see that it could simply be because of the flawed methodology of their survey.

Also, thank you TOC. I think you really prove that you can be the voice of reason and maturity – sometimes. Do keep up the good work with more postings like this. What we need more of in this nation is a reasoned discourse. Kudos to you.

“Like many media-savvy organisations, RSF benefits (at least in the short term) from the publicity payoff of publishing annual rankings. Looking at its success in getting noticed in Singapore, who can say they are wrong?”

Is Cherian saying RSF is being sensational, and trying to get a quick media hit, benefiting from the publicity payoff?

So if Amnesty Intl publishes a harsh report on Singapore’s track record on capital punishment, are they also seeking quick publicity?