Be very afraid. The ST Forum Editor is here
Muhammad Hydar/
The Straits Times (ST) has been regularly accused of recontextualising letters in its forum section. People in the realms of alternative opinion have shown as to how letters of a critical yet constructive nature (particularly at the establishment) have been edited to a point where the intended meaning is either blunted or removed.
Critics of ST and the PAP would have scoffed at Mr Samuel Wee’s letter published in ST.
The letter tells of Mr Wee’s emphatic approval of Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Han’s comments on Singapore’s education system.
However, Mr Wee’s original letter has now been circulating around the web.
A quick read would reveal the most obvious of ST’s biased editing and fabrication.
The original article had Mr Wee describing the misleading presentation of statistics made by the ST report on social mobility.
Here are some excerpts:
Original Letter – It is indeed heartwarming to learn that only 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats do not make it to university.
ST-edited Letter – It is indeed heartwarming to learn that almost 50 per cent of children from one- to three-room flats make it to university and polytechnics.
————-
Original Letter – His statement is backed up with the statistic that 50% of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic ladder score in the bottom third of the Primary School Leaving Examination.
ST-edited Letter – His statement is backed by the statistic that about 50 per cent of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic bracket score within the top two-thirds of their Primary School Leaving Examination cohort.
————
There’s even a paragraph that didn’t exist in the original letter.
Original Letter – Therefore, it was greatly reassuring to read about Dr Ng’s great faith in our “unique, meritocratic Singapore system”, which ensures that good, able students from the middle-and-high income groups are not circumscribed or restricted in any way in the name of helping financially disadvantaged students.
ST-edited Letter - Therefore, it was reassuring to read about Dr Ng’s own experience of the ‘unique, meritocratic Singapore system’: he grew up in a three-room flat with five other siblings, and his medical studies at the National University of Singapore were heavily subsidised; later, he trained as a cancer surgeon in the United States using a government scholarship.
——————-
The original letter is satirical. Obviously, it is atypical in terms of ST’s writing style. This begs the question as to why the letter was published on paper and screen and with such a extreme make-over.
Knowing ST’s tendency to ‘change’ letters, the original letter should have been written in a unambiguous and clear manner. This would leave little room for the forum editors to wriggle out and ‘interpret’ the letter to the establishment’s liking.
Nevertheless, it still doesn’t excuse the hack job the letter received.
Any counter-argument of ST’s forum editors not understanding the satirical nature of the letter is ludicrous seeing that, as editors of the country’s award-winning and highest-selling newspaper, they should clearly recognize and understand satire.
With such prestigious industrial standing, the editors should know not to drastically edit, fabricate and completely change the meaning of the letter.
If the letter is too satirical for ST or that the editors are doubtful (highly improbable), then it shouldn’t be published. It’s simple as that.
The late author and New York Times columnist, William Safire, defined spin as “deliberate shading of news perception; attempted control of political reaction.”
Is ST’s editing of Mr Wee’s letter an example of journalistic spin?
Well yes, a close one. It’s no secret that our education system favours students of a upper socio-economic status. Often, we are thrown statistics to demonstrate otherwise. Mr Wee’s original letter challenged ST’s framing of such statistics.
Is ST’s editing of Mr Wee’s letter an example of bad journalism?
Yes, in every sense of the word. In this case, any journalism student would know that it’s a fundamental no-no to alter the entire meaning of a reader’s letter.
This raises more questions. How many of ST’s forum letters have received such manufactured make-overs? Why was Mr Wee’s edited letter published when it is significantly different from the original?
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “If you read something in the Straits Times or on CNA, you must know that it’s real”.
Well sir, I have read Mr Wee’s letter in ST and I know for a fact that it is not real nor is it the truth.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
wah lau, teochew wayan and wayan kuliat champosed in rojak make jack neo even more malued…might as well seek jjj from istana aide de camp to write in under the nick of traveller and preston loon
in the 2nd paragraph…what do u xpect dr hen to grow from? oxley rise all the way? might as well said dr hen was laid from a farm in jalan ule seletar and peck his way to geylarg awaitin @ the green man junction to cross loron 69
MOTHER! Just read the article and the letters. No wonder Straits Times got ranked poorly in media.
the letter writer had no such intention to use those numbers printed by ST to express those opinions printed by ST.
if ST wanted to write those opinions using those letters, they could use the Forum Editor’s name, and write a letter himself.
what the Forum Editor did was to use Samuel Wee’s name, and attribute all those thoughts and numbers to him, to make him seem like he has this opinion, which supports the minister whose statistics misrepresented reality.
this is tantamount to making things up out of very very thin air.
apart from publishing articles that challenge what is true and what is not, now straits times is publishing letters that are obviously untrue.
how much should we believe inside the next issue of straits times? amazing, isn’t it?
Samuel Wee should write in to ST to ask for official explanation. Complain on TOC no use – ST can just pretend it never see.
I just want to tell the liars don’t be like me.. my nose really grows.
Now the whole world knows I’m the boy who tell lies.
It is up to a person to perceive statistics anyway ( i am neither for or against what either party is up to.)
e.g. 2 years before the improvement was 1% , the year before , it was 2 % . So you can either report it as there was an 2 % overall increment the year before or there has been a 100 % increased from the previous year ( not telling the whole truth or the proper context)
my point is : when using any statistic , bear in mind the circumstances and the people who do use them
@Chenghao
But ST is not a person. It is a news organization. It is obligated to present news that would be of most important and relevant to the public and progress.
Is this called Misrepresentation?
Can sue for $$$ in US, u know.
Clear-cut hard evidence case.
That’s the problem with a government-controlled media.
hey, isn’t ST committing the exact same issue Vivient talks about when he bans Al Jezeera in Singapore?
Worse, they put words in one’s mouth, can any civil lawyer, entreprenuering enough to pick this up and sue ST?
In many years, people have been trying to comment about Straits Times having the habbit of painting PAP in good light and skip any negative reports about them. Liu Tuck Yiu even harped about its objectiveness. It must be excruciatingly painful for him to bring across his message.
Well, here you are, the fox tail of Straits Times finally came in full view (for to the internet). Readers can easily judge for themselves now, and no amount of words is necessary to prove Liu Tuck Yiu is terribly wrong.
ST is Pap’s mind control machinery!
Simply put, the lack journalistic integrity is reprehensible and breeds cynicism and distrust. They might as well recruit from the streets of Geylang.
@David 24 March 2011
In many years, people have been trying to comment about Straits Times having the habbit of painting PAP in good light and skip any negative reports about them.
if Zuraidah Ibrahim, sister of Yaacob Ibrahim, who heads the newsdesk of that newspaper, paints PAP in a bad light, what will her brother say to her when she goes home?
For all these years finally….confirms that the newspaper cannot be trusted. Where is journalistic integrity…whitewashing. Finally the truth is being set free. More to come? Does the government condone this action? MITA?
is Straits times allowed to cover election reporting this year?
do we need to gazette it also, before we allow it to cover the elections?
how much of it should we believe, when we read its election reports?
do we also believe the photos it publishes about the elections, after having learnt our lesson from the photos of the Hougang rally?
is there another source of news where we can read without thinking so hard whether it is showing/telling us the truth or giving us fiction?
What else can you expect from a PAP newsletter?
Sph take quite gd care of their papers”
reporters FYI
breed loyalty, publish more books extolling Pap
in the same vein as how they reward their MPs, activists etc etc
Pap wins, the “branches” of Pap win lah
the way ST edits is misrepresenting what the author originally intends to say.
if i am the author and i have extra cash and the matter is important to me, i will sue ST.
being the mainstream print media comes with it responsibility. the way ST abuse their power smacks of the little regard they have for the public, both readers and writers alike.
I don’t know which is worse, communist newsletter or this ST.
To me, if ST wants to be taken seriously, then it must say it like it is; and in this regards, I believe, it has failed miserably. But ‘Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “If you read something in the Straits Times or on CNA, you must know that it’s real”.’ Really?
The shits times want to make Mr.Wee a bad guy to the opp and a good guy to the pro papies. Those who read shit time got conned.
There is a discrepancy between the numbers for sure.
Can TOC shed light on which set of numbers is the correct set of numbers though?
I can see how the paper edited out the tone, but would it have changed the numbers so much unless they were wrong?
Haha, looks like their plan to make Samuel Wee look like a sycophantic idiot backfired; their the fools now.
Haha, looks like their plan to make Samuel Wee look like a sycophantic idiot backfired; their the fools now.
Where is the apology from the Straits Times? I’ll be waiting, ST.
ST will probably get Forum Editor to take the fall, saying they misunderstood the content of the letter and rewrote it in a wrong way.
that is the safest way to avoid looking like they manipulated the content of the letter to change the entire message, which is the case at hand.
wow…. the “ToP MAN ” control the “MEDIA” is a gardener !!! u donot know meh??? surely will Cut.. Cut …Cut… and Cut ….
Might as well call it the PAP Times. Why bother hiding what’s so obvious?
I feel the pain for Singapore’s education becoming meritocratic. All the universities here are run like Ivy Leagues. Only the top tiers of students are able to get an university qualification. Unlike in the US, there are city, state and community colleges, where everyone aspiring to have a college degree can obtain one that dont discriminate and base on one’s financial status and standing.
Straits Times trying to play dirty for their master, such orthodox journalism has indeed reached a new plateau worth further upgrading to 165th.
It is just like CNA, the Straits Times has failed in its professional role.
It is simply useless. They are reporting things from the inside, under the dictatorship of some party.
We shd look forward to hearing news abot us from the outside, from the overseas media, they hold more truth and impartial.
No wonder they called the Straits Times The Shit Times.
the forum editor still lies very low and silent. doesn’t dare to explain this distortion of truth.
watch tomorrow’s papers, it will continue to be buried – as long as they pretend it did not take place, they hope all this viral reputation stays within cyberspace.
Can’t wait for the opposition to take over the gahmen and then kok2 all the ST, NTUC and others who are supposed to be serving the people rather than carrying the PAP balls. A so-called “freak” elections results will be Heaven sent.
What can u expect from 136th disgrace freedom press ranking by Singapore Shitty Times aka Strait Times? So DISGUSTING…time to downgrade to the bottom of press ranking.
This is worth publishing in Newspapers of the World because IT IS NEWSWORTHY!
Is ok. If ST continue to do it this way, thy can only capture the local politicians attention. D company will not be able to grow to global stage. Ppl who knows will condemn it just like how thy condemn WKS and MBT.
they did not apologise in today’s newspaper right?
they are obliged by company protocol to answer when Samuel writes in formally.
Just shows that can’t rely on the ST Forum if you want to express yourself. Need something like Hong Lim Speakers’ Corner but ONLINE where one can post videos of oneself but with scope for others to post ‘reply videos’ in response.
If government members insist on right of reply, well, they too can post ‘reply video’. But please let’s not permit civil servants or secretaries to the minister posting videos on behalf of the big bosses. Let big bosses post their own ‘reply videos’ themselves. Civil servants may post ‘reply videos’ if they are specifically addressed and should explain the capacity in which they have made the video (i.e. not on behalf of some minister).
Someone should place this article in STOMP. Let’s pay back ST with its own coin!
Perhaps what Singapore needs in terms of a more reliable news outlet is competition. Another news paper that would not practice yellow journalism and will report on truly newswothy news will be a refreshing change. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening in the near future. For, if the good citizens of Singapore refuses to protest against the laws that practically dictate that what the Straits Times write must be the way it is, then who will challenge it? Another country? It has been commonly said that freedom comes with a price. If we’re not willing to pay it, I don’t know who will. Do think about it for a bit.
One more thing… I wonder when a political party will put the reform of our media censorship laws up for debate.