ST's Chua Mui Hoong's Shamelss Pro PAP Spin

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

ST Review Editor Chua Mui Hoong, "But if anyone had asked us, we would have said so openly. Of course the Singapore Government tries to influence coverage in the national newspaper - just as the US government tries to manipulate not just newspapers in America and the rest of the world, but even Hollywood."

Incisive comment reply in TOC :The only difference is the US government does not try to influence coverage by appointing Chairman's in the various media, nor does it have the repressive NPPA

 

[refulgence]

CMH is as dense as LHL. No end to the illogic from these guys.

 

[scroobal]

She and SPH will become a liability to their masters if she writes these diatribes. Oxbridge and the Ivy League does not teach about moral compass, self worth, esteem, compassion, value, or even good manners. This can only come from family and proper upbringing. Telling lies, self-denial and re-arranging facts and events to suit one's agenda is the hallmark of a sycophant.

 

[kukubird58]

hahaha....can some one explains the difference between telling lies and bull shitting...

 

[kingrant]

Today's photogenic trio-Old man flanked by Han FK and Cham Tao Soon SPH Chmn on his birthday bash says it all.

Like the triumvirate at the Yalta Conference except these are very insignif small players on the world stage.

 

[PTADER]

Both Chua sisters are the virulent version of hard-core bootlickers. Hardly useful to their PAP masters in this day and age.

These two whores' style of bootlicking is the equivalent of giving blowjobs by chomping, chewing and tearing on the appendage.

Subtlety and finesse, essentials for a good and pain-free job, are either ignored or unknown to these two cheap whores.

One is buck-toothed and can't deliver. The other prefer a toy to a vegetable-seller's son. Plus, both are spinsters. So, can't really blame them.


**********

Commentary; It's true, ST reporters are straining at the leash
Chua Mui Hoong, Review Editor
147th Prostitute Press
17 September 2011


Creative tension between the generations keeps the paper relevant

ARE Straits Times reporters straining at the leash, only to be yanked back by their pro-government fuddy-duddy editors?

Those who read the leaked WikiLeaks cable concerning Straits Times reporters might come away with that impression.

The cable reported conversations two ST journalists had with United States officials on the state of the Singapore media in 2008 and 2009. The theme: 'There is a growing disconnect between ST's reporters and its editors, with the reporters wanting to do more investigative and critical stories than the editors will allow.'

A quick Google search will locate the report. I'm not repeating the names here. As a journalist who believes the lifeblood of the trade is information, and who enjoys a good old jaw with all kinds of folk on all manner of issues under the sun, I want to uphold this sacred principle: Never reveal your source. I learnt this not in journalism but in primary school. Never tell Anna that Barbara said she's fat. Or you end up with no friends.

The reporters have not denied the conversations took place, but have said their reported comments did not accurately reflect what they said, or their views.

Online, some netizens have used the episode as yet another opportunity to excoriate The Straits Times. The report was also picked up by wire agencies.

I think the only reason why the report attracted such attention is that it was interpreted as confirmation of what many suspected: that the Singapore Government puts pressure on the Singapore media to influence its coverage.

But if anyone had asked us, we would have said so openly. Of course the Singapore Government tries to influence coverage in the national newspaper - just as the US government tries to manipulate not just newspapers in America and the rest of the world, but even Hollywood.

Just ask Mr Karl Rove, former president George W. Bush's long-time adviser. US government tactics range from the usual verbal inducements of flattery or battery to 'cultural diplomacy' and even 'embedding' journalists - when reporters sign contracts restricting what they can report in exchange for the privilege of living with and reporting on soldiers in military units or war situations.

In fact, every company chief executive, school principal, public relations manager, concerned parent, and anyone who has ever held a view on whether there should be less or more sex in the paper, has tried to influence the media.

Editors' karma is to handle and balance all these pressures without succumbing to strong-arm tactics (like threats to cancel subscriptions or withdraw an ad).

As one of my bosses wrote in an internal memo when the WikiLeaks story broke: 'As media professionals, we must expect that people want good coverage and will use all the tools in their PR kit to achieve this. For the editors, dealing with such pressures can be maddening, but it's par for the course.'

Or as another editor put it: 'We are not afraid to sometimes walk that thin line, because our position has always been that the public interest comes first.'

So, if the Government and Ah Chan, Arul and Ahmad have views - and conflicting ones - on what goes into the paper, why should there be surprise that reporters and editors differ in their views?

From my vantage point as a journalist who has been in the ST newsroom for 20 years, I am proud to confirm that there is indeed a climate of reporters straining at the leash, being yanked back by editors.

There was one even back in the early 1990s, when I was a rookie reporter. The difference is that back then, I was among those straining at said leash.

One of my early commentaries extolling dialect over Mandarin was criticised by a minister in Parliament, to the dismay of my Teochew-speaking father who read about it in the Chinese papers. I have been labelled subversive and called a firebrand. These were badges of honour I wore, as should every young journalist out to make the world a better place.

Over the years, my perspective broadened and (I hope) deepened. My basic values remain the same, but I also became a stakeholder, with property in Singapore, young charges in the education system and a vested interest in making this place - and its media system - work.

Young people view the world as one of Them versus Us; Authority versus Free Spirits; Government versus People; Editors versus Reporters. Then, as you grow older, you realise there's no Them and Us. There's just us - with different viewpoints, but engaged in the same endeavour.

These days, as an editor who handles young reporters' copy, I am among those yanking them back, doing the same kind of probing, questioning and refining my editors subjected my writing to.

And that is the nature of the life cycle and the way things should be. I would be sad if it were the reverse: If young reporters lacked zeal and idealism and had to be prodded by editors to push boundaries.

I would be disappointed in my young colleagues, if some of them did not feel the angst and frustration I felt as a young journalist, when some of my most acerbic phrases in a commentary, or my more critical story ideas, got thrown out.

The Straits Times newsroom is a microcosm of Singapore society. If we are successful in attracting and retaining talent, the news pool will have people across the generations, with their own deeply held and diverse sense of values and convictions. The 25-year-old will have her view of what makes for a good paper. The 50-year-old editor will have his view.

The latter has the weight of experience and authority; the former has vigour and freshness. While the editor's formal position means he makes the final call, neither side should completely win the tussle. Both sides must influence each other. It is in that creative tension that The Straits Times can best play its role and remain relevant into the next generation.

And one day, the 25-year-old will turn 50 and become an editor. Her instincts will be different from today's editor. But if The Straits Times does things right, there will be another generation of 20-somethings complaining about her, and straining at the leash longing for change.

[email protected]

 

[Ramseth]

hahaha....can some one explains the difference between telling lies and bull shitting...

Telling a lie is telling something knowing it to be untrue. Bullshitting is telling something when having no idea whether true or untrue.

 

[red amoeba]

even without this leeport, think all of us know, ST is the mouthpiece of the singapore government...

 

[captainxerox]

even without this leeport, think all of us know, ST is the mouthpiece of the singapore government...

pap admitted it openly before. it is the nation building press.

 

[captainxerox]

they should really free up newspapers. a couple of years go, today was on its road to become really different from st. now today is muzzled again.

 

[methink]

they should really free up newspapers. a couple of years go, today was on its road to become really different from st. now today is muzzled again.

No dictator would tolerate a free press. Tony Tan was chairman of SPH before becoming the pariah president. We missed the chance to free up society.

 

[psy83]

Being rank so lowly in Freedom of Press and a Dwindling Paper sales show that they will be out of Circulation within 5 to 7yrs provided they kick all those Pap lap dogs, Puppets and Government ISD Dogs out of SPH. Fuck PAP, FUCK LKY, FUCK LHL, FUCK SPH, FUCK TONY SAI TAN.

 

[kukubird58]

Telling a lie is telling something knowing it to be untrue. Bullshitting is telling something when having no idea whether true or untrue.

hahaha......but then 99% of the time BS turned up to untrue.

 

[JohnnyQuid]

what do u expect from prostitutes? especially the ones that no right-minded man will give a 2nd look...