- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,634
- Points
- 0
Wu Xindi: Wrong to Target Mainstream Media
Response
This Hougang BE is indeed "highly variable" as proclaimed by the Workers' Party Secretary-General. The last variable unexpectedly came from the man himself. He chose the post-BE press conference to launch an attack on the mainstream media, describing all the mainstream media as back stabber, as the “political thugs” of PAP during the election campaign period. These words were clearly a serious attack on the impartiality and integrity of the mainstream media. More importantly, these were not an off-the-cuff reply to a reporter's question, but in the prepared speech read out in both Chinese and English. In other words, this attack was a deliberate one on the mainstream media after careful and thorough consideration, with the words used carefully chosen and scrutinised without any ambiguity.
In his reply to a question raised by reporter, "Lianhe Zaobao" was not listed in the two instances cited by him. However, he specifically highlighted that, “the media went ahead to publish the email posted by an anonymous writer without confirming the identity of the 'secret squirrel'. As "Lianhe Zaobao" was the first mainstream media to report the content of this email, what Low Thia Khiang mentioned without doubt led people to conclude that "Lianhe Zaobao" is the “PAP thug” placed to backstab the Worker's Party.
Low Thia Khiang clarified during an interview yesterday morning, after thanking the HG voters, that "Lianhe Zaobao" reports during the election campaign have been balanced. This is significantly different from what he said the night before, making people unable to figure out what position the Workers' Party is taking. But most importantly, the damage has been caused.
As editor-in-chief of "Lianhe Zaobao", as media workers with dignity, I must solemnly highlight that we cannot accept unfounded allegations by Low Thia Khiang.
On May 21 (Monday), the Workers' Party candidate Png Eng Huat said in a television interview that because he was against the NCMP scheme, he had requested the CEC not to include his name on the list of names in the vote for the NCMP seat; "Lianhe Zaobao" subsequently received his statement explaining why the Workers' Party did not nominate him as the NCMP.
But on the same day around 10 pm, we received an anonymous letter from someone claiming to be the "secret squirrel”, which alleged that what Png Eng Huat said was inconsistent with the facts, and attached the minutes of the Workers' Party CEC meeting convened to elect NCMP. The minutes of meeting stated Png Eng Huat has received one vote, and what was stated differs with what he previously said during the television interview.
Although it was already close to our deadline, we still based on our professional instinct as reporters to try to verify the facts via various possible ways, which among them, of course, include making an inquiry to the Workers' Party spokesman. However, we did not receive any news from the designated spokesperson of the Workers' Party. After midnight, the Chairperson of the Workers' Party, Ms Sylvia Lim, finally replied to our query, stating that they would respond the following day. Using the information we obtained, based on our experience, we judged that the minutes of meetings were not fabricated, and decided to publish the contents of the anonymous letters on page 4.
During this incident, we did not manipulate behind the scene to undermine the Workers' Party. In contrast, during the whole process, our reporters have maintained professional attitude to verify and report news. We believe that our readers have the right to know about this latest development. As to how this development is beneficial to which political party is not a consideration of the newspaper. Whether or not the Workers' Party would respond on not, how they would respond, whether the response would be able to convince the voters, these are also not our concern. As a platform for dissemination of information, we must ensure that, if the Workers' Party has a response, we will fairly and truthfully report it. And in fact, we had done so in the following day. On the front page of our 23rd (Wednesday) paper, we published in full and in an obvious manner the responses from both Low Thia Khiang and Png Eng Huat.
Why would anyone want to choose this time, via an anonymous way, to expose these? Has the Workers' Party launched an internal investigation? While these questions should be properly addressed publicly to the voters, the Workers' Party chose not to address them, but instead chose to make the mainstream media as a “live target” – this is irresponsible and an unfair accusation.
In dealing with all the reports since the election campaign began, including interviews with both candidates, up to today’s report on the appreciation activities by both the winner and loser, "Lianhe Zaobao" reporters and editors have upkeep our belief in professionalism, impartiality and independence. To our readers, we have a clear conscience.
The author is this newspaper’s editor-in-chief
28-5-2012
吴新迪：别把主流媒体当箭靶子
回应
这次的后港补选，还真是如工人党秘书长所说的“充满变数”。
最后一个变数，竟然是来自他本人。他选择在补选成绩揭晓后的记者会上，突然向主流媒体发难，把所有主流媒体说成是暗箭的射手，是人民行动党在竞选期间的“政治打手”。
这些话，不管从哪个角度来看，都是对主流媒体的公正和诚信所作出的严厉指控。更重要的，这些话，不是他在被记者提问时临场回答的，而是从事先早已准备好的中英文讲稿中念出来的。也就是说，他是经过慎重和周密考虑后，向主流媒体开炮的，而且所选择的字眼，都是经过推敲的，绝不含糊。
尽管后来回答记者提问时，《联合早报》并不在他所列举的两个实例中，但因为他曾很具体地说“媒体在无法确认自称‘神秘松鼠’的身份，就刊登了匿名者电邮的相关报道”，而《联合早报》是第一家报道这个匿名电邮内容的主流媒体，刘程强的谈话，无疑让人认为，《联合早报》就是那个放暗箭的“行动党打手”。
虽然，刘程强在昨天上午答谢后港选民后接受本报访问时澄清，《联合早报》的报道在竞选期间相对来说是持平的，说法跟前一晚有很大的不同，让人摸不清工人党究竟持着什么立场。但最重要的，破坏已造成了。
作为《联合早报》的总编辑，作为有尊严的新闻从业员，我必须严正指出，我们不能接受刘程强毫无根据的指控。
5月21日（星期一），工人党的候选人方荣发在接受电视访问时说，他是因为反对非选区议员制度，而向中委要求在投票推选非选区议员时不要把他的名字放在名单上。《联合早报》后来收到他的声明，解释为什么工人党没有推选他为非选区议员。
但是，当天晚上10时许，我们接到自称“神秘松鼠”的匿名信，指称方荣发的说法与事实不符，并附上了当年工人党中委开会推选非选区议员的会议记录。在这个会议记录上，方荣发得了一票，这就跟他之前接受电视访问时的说法有出入。
虽然这已接近我们的截稿时间，但是我们的记者以专业的本能，尝试通过各种可能的途径求证。其中，当然包括工人党发言人。不过，工人党的指定发言人没有音讯。过了半夜，工人党主席林瑞莲终于回复询问，并表示会在隔天回应。我们以所得到的信息，凭着做新闻的经验，判断会议记录并非伪造，决定在当天第4版刊登匿名信的内容。
这起事件，我们没有在后面暗中操盘，想要破坏工人党。相反的，在整个过程中，我们的记者都是以非常专业的态度进行查证和报道。我们认为，读者有权利知道这个最新的发展，至于这个发展对哪个政党有利，并不是报纸所考虑的。工人党会不会回应、要怎么回应、它的回应是否能说服选民，这些也都不是我们所关注的。作为一个传播信息的平台，我们要确保的，是如果工人党有回应，我们会公正地照实报道，而实际上，我们在隔天也这么做了。我们在23日（星期三）的封面，显著与全面地刊登了刘程强和方荣发的回应。
为什么有人要选择在这个时候通过匿名方式来揭发这些事？工人党是否要展开内部调查？这些其实应该公开向选民交代清楚的问题，工人党并不正面回答，而是选择把主流媒体当成是箭靶子，这是不负责任，也是不公平的指责。
从选战开始的报道，包括对两党候选人的专访，到今天见报的胜利者和失败者的谢票活动，《联合早报》的记者、编辑在处理时所秉持的信念是：专业、公正与独立。面对我们的读者，我们问心无愧。
本文作者是本报总编辑.
