Gutter Journalism in Alternative Media

[scroobal]

I understand that the author of this is Donaldson and not Chan. This guy has been screwing around in the web for a long time. Read this carefully as you can see none of the arguments would hold water. He wanted attention and he got it but for the wrong reasons. The pot calling the kettle black.

==========================================================================

http://newasiarepublic.com/

Religious sensitivities in Singapore and proper editorial judgement– NOVEMBER 26, 2011POSTED IN: FEATURED, MAIN STORIES, SOCIETY

Chan Jia Hui

Muslims praying peacefullyA furore was recently kicked up when Mr Donaldson Tan was approached to assist in an investigation over a reposted Facebook picture that was considered highly provocative. Tan reposted a picture of a pig superimposed on Kaaba, a sacred cuboid building in Mecca. Pigs are considered unclean to muslims which explains the provocative nature of the picture.

Reports have highlighted Tan’s role as an editor of the New Asia Republic, my current colleague, after his departure from The Online Citizen.

The reason behind Tan’s actions, as he explains, was to act as a whistle-blower to warn the community of the existence of that controversial picture. This was why he placed a disclaimer on the picture, “This is a flame bait. YOU ARE WARNED”.

When told to take down the posting, Tan did not do so, but what was not reported by the media both mainstream and alternative was that he actually gave a tip to the others on how the picture could be taken down via Facebook.

The picture together with its postings was subsequently removed by Facebook administrators.The situation was exacerbated when Tan expressed his view that “Islam is not sacrosanct”. Thus, was Tan guilty of religious provocation?

It is plausible that Tan had the intentions to whistle blow because firstly, he warned that the picture was a flame bait and secondly, he also gave a tip on how the picture can be taken down.

However, what Tan could have done better is to better communicate his intent to whistle-blow, and avoid posting his personal views of Islam not being sacrosanct. He is entitled to his personal views, but from a PR perspective, it might not have been the most appropriate thing to say at that instant.

Proper communication is important especially when discussing sensitive religious issues and in this case, blowing the whistle on a religiously provocative picture. One would have thought the episode had reached its conclusion when Facebook took down the picture, but that was not the case.

Amran Junid, who was clearly aggrieved by the incident subsequently not only made a police report, but went to a media outlet, The Online Citizen, and told the world at large about it. This begs the question about Amran’s agenda about blowing up a matter which has long being resolved by the Facebook administrators.

Granted that he may be well within his rights to make a police report, questions will be asked of his going to the media with the report. Checks on Amran’s background have shown that he is closely linked with an opposition party, the National Solidarity Party, which contested our General Elections.

Therefore, the following questions could be asked of Amran with regards to his making the police report and subsequently approaching a media outlet for widespread publication of the case:

1)What does he intend to achieve with this widespread publicity?
2)Was political gain in question, e.g. scoring points for the National Solidarity Party with the muslim community for being a vigilante or exposing someone whom he believed has harmed its interest?
3)Why go to a media outlet before police investigations have concluded?

The Online Citizen’s publication of the matter by Miss Jewel Philemon (the daughter of Interim Chief Editor, Mr Ravi Philemon) also raises some questions as well, firstly, because a police report is usually of a private nature.

The fact that someone wants to make public something of a private nature raises some degree of suspicion of a potential agenda.

Police reports have proven to be a sticky issue in the past. The late Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam announced to a rally crowd about two police reports made against the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and his people. Jeyaretnam was subsequently sued by Mr Goh and others. A police report has already claimed a victim in Jeyaretnam.

Usually, when someone like Amran makes a police report and the matter is under investigation, proper editorial judgement will tell us that Amran should be advised to wait for the conclusion of the investigation by the police before publicising the matter. This is what an editor worth his weight in gold should do. A police report may or may not be a serious matter, non-serious ones are domestic disputes, while serious ones are real crimes.However, of course, a sensational tabloid would have just blown up the matter, when someone like Amran approached them with a police report like such regardless of whether investigations have concluded.

Thus, proper editorial judgement involves selecting which topics are necessary to highlight to the public. Worthy causes, for example, like helping a family in need, helping to create public awareness of a health hazard and all those along these lines should be highlighted to the public.

However, when a potentially inflammatory religious matter, which is pending investigation, is blown up and sensationalised, it could have a counter-productive impact on the society or individuals and groups implicated like for example, generating mutual feelings of dislike.

Thus, what separates good editors from the bad ones is the ability to judge which stories deserve the light of the day, and which to turn away or keep in view.

Secondly, the report by The Online Citizen failed to include another angle, that from Tan himself. The angle only came from Amran himself who approached with the police report, but proper objectivity requires granting an interview with Tan too.

Therefore, in essence, there are no saints in this episode. Tan, for example, could have communicated better his whistle-blowing intent. Questions could be asked of Amran for approaching a media outlet before police investigations even concluded. Last of all, The Online Citizen’s interim chief Mr Philemon and his daughter, Jewel, should also take responsibility for any counter-productive impact generated from this publication because proper editorial judgement would involve waiting for investigations to conclude and generating another angle from Tan. In this case, it is poor editorial judgement.

 

[hillary888]

His intention maybe right but his approach is wrong. It will improve with experience.

 

[Perspective]

Online media politics. Nothing new. Happens to newspapers companies except that here we don't have competition on mainstream.

TOC vs TR, TOC vs NAR, NAR vs NN, now perhaps TOC vs PH.

 

[scroobal]

He has a track record and a long tail when it comes to sniping. He was associated with TR, then TOC and few others. I forgot the name but there was another where they used to do video interviews with Ah Soh'sThis guy is money minded.

His intention maybe right but his approach is wrong. It will improve with experience.

 

[scroobal]

Note how this particular article was written.

1)Amman who is a Muslim, Malay, involved politics and he does not want him to make a report or raise this an issue. So who is going to raise this issue - Mother Theresa. 2

) Since when commenting on On-going police cases is bad conduct or not right.3) He can be a whistle blower but Amran cannot.

4) Father and Daughter is an issue. How so in this context.

5) Even a teenager knows not to repeat slander, libel or inflammatory remarks on the pretext of raising the alarm. If I take a photoshopped photo of GMS in a compromising photo, no online media is going to publish that photo even for warning others about smear campaigns. You know this shit in gutterpost etc. They will only do it if they thought it was genuine photo. These are absolute nonsense and I bet you cannot find similar line of argument or incident in another online article or media entity inluding alternate media. Only TR and he has been associated with it.

Online media politics. Nothing new. Happens to newspapers companies except that here we don't have competition on mainstream.TOC vs TR, TOC vs NAR, NAR vs NN, now perhaps TOC vs PH.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

He has a track record and a long tail when it comes to sniping. He was associated with TR, then TOC and few others. I forgot the name but there was another where they used to do video interviews with Ah Soh'sThis guy is money minded.

Hopefully people will start to discern. Alternative media does not mean unbiased or better. There are lot of bad hats out there and DT is one such hat. He used to play people against one another, for reasons best known to himself. Was used by the good Doctor just as kojakbt and a few others were used. Fell out of bed with Andrew Loh after he started throwing tantrums and accusing people of wrongdoing. Now seemingly patching things up with AL as he can't find friends. Or at least, the friends he hangs around with are those who think that reposting an inflammatory remark/picture under the guise of calling it a "WARNING" is somehow OK.

What if I posted a nude picture of him and called it a "WARNING". Good lord.

 

[Perspective]

Note how this particular article was written.

1)Amman who is a Muslim, Malay, involved politics and he does not want him to make a report or raise this an issue. So who is going to raise this issue - Mother Theresa. 2

) Since when commenting on On-going police cases is bad conduct or not right.3) He can be a whistle blower but Amran cannot.

4) Father and Daughter is an issue. How so in this context.

5) Even a teenager knows not to repeat slander, libel or inflammatory remarks on the pretext of raising the alarm. If I take a photoshopped photo of GMS in a compromising photo, no online media is going to publish that photo even for warning others about smear campaigns. You know this shit in gutterpost etc. They will only do it if they thought it was genuine photo. These are absolute nonsense and I bet you cannot find similar line of argument or incident in another online article or media entity inluding alternate media. Only TR and he has been associated with it.

Agree with you.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

TOC is even more guilty of gutter journalism:

(a) publicized the police report by AJ in a sensationalist fashion

(b) copied and pasted facebook postings in a provocative matter so stir emotions, only to later take them down

(c) wrote article saying "an imprisoned racist thoughts are free".


Just read this and decide whether this is gutter journalism


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/11/even-an-imprisoned-racists-thoughts-are-free/


Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never harm you. Really?! One commenter on a Facebook re-post which was deemed offensive to Muslims by some, did not seem to think so. Commenting on the thread of the re-post she said, “One @#$% comment about Islam or Allah and the whole Muslim @#$% come out with stones and sticks.”

What this commenter and some like her fail to realise is that there is great power in words; and that a picture speaks a thousand words. The words and pictures we use to communicate stem from our worldview and reveal that which we value.


In the past few days alone, there had been three reports made to the police regarding postings offensive to Muslims on Facebook. But come to think of it, have the new media only served to put the spotlight on prejudices that have always been there, even if we don’t let it show.


Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was right in articulating in 2009 that “the most visceral and dangerous fault line (in Singapore) is race and religion”. The police reports not only in these three instances, but also from the past, only indicate one thing; the community treasures harmony between the various races and religions as well, but that they have not found a better way to deal with such incidents, besides resorting to lodging police reports thanks to our ‘see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil’ way of dealing with race and religion.


And because the community have not found a better way to resolve their religious and ethnic differences, it has developed to a stage of being just plain unhealthy. Because we have not given society sufficient time to openly discuss our prejudices, but rather clamp down on it and wipe off all traces of it for fear that it will only incite racial riots.


If that was only true, by the time they got to ID the Facebook user, our streets would have been washed in red.

We may have perhaps missed three important opportunities – For more people to have a clear idea of what it means to be a bigot; for the discussion to evolve meaningfully into a fair exchange of views and reasoning; and to truly understand the root cause of the bias and seek a solution.


We have short-changed ourselves the chance to progress society and really resolve discrimination, rather than sweep it under and hush it up as sacrosanct.


And we need look no further than what happened this round on TOC. Some readers have commented on why we saw the need to mask the offensive words used. Of course the lawyers among us will jump in to say there are laws that circumvent total openness, and that cannot be disputed, that we need to continue operating in order to be useful. But the point is, why do we even have such laws to begin with? Even if TOC were to run the actual words, would it have helped advance the three opportunities rather than impede it?


Of course such things are easier said when you consider that the complainants of racially offensive contents in recent days have all been Malay Muslims. But can the people of a particular minority ethnicity or religion be really faulted when in the discourse of race and religion by the State, this minority group has always been viewed with suspicion, constantly reminded that they need to catch-up, often portrayed as intolerant; that they develop a siege mentality and find a need to defend themselves at the slightest offense? After all, it’s only human to lash-out at whatever you can hit, when you cannot get the people who are really hurting you.


Perhaps the offended parties themselves should consider whether such police complaints are the best way to address these questions.


But even as Singaporeans are free to, and should, engage in open and robust debate and discussion, they should at the same time respect all religions equally. Playwright Alfian Sa’at for example said in his Facebook post:

“A cursory glance at the instances where the Sedition Act have been invoked in Singapore will show that the complainants/aggrieved parties have all been Malay/Muslims. While this might show that Muslims have been the ones most often targeted by such hate speech, another picture might emerge: that Muslims are ‘oversensitive’. It is important to guard against this latter interpretation, and not claim exceptionalism for Islam–that of all the religions, it is the one one should be most careful about criticising, since its defenders are supposedly the most zealous and the most ready to claim insult. *All* religions should be treated with equal respect, regardless of the perceived tendencies of its adherents to file police reports.”
​

It’s quite easy to dismiss the anger and earnestness of this community to seek legal redress over the offensive postings to be at least as immature as the people who made the offensive postings; but, we have to remember that the real reason true harmony in Singapore has remained superficial is because the State does not permit mature discourse to address the reality of racism, choosing instead avoidance of any remarks on race and religion related issues.


Even if racists are imprisoned, their thoughts are still free.

 

[mojito]

I understand that the author of this is Donaldson and not Chan. This guy has been screwing around in the web for a long time.

I follow some of their posts occasionally and feel that certain writers share similarities in prose. Not sure about this one, but clones and sockpuppets are everywhere in cyberspace. Best practice from defunct TR?

Note how this particular article was written.

1) Amman who is a Muslim, Malay, involved politics and he does not want him to make a report or raise this an issue. So who is going to raise this issue - Mother Theresa.

2) Since when commenting on On-going police cases is bad conduct or not right.

3) He can be a whistle blower but Amran cannot.

4) Father and Daughter is an issue. How so in this context.

5) Even a teenager knows not to repeat slander, libel or inflammatory remarks on the pretext of raising the alarm. If I take a photoshopped photo of GMS in a compromising photo, no online media is going to publish that photo even for warning others about smear campaigns. You know this shit in gutterpost etc. They will only do it if they thought it was genuine photo. These are absolute nonsense and I bet you cannot find similar line of argument or incident in another online article or media entity inluding alternate media. Only TR and he has been associated with it.

Not having a priori knowledge of his past deeds (or antics as you put it), I would come to a more benign conclusion that he needs remedial lessons in persuasive writing. Lamentable but surely it is forgivable.

 

[wikiphile]

TOC is even more guilty of gutter journalism:

(a) publicized the police report by AJ in a sensationalist fashion

(b) copied and pasted facebook postings in a provocative matter so stir emotions, only to later take them down

(c) wrote article saying "an imprisoned racist thoughts are free".


Just read this and decide whether this is gutter journalism


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/11/even-an-imprisoned-racists-thoughts-are-free/


Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never harm you. Really?! One commenter on a Facebook re-post which was deemed offensive to Muslims by some, did not seem to think so. Commenting on the thread of the re-post she said, “One @#$% comment about Islam or Allah and the whole Muslim @#$% come out with stones and sticks.”

What this commenter and some like her fail to realise is that there is great power in words; and that a picture speaks a thousand words. The words and pictures we use to communicate stem from our worldview and reveal that which we value.


In the past few days alone, there had been three reports made to the police regarding postings offensive to Muslims on Facebook. But come to think of it, have the new media only served to put the spotlight on prejudices that have always been there, even if we don’t let it show.


Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was right in articulating in 2009 that “the most visceral and dangerous fault line (in Singapore) is race and religion”. The police reports not only in these three instances, but also from the past, only indicate one thing; the community treasures harmony between the various races and religions as well, but that they have not found a better way to deal with such incidents, besides resorting to lodging police reports thanks to our ‘see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil’ way of dealing with race and religion.


And because the community have not found a better way to resolve their religious and ethnic differences, it has developed to a stage of being just plain unhealthy. Because we have not given society sufficient time to openly discuss our prejudices, but rather clamp down on it and wipe off all traces of it for fear that it will only incite racial riots.


If that was only true, by the time they got to ID the Facebook user, our streets would have been washed in red.

We may have perhaps missed three important opportunities – For more people to have a clear idea of what it means to be a bigot; for the discussion to evolve meaningfully into a fair exchange of views and reasoning; and to truly understand the root cause of the bias and seek a solution.


We have short-changed ourselves the chance to progress society and really resolve discrimination, rather than sweep it under and hush it up as sacrosanct.

As with any nation that does not have a homogenous demographics, multi-culturalism is an illusion backed only by propaganda and the appropriate measures against anyone not following the line. Tensions and disagreement about how we should live our lives varied from race to race and Singapore is no exception.

I might be simplifying this a bit but has it ever occured to you and me who is a 'Singaporean'? Nationalism in this country has been suppressed in order not to offend our neighbours and hence we cannot be assertive enough in regional affairs, let alone in the international scene.

The first thing that comes to mind to every one born here is - I am Chinese/Malay/Indian/Eurasian and so on. This is highlighted in our NRICs and a requirement by the PAP to identify every individual racially first and foremost. Had we identify ourselves as Singaporeans first and emphasise on the later 51 years ago we might had see some results today but that is in hindsight and who knew how it would turn out.

Never the less, the seeds of nationalism has been sowed in recent years thanks to foreigners and only in a generation or so will we know whether nationalism will work for Singapore to let locals identify themselves as Singaporeans first before their racial profile comes into being.