- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 250
- Points
- 18
Since when did ST pursue any leads that would PAP in bad light? Just a govt mouth piece. Serving the readers??? WTF LOL
Normally, this journalist would get the sack? Or the new CEO Ng Yat Chung is someone who doesn't know how to play ball like his predecessor Alan Chan?
Serving readers and upholding the law
PUBLISHED DEC 21, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT
The case of a Housing Board officer, who was fined yesterday for having given confidential information to a reporter from The Straits Times, draws attention to the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and its impact on the media. The OSA is a part of the law of the land and so needs to be observed by all. Indeed, it cannot be faulted in its purpose of protecting state secrets from leaks that would imperil the security and well-being of citizens. Having been a responsible social citizen since 1845, this newspaper is aware acutely of the need to uphold collective interests, including the authorities' need to safeguard confidential information.
At the same time, The Straits Times exists to facilitate public communication, which rests on timely access to relevant and accurate information. Day after day its journalists chase information and contextualise it into news as part of their job. The newspaper's relevance and credibility depend on the tenacity with which its reporters pursue news leads, call up people in the know who can shed light on germane issues, and piece together snatches of information into coherent reports. Their intention is not to subvert the law by stealing information, but to carry out their professional duty to keep Singaporeans well-informed, within the law. Indeed, when it became clear that the information that it had received was deemed secret, ST editors took the decision to hold off on the story. Both the Government and the media have a job to do. Journalists must do theirs if society is to be well served.
It was in this spirit that the ST journalist acted. It is for this reason that this newspaper made clear its support for her. Journalists can count on the institutional support of The Straits Times when they run afoul of the law while endeavouring to do their job. She remains a valued member of our journalistic team. She received a stern warning from the police which reaffirmed the OSA's strict boundaries. This newspaper recognises and accepts that reminder. Yet, because she acted in good faith, it stands by her, not least to provide assurance to the wider newsroom as well.
This newspaper will draw lessons from the episode, and strive to fulfil its mission of keeping its readers informed, while safeguarding its journalists and sources. Thankfully, the OSA has been invoked only sparingly, the last case with regard to the media being more than two decades ago. This episode should not vitiate relations between journalists and official newsmakers. The quality of democratic discourse, based on the trusting exchange of reliable information, would be poorer were civil servants to resort to invoking the OSA instinctively to fend off legitimate journalistic queries. The resultant void would inevitably be filled by purveyors of fake or half-news, whose fabrications wilfully skirt the official sphere entirely.
Normally, this journalist would get the sack? Or the new CEO Ng Yat Chung is someone who doesn't know how to play ball like his predecessor Alan Chan?
Serving readers and upholding the law
PUBLISHED DEC 21, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT
The case of a Housing Board officer, who was fined yesterday for having given confidential information to a reporter from The Straits Times, draws attention to the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and its impact on the media. The OSA is a part of the law of the land and so needs to be observed by all. Indeed, it cannot be faulted in its purpose of protecting state secrets from leaks that would imperil the security and well-being of citizens. Having been a responsible social citizen since 1845, this newspaper is aware acutely of the need to uphold collective interests, including the authorities' need to safeguard confidential information.
At the same time, The Straits Times exists to facilitate public communication, which rests on timely access to relevant and accurate information. Day after day its journalists chase information and contextualise it into news as part of their job. The newspaper's relevance and credibility depend on the tenacity with which its reporters pursue news leads, call up people in the know who can shed light on germane issues, and piece together snatches of information into coherent reports. Their intention is not to subvert the law by stealing information, but to carry out their professional duty to keep Singaporeans well-informed, within the law. Indeed, when it became clear that the information that it had received was deemed secret, ST editors took the decision to hold off on the story. Both the Government and the media have a job to do. Journalists must do theirs if society is to be well served.
It was in this spirit that the ST journalist acted. It is for this reason that this newspaper made clear its support for her. Journalists can count on the institutional support of The Straits Times when they run afoul of the law while endeavouring to do their job. She remains a valued member of our journalistic team. She received a stern warning from the police which reaffirmed the OSA's strict boundaries. This newspaper recognises and accepts that reminder. Yet, because she acted in good faith, it stands by her, not least to provide assurance to the wider newsroom as well.
This newspaper will draw lessons from the episode, and strive to fulfil its mission of keeping its readers informed, while safeguarding its journalists and sources. Thankfully, the OSA has been invoked only sparingly, the last case with regard to the media being more than two decades ago. This episode should not vitiate relations between journalists and official newsmakers. The quality of democratic discourse, based on the trusting exchange of reliable information, would be poorer were civil servants to resort to invoking the OSA instinctively to fend off legitimate journalistic queries. The resultant void would inevitably be filled by purveyors of fake or half-news, whose fabrications wilfully skirt the official sphere entirely.
