http://singaporeuncletrader.wordpre...eyond-being-a-corporategovernment-mouthpiece/
BT defends its inability and/or unwillingness to go beyond being a corporate/government mouthpiece
Posted on December 13, 2010
BT’s correspondent, Malminderjit Singh, gives a long schizophrenic justification of why Wikileaks either ‘doesn’t matter’ or ‘is doing great harm’, i.e. why journos in main stream media, like the venerable BT, need only learn two basic skills to thrive in today’s world: “Ctrl-C” and “Ctrl-V”. The dirty open secret is that there would definitely be zero risk to advertising sales revenues and publication license renewals if all journos and editors did were basically to cut and paste from the massive pile of corporate/government generated press releases handed to them on a daily basis.
Here are the highlights from Malminderjit’s fluff piece in the BT (sub required):
Another gem:
And the clincher:
Ultimately, if you need the final quantitative proof of why Malminderjit and BT are hypocrites, a simple search on the BT site on the number of articles related to “Wikileaks” that have been run by BT since the story first broke will tell you just how important Wikileaks is in BT’s scheme of things, according to BT’s own editorial measurement. If the BT editors REALLY thought that sharing this information would make no fucking difference, or harm Singapore’s interests, then why are they running pages and pages of it, over and over again? ANSWER: because deep down inside, every journo knows that Assange is doing what every journo is supposed to do.
BT defends its inability and/or unwillingness to go beyond being a corporate/government mouthpiece
Posted on December 13, 2010
BT’s correspondent, Malminderjit Singh, gives a long schizophrenic justification of why Wikileaks either ‘doesn’t matter’ or ‘is doing great harm’, i.e. why journos in main stream media, like the venerable BT, need only learn two basic skills to thrive in today’s world: “Ctrl-C” and “Ctrl-V”. The dirty open secret is that there would definitely be zero risk to advertising sales revenues and publication license renewals if all journos and editors did were basically to cut and paste from the massive pile of corporate/government generated press releases handed to them on a daily basis.
Here are the highlights from Malminderjit’s fluff piece in the BT (sub required):
Sure, it makes an interesting read. Yes, it brings some high-value entertainment reprieve to my routine life as I digest the insecurities and cynical views of the world leaders and the international machinery. But, unless I was an influential member of the international system or its observer, there is really nothing I can do with these details.
Ahh…the last refuge. “I can’t do anything about global warming, I’m only a tiny red dot, I have no kids, I have ulcers etc etc therefore I prefer comfortable ‘truths’.” If you knew that what was being said publicly (i.e. “Country M is a lovely country”) was in total opposition to what the person saying it actually felt (i.e. “but you might want to prepare for the possible ethnic violence that could potentially cause a wave of immigration to our country”), wouldn’t you behaved differently, e.g. invested differently, voted differently, bought insurance differently etc? But, no, we’re all supposed to live according to to gospel of this article, which essentially says that we’re all just poor small schmucks who can’t make a difference to the world, and to trust to the “grown-ups” to do our thinking for us (and to continue buying BT from the local mamak please).
Another gem:
We, the constituents of each country, benefit from the diplomacy, data collecting and confidence-building measures that our respective international representatives participate in. Revealing such confidential details erodes the confidence-building processes they had engaged in.
Here’s BT’s logic: It was ok for Singapore diplomats to have ‘highly confidential’ discussions with, say, Chinese diplomats. It’s also ok to pass on details of said ‘highly confidential’ discussions to the US. BUT it’s not ok for China to find out. Because of national security. So remember, you poor schmucks out there – by extending said argument, the Singapore government has given you the perfect excuse the next time you are caught dipping your pen in some other inkpot: it’s ok for you to cheat on your spouse, it’s ok to tell your mistress about the lousy sex you have with you spouse, but it’s definitely NOT ok for your spouse to find out. It could be a matter of national security.
And the clincher:
The responsibility (of safeguarding the interests of governments) then rests with the entity that disseminates the information – the WikiLeaks and the Assanges. Just as countries are expected to behave responsibly according to international norms so as to participate in the system, netizens too will have to observe an ethical attitude so as to preserve the freedom of the Internet.
Translation: We have one last place to tell the truth: the Internet. So please for fuck’s sake, don’t EVER tell the truth, because they will shut down the last place we have to tell the truth.
Ultimately, if you need the final quantitative proof of why Malminderjit and BT are hypocrites, a simple search on the BT site on the number of articles related to “Wikileaks” that have been run by BT since the story first broke will tell you just how important Wikileaks is in BT’s scheme of things, according to BT’s own editorial measurement. If the BT editors REALLY thought that sharing this information would make no fucking difference, or harm Singapore’s interests, then why are they running pages and pages of it, over and over again? ANSWER: because deep down inside, every journo knows that Assange is doing what every journo is supposed to do.
