[GPGT] Straits Times reports in ambiguous language leaving room open to fake news.
Straits Times used a wrong photo in it's report about a maid who killed her employer, misidentifying an innocent foreign domestic helper.
Straits Times then clarified in writing:
“In Wednesday’s report, “‘Homesick’ maid on trial for murder of employer,” we used a wrong photograph of the accused, Daryati. We are sorry for the error and apologise to the woman whose photo was used.”
http://theindependent.sg/st-apologi...mans-image-in-article-about-alleged-murderer/
UNFORTUNATELY, saying "we used a wrong photograph of the accused", could also be interpreted as that the 'person displayed in the photograph is indeed the accused', but it was 'wrong' for reasons other than a mistaken identity (e.g. ugly clothes/ not flattering enough, and old and obsolete photo/ pre-makeover, blur/ damaged photo, inappropriate due to nudity/ copyright concerns- inappropriate for superficial reasons), thus leaving open, suspicion that the person in the photo was still accused.
Whilst the 2nd line does improve somewhat the clarity, audiences have short attention span and those who read only the first sentence will remain misinformed the innocent person whose photo was published is indeed the accused, Daryati.
Straits Times should be forthright in it's apology and leaving no room for doubt at first instance, about the innocence of the woman whose photo was MISTAKENLY USED by admitting clearly "we mistakenly used a photograph of an innocent person to identify the accused".
Straits Times should focus more on apologising and clearing the woman whose photo it misidentified as the killer, rather than further drag down the reputation of an innocent person with deliberately ambiguous language, in a misplaced effort to hide it own journalist mistake.
Straits Times used a wrong photo in it's report about a maid who killed her employer, misidentifying an innocent foreign domestic helper.
Straits Times then clarified in writing:
“In Wednesday’s report, “‘Homesick’ maid on trial for murder of employer,” we used a wrong photograph of the accused, Daryati. We are sorry for the error and apologise to the woman whose photo was used.”
UNFORTUNATELY, saying "we used a wrong photograph of the accused", could also be interpreted as that the 'person displayed in the photograph is indeed the accused', but it was 'wrong' for reasons other than a mistaken identity (e.g. ugly clothes/ not flattering enough, and old and obsolete photo/ pre-makeover, blur/ damaged photo, inappropriate due to nudity/ copyright concerns- inappropriate for superficial reasons), thus leaving open, suspicion that the person in the photo was still accused.
Whilst the 2nd line does improve somewhat the clarity, audiences have short attention span and those who read only the first sentence will remain misinformed the innocent person whose photo was published is indeed the accused, Daryati.
Straits Times should be forthright in it's apology and leaving no room for doubt at first instance, about the innocence of the woman whose photo was MISTAKENLY USED by admitting clearly "we mistakenly used a photograph of an innocent person to identify the accused".
Straits Times should focus more on apologising and clearing the woman whose photo it misidentified as the killer, rather than further drag down the reputation of an innocent person with deliberately ambiguous language, in a misplaced effort to hide it own journalist mistake.
