- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]ST reporter expressed disappointment with its editors[/h]
June 10th, 2012 |
Author: Editorial
Mr Wham said the ST picture caption in the article is a blatant lie - the PRCs were not sitting around in MOM to wait their turn to lodge complaints. They were in fact, protesting by staging a sit-in outside MOM's building.
TR Emeritus (TRE) reported earlier in the article (‘Social worker hits out at Straits Times for omitting comments critical of Govt‘) that executive director of the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics (HOME), Mr Jolovan Wham, had complained about Straits Times’ misleading story about the exploitation of construction workers. Not surprisingly, ST chose to omit words that are critical of the government in their news story.
Mr Wham disclosed that he was working with a ST reporter on the story which was pubished by ST today (10 Jun) [Link]. Mr Wham’s main intention was to highlight some of the malpractices of construction companies and ask questions about what is being done about the widespread exploitation of workers in the construction industry.
Mr Wham said, “None of my replies, which are critical of government policies appeared in The Sunday Times article. Instead, the editors have decided to shamelessly promote MOM’s enforcement efforts when I have told the reporters that their enforcement over the years has not been effective. I say this because I’ve had many meetings and consultations with MOM in the past few years, urging them to step up enforcement efforts on this front, but little has changed.”
To top it all, ST editors had even chosen to mislead the public with a picture of PRC workers sitting outside the MOM building by describing it as ‘Foreign workers wait their turn outside the Ministry of Manpower’s offices to lodge labour complaints’. The PRC workers were in fact staging a protest outside MOM.
Mr Wham explained, “These workers were protesting by staging a sit in outside the Ministry building, and were certainly not sitting around to wait their turn to lodge complaints. I know this because I was involved in the case. The picture caption is a blatant lie.”
The reporter, who apparently has been in touch with Mr Wham, told him that she is also disappointed.
Mr Wham said, “The reporter herself is disappointed at how the article has turned out. The real story in this article should have been about the exploitative practices of construction companies. Instead, The Sunday Times has decided to focus on the ‘good work’ that the MOM is doing to address this problem.”
Growing disconnect between ST’s reporters and its editors
The disappointment expressed by the reporter should not come as a surprise. It serves to confirm the growing disconnect between ST’s reporters and its editors, as disclosed by a WikiLeaks document [Link].
According to the WikiLeaks document, an ST Bureau Chief in U.S. had previously told a member of American Embassy in Singapore that the reporters are frustrated with the obstacles they face in reporting on sensitive domestic issues. They have to be careful in their coverage of local news, as Singapore’s leaders will likely come down hard on anyone who reports negative stories about the government or its leadership.
The ST Bureau Chief disclosed that there is a growing disconnect between ST’s reporters and its editors, with the reporters wanting to do more investigative and critical stories than the editors will allow. He lamented that the ST editors have all been groomed as pro-government supporters and are careful to ensure that reporting of local events adheres closely to the official line. He observed that none of the editors has the courage to publish any stories critical of the government.
He also revealed that the government exerts significant pressure on ST editors to ensure that published articles follow the government’s line. For example, ministers routinely call ST editors to ensure that media coverage of an issue comes out the way they want it. He said that no editors have been fired or otherwise punished for printing articles critical of the government because all of them have already been vetted to ensure their pro-government leanings. The ST Bureau Chief even conceded that he would likely never advance higher up the ladder at ST due to the ‘expectations’ placed on editors.
The WikiLeaks document also revealed that another ST reporter had confirmed the disconnect between editors and reporters. For example, following the death of opposition icon JBJ in Sep 2008, the reporter highlighted an internal debate inside ST over the amount of coverage ST would dedicate to JBJ’s death.
While the editors agreed with their reporters’ demand for extensive coverage of JBJ’s political career and funeral, they rejected reporters’ suggestions to limit the amount of coverage devoted to long eulogies given by Singapore’s government leaders. The said reporter lamented that in the end, statements by government leaders took up a significant portion of the allotted space on the pages in the way the editors had wanted.
The reporter also confirmed that most censorship is done by the editors. It was noted that she was rather discouraged with her life as a Singapore journalist and contemplated if she would stay in the profession for long.
Indeed, given such a highly restrictive and controlled situation our mainstream media in Singapore have been in, the Internet is certainly a Godsend to Singapore.
TR Emeritus (TRE) reported earlier in the article (‘Social worker hits out at Straits Times for omitting comments critical of Govt‘) that executive director of the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics (HOME), Mr Jolovan Wham, had complained about Straits Times’ misleading story about the exploitation of construction workers. Not surprisingly, ST chose to omit words that are critical of the government in their news story.
Mr Wham disclosed that he was working with a ST reporter on the story which was pubished by ST today (10 Jun) [Link]. Mr Wham’s main intention was to highlight some of the malpractices of construction companies and ask questions about what is being done about the widespread exploitation of workers in the construction industry.
Mr Wham said, “None of my replies, which are critical of government policies appeared in The Sunday Times article. Instead, the editors have decided to shamelessly promote MOM’s enforcement efforts when I have told the reporters that their enforcement over the years has not been effective. I say this because I’ve had many meetings and consultations with MOM in the past few years, urging them to step up enforcement efforts on this front, but little has changed.”
To top it all, ST editors had even chosen to mislead the public with a picture of PRC workers sitting outside the MOM building by describing it as ‘Foreign workers wait their turn outside the Ministry of Manpower’s offices to lodge labour complaints’. The PRC workers were in fact staging a protest outside MOM.
Mr Wham explained, “These workers were protesting by staging a sit in outside the Ministry building, and were certainly not sitting around to wait their turn to lodge complaints. I know this because I was involved in the case. The picture caption is a blatant lie.”
The reporter, who apparently has been in touch with Mr Wham, told him that she is also disappointed.
Mr Wham said, “The reporter herself is disappointed at how the article has turned out. The real story in this article should have been about the exploitative practices of construction companies. Instead, The Sunday Times has decided to focus on the ‘good work’ that the MOM is doing to address this problem.”
Growing disconnect between ST’s reporters and its editors
The disappointment expressed by the reporter should not come as a surprise. It serves to confirm the growing disconnect between ST’s reporters and its editors, as disclosed by a WikiLeaks document [Link].
According to the WikiLeaks document, an ST Bureau Chief in U.S. had previously told a member of American Embassy in Singapore that the reporters are frustrated with the obstacles they face in reporting on sensitive domestic issues. They have to be careful in their coverage of local news, as Singapore’s leaders will likely come down hard on anyone who reports negative stories about the government or its leadership.
The ST Bureau Chief disclosed that there is a growing disconnect between ST’s reporters and its editors, with the reporters wanting to do more investigative and critical stories than the editors will allow. He lamented that the ST editors have all been groomed as pro-government supporters and are careful to ensure that reporting of local events adheres closely to the official line. He observed that none of the editors has the courage to publish any stories critical of the government.
He also revealed that the government exerts significant pressure on ST editors to ensure that published articles follow the government’s line. For example, ministers routinely call ST editors to ensure that media coverage of an issue comes out the way they want it. He said that no editors have been fired or otherwise punished for printing articles critical of the government because all of them have already been vetted to ensure their pro-government leanings. The ST Bureau Chief even conceded that he would likely never advance higher up the ladder at ST due to the ‘expectations’ placed on editors.
The WikiLeaks document also revealed that another ST reporter had confirmed the disconnect between editors and reporters. For example, following the death of opposition icon JBJ in Sep 2008, the reporter highlighted an internal debate inside ST over the amount of coverage ST would dedicate to JBJ’s death.
While the editors agreed with their reporters’ demand for extensive coverage of JBJ’s political career and funeral, they rejected reporters’ suggestions to limit the amount of coverage devoted to long eulogies given by Singapore’s government leaders. The said reporter lamented that in the end, statements by government leaders took up a significant portion of the allotted space on the pages in the way the editors had wanted.
The reporter also confirmed that most censorship is done by the editors. It was noted that she was rather discouraged with her life as a Singapore journalist and contemplated if she would stay in the profession for long.
Indeed, given such a highly restrictive and controlled situation our mainstream media in Singapore have been in, the Internet is certainly a Godsend to Singapore.
it's especially dangerous especially when you are making financial decisions.
