25 Feb, 04:04AM in sunny Singapore!

SPH likes to publish fake news as well...

Subscribe to SPH likes to publish fake news as well... 0 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • bic_cherry's Avatar
    435 posts since Jul '05
    • SPH likes to publish fake news as well...
      Wanbao reporter Chan Yunn Horng testified in court that she had taken pains to hide any possible links to Certis Cisco by referring to them as an unnamed “insurance company”. 

      Shouldn't the reporter have just reported that somebody's stuff in a safe deposit box was missing? Unless there is proven malice (repeatedly /always targeting Certis Cisco over competitor) or the victim was imaginary /fake (out right malicious fake news), why should the reporter deliberately publish FAKE NEWS that an "insurance company" provided safe deposit boxes but to CUT CORNERS in proper news reporting?

      Shouldn't the report have carried more (common sense) information about usual safe box use related problems like how many people had access to the safe box to begin with (could be just a problem of miscommunication between 2 elderly people with authorised access but visiting box on separate occasions)/ some senile old people who repeatedly misplace their stuff. Certis Cisco could also be contacted for their usual procedures in cooperating with the police: duration of video footage of security areas available, usual security measures to limit safe deposit boxes to owners only, identity verification procedures etc.

      There is thus NOTHING WRONG with identifying Certis Cisco with providing the said safe-deposit box so long as the news is BALANCED and of public concern/ interest: rather than just a scandalous headline with little legwork and fake/ misleading information.

      How can the police investigate a case properly if even state media reporters report FAKE NEWS and send them off track, searching for an "insurance company" rather than a security company: to interview.

      Looks like the SPH Wanbao reporter took all the short cuts just to churn out more news scandals at the expense of truth by inventing "insurance company" providing the problematic safe boxes where indeed there were none: just to boost tabloid sales.

      So who says that SPH doesn't publish fake news to boost its bottom line too?

      Court dismisses Certis Cisco’s defamation suit against former actress.
      Published 8:15 PM, SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 
      SINGAPORE — A defamation suit launched by Certis Cisco against a former actress has been thrown out, with the judge ruling that her statements were fair comments, and which had not alluded to the security vendor.

      At the heart of the lawsuit — first reported in TODAY in August last year — was an interview that Ms Ho Seng Mui had granted Chinese-language daily Lianhe Wanbao in July 2013, in which she claimed that diamond jewellery had been stolen from her safe-deposit box and that only a pearl necklace, a gold medal and a piece of jade remained.

      In its case against her, Certis Cisco — relying on an English translation of the newspaper article — argued that although Ms Ho had referred to an unnamed “security company” in the interview, readers would draw the link to them. Law firm Drew and Napier, acting for Certis Cisco, noted that the article stated that Ms Ho had been using the company’s safe deposit box services since 1990. Certis Cisco was also the only security firm here providing safe-deposit box facilities since 1990, their lawyers added.

      On the final day of the trial in August last year, Wanbao reporter Chan Yunn Horng testified in court that she had taken pains to hide any possible links to Certis Cisco by referring to them as an unnamed “insurance company”.

      “The original intention of this article is to alert the public. If they want to put some valuables ... in a safe deposit box, they have to be very alert and careful,” Ms Chan had said.

      Ms Ho, who was represented by lawyers Choo Zheng Xi and Ng Bin Hong of Peter Low and Choo, had also expressed concerns over being on the receiving end of “trouble”, should the company’s identity be published in the article, added Ms Chan.

      Hence, an editorial decision was made to use the words “insurance company”.

      Scribers International director Quek Kwang Woei, who had provided the English translation, defended his choice of words in court. “From my personal knowledge ... I know that there’s no insurance company that provides safe deposit boxes. So we translate it as ‘security company’,” said Mr Quek.

      In his findings on Wednesday (Aug 30), District Judge Loo Ngan Chor ruled that the translation was inaccurate.

      “The use of the Chinese words meaning ‘insurance company’ would have had the result that a sizeable number of the readers would not have made any connection to (Certis Cisco),” said the judge. “Even if a segment of the newspaper readership might have been tempted to draw a connection with (Certis Cisco) by reason of having read the 2012 newspaper reports (on other safe deposit box users finding valuables missing), the fact that the article mentioned an insurance company ... would have led them to think that this connection was wrong.”

      Judge Loo also stressed that a literal translation of non-English words was needed in defamation cases. It would be impossible for the courts to rule on defamation objectively “when the translation is not literal”, the judge added.

      The first case of alleged loss of items from safe-deposit boxes was reported on July 18, 2012. A month later, a Cisco spokesperson was quoted in the press saying that eight customers had reported alleged losses since then.

      No follow-up action was taken by the eight customers, however, and none had made substantiated claims against Cisco, the company said last year.

      Ms Ho had checked her safe-deposit box on Aug 21, 2012, after reading newspaper articles on the loss of items stored in safe-deposit boxes.

      After discovering that some items were missing from her safe-deposit box, she made a police report in the same month.

      In June 2013, Ms Ho was told by the police that there was no evidence to conclude that theft had been committed.

      In concluding that the former actress had “no malice” in her comments, Judge Loo found that she had genuinely believed that her valuables were in the safe-deposit box, and that they had been stolen.

      Neither had she intended to cause trouble for Certis Cisco. In fact, she had “calibrated” her complaints privately “until she felt those avenues led her nowhere in the recovery of her lost valuables”, said the judge, ordering that costs be made out to her.

      Ms Ho told TODAY through her lawyers that she was relieved that the lawsuit has ended. “This lawsuit has taken 4 years, and I have had to fly back and forth from Hong Kong and Singapore to fight it,” she said.

      A Certis Cisco spokesperson said that the firm was studying the judgement before deciding on its next course of action.


Please Login or Signup to reply.