dat doesn't seem to apply to local press, especially the last sentence....we aren't stupid to believe dat.Originally posted by AF2005:generally all press will first have to verify or first level investigation into contents and writer for genuine, real meaning and truefulness of posts. That includes previous history of posts by the writer.
They will publish it if it mean something for the public to know.
When a system is authoritarianism, minds are made up first and reasons given all the time to justify policies or actions e.g. in disallowing press freedom as a policy, editors will say that he has a certain guideline that he will verify and check source facts etc but all these are secondary while the primary problem he will ignore : existing forum letters are edited or heavily edited to lend support to authoritarian system of running the country.Originally posted by AF2005:generally all press will first have to verify or first level investigation into contents and writer for genuine, real meaning and truefulness of posts. That includes previous history of posts by the writer.
They will publish it if it mean something for the public to know.
yeah, but many of them still live in their 'bubble' world...agree ? sad but trueOriginally posted by robertteh:When a system is authoritarianism, minds are made up first and reasons given all the time to justify policies or actions e.g. in disallowing press freedom as a policy, editors will say that he has a certain guideline that he will verify and check source facts etc but all these are secondary while the primary problem he will ignore : existing forum letters are edited or heavily edited to lend support to authoritarian system of running the country.
Its the system here. thats why they try to plug internet loophole with so many changes in the law. Post as much as you can now, before they take drastic measures on clamping down political internet posts when the election annouce.Originally posted by robertteh:When a system is authoritarianism, minds are made up first and reasons given all the time to justify policies or actions e.g. in disallowing press freedom as a policy, editors will say that he has a certain guideline that he will verify and check source facts etc but all these are secondary while the primary problem he will ignore : existing forum letters are edited or heavily edited to lend support to authoritarian system of running the country.
This nguyen case, all same info and asking the same thing. Read one the rest the same. Its like all gang up and put pressure on singapore to exempt him from death because he australian. If he exempted, singapore will be a paradise for australian drug couriers.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I get more info on the Nguyen case from newspapers outside Singapore.Doesn't that explain a whole lot?![]()
But the fundamentals of balanced coverage is not here, whatever grand speeches our leaders can make.It all sounds like cookie-cutter press releases time and time again.Our eyes see much clearer.Originally posted by AF2005:This nguyen case, all same info and asking the same thing. Read one the rest the same. Its like all gang up and put pressure on singapore to exempt him from death because he australian. If he exempted, singapore will be a paradise for australian drug couriers.
i agree, we need more news freedom. we can decide on our own what is right and wrong.
Agree.Originally posted by AF2005:generally all press will first have to verify or first level investigation into contents and writer for genuine, real meaning and truefulness of posts. That includes previous history of posts by the writer.
They will publish it if it mean something for the public to know.
Both sgForum and findsingapore.net/forum tho' carry 'Singapore' name in it, it is no doubt a private forum set up by private company. Anyone can use the services without divulging one's full particulars. Hence,Originally posted by robertteh:The forum pages of Straits Times carry only letters of readers which are edited or heavily edited. Many factually objective letters have been turned away.
The only source of truths are now found in public forums like www.sgforums.com or www.findsingapore.net/forum but these are avoided like plague because the press does not have the authority's permission to go ahead and publish the active citizens' views.
What do you think. Will the press publish the forumers' views ? I think they need the government permission to do so.

On the general, Coverage is not balanced here especially if it concern politics or thoughts. Its definitely one sided at the discretion of media whatever the reasons. Its like, afraid that the population might know too much and starts to wonder why, so policies that are not really working on ground level is being interpreted as successful to the mass.Originally posted by LazerLordz:But the fundamentals of balanced coverage is not here, whatever grand speeches our leaders can make.It all sounds like cookie-cutter press releases time and time again.Our eyes see much clearer.
oh, here is the place where we can publish sometime or anything regardless of good or bad or frustration and hope some will agree and if not thrash it here just to pass the time. What do people expect out of online internet forums? Its just discussion in coffeeshop online style and moving from topic to topic.Originally posted by TooFree:Both sgForum and findsingapore.net/forum tho' carry 'Singapore' name in it, it is no doubt a private forum set up by private company. Anyone can use the services without divulging one's full particulars. Hence,
1. Can the truth be found here?
2. Can the source be verified?
Truth? Ha ha ha...