Will you pay to read Straits Times Interactive? (II)
-
SPH's shareholders?
Who cares about them, whether they gain dividends or not ain't my business.I'm not paying to read a newspaper that is so blatantly one-sided and pro-government that the meaning of journalism and objective coverage have tied themselves together with red string and jumped off the roof.
There are capable journalists in SPH, but the extreme self-censorship rankles me a lot. -
I wonder if ST will publish this complain if someone would to write to the forum.Originally posted by dragg:he was only trying to do his career and SPH's shareholder a favour.
he incurred the wrath of a lot of singaporeans.
-
they definitely wont.Originally posted by Gazelle:I wonder if ST will publish this complain if someone would to write to the forum. -
Couldn't help but disagree with the blue part. I feel that they have to balance both. A company is set up after all to make profits. They have to make profits so that they can report to their shareholders. If they made losses, shareholders will quit and it will be harder to run the company and we may have to pay more instead.Originally posted by iamgoondu:I am currently on job assignment in Malaysia. And each night i would catch up with news in zaobao, todays, cna. Being the largest english newspaper, it is unfortunately they have resorted to charge on-line, and to charge obsecenely, $15 monthly.
To me, a newspaper allows one to know about the happenings in that country. Besides reading local papers online, I read several Taiwanese, Chinese medias, BBC and CNN too. By imposing charges, it deters foreigners as well as locals to know more about the country.
How can we be globalised, how can more people get to know about us, when our largest english paper choose to charge its news online?
I feel SPH has the obligation to Singapore (to allow more people to know about us) rather than the obligation to its shareholder (to generate revenue).
There are other sources of news about Singapore, like Channelnewsasia. Foreigners can still get to know us. Besides, just do a search on Google for Singapore news isn't that hard. There are also locals who are discussing politics like what we are doing here. -
No wonder outsiders call Singaporeans an apathetic group of people. How can you not care about what is happening in Singapore, your own country? Must it be news that are as big as the Shin Corp then you will read?Originally posted by Homebody:I figured if local news are big enough, they will be reflected in other countries' news. If not, why bother to know?
Politically biased or not, it is always good to know your own country's politics, how is it affecting you, how will it affect your future. If you are going to know nothing, then you are at the losing end. Even illiterate people will at least listen to the news. -
Read all angles, even the fact that some papers are biased, is a fact in itself and is a good discussion point.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:No wonder outsiders call Singaporeans an apathetic group of people. How can you not care about what is happening in Singapore, your own country? Must it be news that are as big as the Shin Corp then you will read?
Politically biased or not, it is always good to know your own country's politics, how is it affecting you, how will it affect your future. If you are going to know nothing, then you are at the losing end. Even illiterate people will at least listen to the news.
We can learn even from the negative aspects. -
Just look at the poll on that page:
BUDGET 'GOODIES'
Now, with this type of journalism, why would anyone in their right mind want to subscribe? The paper seems to state as fact that the goodies are given out "as a gesture to share the fruits of economic growth". That, as we all know, is at best debatable.
Most Singaporeans will get some money from the government later this year, as a gesture to share the 'fruits' of economic growth.
The effectiveness of the whole paragraph (essentially to introduce the poll) and the poll itself would clearly not be detrimentally affected had SPH decided not to add those words in.
[/quote] -
I think all papers are biased. Even BBC and CNN are biased.
For those who think neutrality is the buzz in new reporting, look up other planets. -
Originally posted by lwflee:
How you want them to report?
Just look at the poll on that page:
[QUOTE]BUDGET 'GOODIES'
Most Singaporeans will get some money from the government later this year, [b]as a gesture to share the 'fruits' of economic growth.[/QUOTE]
Now, with this type of journalism, why would anyone in their right mind want to subscribe? The paper seems to state as fact that the goodies are given out "as a gesture to share the fruits of economic growth".
The effectiveness of the whole paragraph (essentially to introduce the poll) and the poll itself would clearly not be detrimentally affected had SPH decided not to add those words in.
[/b]
"Most Singaporeans will get some money from the government later this year, as a gesture to entice them to vote for the incumbent party."?
-
AgreeOriginally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:No wonder outsiders call Singaporeans an apathetic group of people. How can you not care about what is happening in Singapore, your own country? Must it be news that are as big as the Shin Corp then you will read?
Politically biased or not, it is always good to know your own country's politics, how is it affecting you, how will it affect your future. If you are going to know nothing, then you are at the losing end. Even illiterate people will at least listen to the news. -
Of course there is bias. It is inherent in almost every written piece out there. You cannot realistically cover an issue from ALL angles; There is always some cuckoo out there that has funny ideas of his own. In fact, arguably, the very act of covering an issue can be seen as bias since that means that some other event is not being covered.Originally posted by Yi Peng:I think all papers are biased. Even BBC and CNN are biased.
For those who think neutrality is the buzz in new reporting, look up other planets.
But the BBC at least tries to balance their reports by providing the more reasonable alternative views and to allow people with reasonable alternative views a right of reply. -
BBC got into trouble before the invasion of Iraq with their unsubstantiated piece about Tony Blair lying. The CEO had to answer for it.
Newsweek got into trouble with their piece of Quran toilet flush hoax.
CBS insists even today that the memo gate was true when it clearly was a hoax. Screw them.
Thats the kind of biased reporting we get from the west nowadays. -
All papers are biased. You try writing a neutral paper and see what will happen to you. Even if it's a fact, you will get into trouble. What those journalists did is to play around with the words so that it looks more objective instead of biased. All of us do it anyway. Just that we didn't realize it.Originally posted by Yi Peng:I think all papers are biased. Even BBC and CNN are biased.
For those who think neutrality is the buzz in new reporting, look up other planets. -
SPH's balance sheet is nothing if they were not given the de facto press house status in Singapore. Restricting information will only hinder growth for the economy and the country.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Couldn't help but disagree with the blue part. I feel that they have to balance both. A company is set up after all to make profits. They have to make profits so that they can report to their shareholders. If they made losses, shareholders will quit and it will be harder to run the company and we may have to pay more instead.
There are other sources of news about Singapore, like Channelnewsasia. Foreigners can still get to know us. Besides, just do a search on Google for Singapore news isn't that hard. There are also locals who are discussing politics like what we are doing here. -
BBC got into trouble because one of their journalists said that the govt had "sexed up" the dossier on Iraq's WMD. The source of that report was supposedly an insider, Dr. Kelly, who committed suicide after it was leaked that he was the source. So it wasn't completely unsubstantiated. They had an insider and the journalist concerned made an erroneous judgement call.Originally posted by Yi Peng:BBC got into trouble before the invasion of Iraq with their unsubstantiated piece about Tony Blair lying. The CEO had to answer for it.
Newsweek got into trouble with their piece of Quran toilet flush hoax.
CBS insists even today that the memo gate was true when it clearly was a hoax. Screw them.
Thats the kind of biased reporting we get from the west nowadays.
Note though, that the public inquiry held to investigate the issue did say that the PM might have "subconsciously" pressured intel to use stronger words than usual.
That was in 2002/2003. Today, we still have not found WMDs in Iraq.
The CEO and the journalist concerned has resigned. Tell me that is not accountability. Tell me that is not a commitment towards objective reporting.
Can't say much about the US media since I do not usually read them. -
Why?Originally posted by Gazelle:Restricting information will only hinder growth for the economy and the country. -
why do you think our government is investing in national broadband network?Originally posted by Yi Peng:Why? -
As I said, they could have ommitted it altogether. I do not know how they found out the government's intention. but if the govt told them so, then put that in. Not difficult really, if the journalist actually bothered to think about it. The little things...Originally posted by charlize:How you want them to report?
"Most Singaporeans will get some money from the government later this year, as a gesture to entice them to vote for the incumbent party."?
Alternatively, they could insert my signature block into their articles! But then it wouldn't be much of a newspaper then, would it. Then again...it isn't much of a newspaper now anyway...
-
More and faster information flow.
-
SPH is not all bad, credit must be given to them for the NKF saga.Originally posted by lwflee:As I said, they could have ommitted it altogether. I do not know how they found out the government's intention. but if the govt told them so, then put that in. Not difficult really, if the journalist actually bothered to think about it. The little things... -
There is more to the NKF saga than on the surface.Originally posted by Gazelle:SPH is not all bad, credit must be given to them for the NKF saga.
Two issues, it shows the power of SPH, and secondly, NKF might have been a blowback situation for the MIW. -
Yes, that probably did some good. But I have the feeling that it only came to pass because the editor decided that it was not a political issue.
Now, I have noticed that in recent years, the govt (and consequently SPH) has relaxed its attitudes towards the media. The NKF and the CST training incident are, I think, evidence of that relaxed attitude.
But just because they have improved does not mean they are great. Eg. An F9 student can be the most improved student, but that doesn't really say much about his ability as a student. -
If you look at it objectively, ST is no more biased than any paper out in the world.
Its a pretty decent paper simply because it carries less spam and poison pens than western papers.
Circulation & viewership of western print and TV is down even in the midst of an economic boom exactly because people are tired of all the bias reporting.
What is growing popularity is radio and blogs or what is known as the new media there. People see them are honest alternatives to all that spin on TV. -
Bollocks. The BBC does a pretty good job. And you are confusing correlation with causation.Originally posted by Yi Peng:If you look at it objectively, ST is no more biased than any paper out in the world.
Its a pretty decent paper simply because it carries less spam and poison pens than western papers.
Circulation & viewership of western print and TV is down even in the midst of an economic boom exactly because people are tired of all the bias reporting.
What is growing popularity is radio and blogs or what is known as the new media there. People see them are honest alternatives to all that spin on TV. -
it really depends how each individual interpret the news. personally I only like to read the HOME, BIZ, SPORT and Life section. For world news, I prefer to read it from internet.Originally posted by lwflee:Bollocks. The BBC does a pretty good job. And you are confusing correlation with causation.
What is hate more is the forum section.