Newspapers should beware of being shunned by the intelligent
-
Newspapers should beware of being shunned by the intelligent
Recently, Lee Kuan Yew mused aloud: "the way the print media can stay in the contest is not to be the first with the news because that's not possible, but to be the first with the background and the analysis and the ones with the high credibility will stay in business."
This may be a forlorn hope.
Within a day of the launch of the keep377a website, appealing for signatures to an open letter urging the retention of the anti-gay law, the Molly Meek blog came out with an incisive analysis. He wrote:
According to keep377a.com, "[r]epealing S377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality."
That is plain wrong.
There's no way you can force homosexuality on a conservative (and presumably heterosexual and homophobic?) population. To repeal 377A is not to enforce a law saying that everyone has to accept homosexuality. Just because the law doesn't criminalize premaritial sex or adultery, it does not mean that people are forced to accept it or treat it as something right.
Read the post in full -- it's a very lucid analysis.
Till now, neither the Straits Times nor Today has published any analysis of the counter-campaign by the homophobes, though it's already quite remarkable that they have at least written up the events as news, and were pretty quick about it too.
In fact, contrary to what Lee thinks, it may be easier for our print media to try to hold on to their competitive advantage over news, rather than muscle in on analysis. There are a number of reasons for this, as the above example shows.
Gathering news requires enormous resources: a large database of contacts for information and verification, access to policymakers, and being reachable 24 hours a day. Large organisations have an advantage in this.
While news rides on speed and accuracy, analysis, on the other hand, relies on freedom of speech and the commentator's credibility, both being interrelated. There is no reason why the paid columnists of a media organisation should be more credible than experts outside the organisation; this being the case, it will be very hard for a media organisation to claim any advantage in providing analysis.
No doubt, a media organisation can host commentary by outside experts, and pay handsomely too, but seizing this advantage is contingent on the political climate and the freedom of expression allowed to the media organisation.
Our newspapers know that they are operating within tighter limits than the blogosphere. The public knows that too. The result is that the former are handicapped in attracting quality analyses. Good commentators will want to stay outside the ambit of these organisations to avoid complications to their freedom of expression.
Political sensitivities are less likely to impinge on news gathering. A decade ago, it might have been true that many kinds of news could not even be reported, but under pressure from digital media, the scope has been widening. Now, additional subjects can be reported upon, so long as there is "balance" – i.e. both sides of the issue are represented.
I would therefore argue that the trend is one where Singapore's state-affiliated media organisations will remain news organisations, but lose out to digital media for analysis...
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-798.htm -
i think singaporeans very smart and intelligent and memorise very well and regurgit very very good one right? So, they cannot be so naive right??? they sure belive the news right? otherwise, why they all read the paper each and every single day since poliz wore kakis until now, non stop even if hiked price and even when there is only 1 main singapore official paper and that is what they read.
-
I try to avoid ST as much as possible.
The only part of value to me in ST is the classified section.
The rest of it is worthless to me. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
State news comes from the state. State news are limited by the state for its own political propagandas. So to that extent State News will not serve the mainstream population.
[b]Newspapers should beware of being shunned by the intelligent
Recently, Lee Kuan Yew mused aloud: "the way the print media can stay in the contest is not to be the first with the news because that's not possible, but to be the first with the background and the analysis and the ones with the high credibility will stay in business."
This may be a forlorn hope.
Within a day of the launch of the keep377a website, appealing for signatures to an open letter urging the retention of the anti-gay law, the Molly Meek blog came out with an incisive analysis. He wrote:
According to keep377a.com, "[r]epealing S377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality."
That is plain wrong.
There's no way you can force homosexuality on a conservative (and presumably heterosexual and homophobic?) population. To repeal 377A is not to enforce a law saying that everyone has to accept homosexuality. Just because the law doesn't criminalize premaritial sex or adultery, it does not mean that people are forced to accept it or treat it as something right.
Read the post in full -- it's a very lucid analysis.
Till now, neither the Straits Times nor Today has published any analysis of the counter-campaign by the homophobes, though it's already quite remarkable that they have at least written up the events as news, and were pretty quick about it too.
In fact, contrary to what Lee thinks, it may be easier for our print media to try to hold on to their competitive advantage over news, rather than muscle in on analysis. There are a number of reasons for this, as the above example shows.
Gathering news requires enormous resources: a large database of contacts for information and verification, access to policymakers, and being reachable 24 hours a day. Large organisations have an advantage in this.
While news rides on speed and accuracy, analysis, on the other hand, relies on freedom of speech and the commentator's credibility, both being interrelated. There is no reason why the paid columnists of a media organisation should be more credible than experts outside the organisation; this being the case, it will be very hard for a media organisation to claim any advantage in providing analysis.
No doubt, a media organisation can host commentary by outside experts, and pay handsomely too, but seizing this advantage is contingent on the political climate and the freedom of expression allowed to the media organisation.
Our newspapers know that they are operating within tighter limits than the blogosphere. The public knows that too. The result is that the former are handicapped in attracting quality analyses. Good commentators will want to stay outside the ambit of these organisations to avoid complications to their freedom of expression.
Political sensitivities are less likely to impinge on news gathering. A decade ago, it might have been true that many kinds of news could not even be reported, but under pressure from digital media, the scope has been widening. Now, additional subjects can be reported upon, so long as there is "balance" – i.e. both sides of the issue are represented.
I would therefore argue that the trend is one where Singapore's state-affiliated media organisations will remain news organisations, but lose out to digital media for analysis...
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-798.htm[/b]
Those who are involved in any business will have to rely on their own analytical digests and reports to do well and stay up to date.
If our news media are to provide good information to serve all purposes and be accepted as mainstream news for business and government there has to be a big change in attitude on the part of the government.
Apart from such rare comment by MM Lee on need for informed decisions for businesses and government there is no clear thinking yet on information for the mainstream business and government as a topic.
It is about time there is such a thinking on this topic - establishing a mainstream source of news and informations for efficient decisions and strategic positioning of our economy. If we do not do so we will eventually lose out to many other countries which do pay attention to this topic.
It is also about time MM Lee loosens up on control of news and information for his limited propaganda or political survival.
It is a much larger issue and if he does not let go our news media will be stifled and cannot grow and will be taken over by blogs and internet which will then cause more loss of our vibrancy and growth. -
Remember LKY don't even allow cartoonists to paint about him, showing the world that the old man can't even take jokes? Do anyone believe he will loosen up the media?
-
i shun most newspapers...
most of all, i shun the local papers after they reported lau lee's showing how out of touch he is, then the editor, journalist and all that got yanked by the PMO, and got demoted
yup.. lau lee's right.. the intelligent shun the spin in the newspapers -
Don't avoid the ST. It is propaganda at its best. You won't get that in foreign media. Why avoid ST?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I try to avoid ST as much as possible.
The only part of value to me in ST is the classified section.
The rest of it is worthless to me.
Other than classified section, those adverts also useful. Like they tell you when got handphone deals. -
The most holy truth I can rest my ranbuttans on are the OBITUARIES. Why? someone dare ask me why? ?? huh ? DEAD MAN never lies.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I try to avoid ST as much as possible.
The only part of value to me in ST is the classified section.
The rest of it is worthless to me.
this section , I am guaranteed its the TRUTH.
This does not mean I am saying the rest are lies.