Concern About Free Press
-
I know it sounds all fine and dandy, happily having freedom of speech,,, yada yada yada..... But I have concern.
In the US they have various news channels to select from. The infamous FOX news, is often known to be pro-bush, pro-iraq, and so on and so forth,,,, you get the point. Other channels are known to do the oppsite, often using derogatory vocabulary on news about bush, usually concentrating more on the democrat side in the recent election campaigns and I'm pretty sure u get what I mean.
My concern, is that if SG were to acheive such a thing, media bias could potentially disrupt national stability. eg, one news show is very pro-israel and and the other pro-arab.... wouldnt it be dangerous for sg's multi-racial society? what if the racial riots happen again? what if yishun mrt really get's blown by ragheads.... The media is extremely effective in swaying people's mindset.
Just want to know if anyone thought of that......
-
I'm all for a free press. It doesn't matter what happens. If majority of Singaporeans are stupid then so be it. Reap what you sow.
-
would like to add that the U.S is probably more culturally diverse than us.
-
Originally posted by kramnave:
I'm all for a free press. It doesn't matter what happens. If majority of Singaporeans are stupid then so be it. Reap what you sow.
US is bigger, and more populated, so yeah, you are right
-
Originally posted by DigitalArt90:
I know it sounds all fine and dandy, happily having freedom of speech,,, yada yada yada..... But I have concern.
In the US they have various news channels to select from. The infamous FOX news, is often known to be pro-bush, pro-iraq, and so on and so forth,,,, you get the point. Other channels are known to do the oppsite, often using derogatory vocabulary on news about bush, usually concentrating more on the democrat side in the recent election campaigns and I'm pretty sure u get what I mean.
My concern, is that if SG were to acheive such a thing, media bias could potentially disrupt national stability. eg, one news show is very pro-israel and and the other pro-arab.... wouldnt it be dangerous for sg's multi-racial society? what if the racial riots happen again? what if yishun mrt really get's blown by ragheads.... The media is extremely effective in swaying people's mindset.
Just want to know if anyone thought of that......
We have seen enough results about how hard it is to maintain a second tv corp in singapore, even when the other tv channel corp is ALSO govt funded.Secondly, don't ever think that just because a media is free from the govt control, that means the media is more reliable.
Their not...by making a news channel dependent on the market, what will end up is (which is what tons of liberal or free news channel is doing right now) a scenario where the news channel simply reports on what the public WANTS to hear, and not what the public NEEDS to hear.
Why do you think that the CNN is delaying certain information like Gerogians are the ones who started the conflict first?
What about scenario where a president of a media corp company is friends with some political leaders? Most prob, those companies will simply try and twist the fact around with a new perspective until they can no longer lie about certain stuff.
Don't ever think that a free press is a saint in regards to news and politics. They are not, and we all know, tons of companies can only think in the short term .
You might as well look at the US media coverage on their presidential elections...the media is reporting certain news that are more biased, making polls that might be misleading...and hiring a so called 'expert' ( bear in mind that experts DO have politicial agendas themselves, and among the experts in a field there are several fields of thought)
What is their purpose? To make the presidential race more exciting and more close...nevermind if a policy of a canidate will NOT help a country...those corp simply don't care unless they are directly affected by it.
There is no clear cut good and bad to a news channel....expecting ANY news channel not to be biased is ridiculous...even a free media create propoganda for themselves to gain more viewership.
Just bear that in mind before you attack any singaporean media for being a propoganda station...just because a media is free from a government control does not mean they are necessary better and less biased...
Instead make use of the internet and be a journalist for yourself....compare and contrast news sources, identify any hint of bias reporting in any article and understand the reasoning for that bias tone.
So what if the CNN is more liberal, it doesn't change the fact that they are bias in some of their reporting...
In an age of internet, you want a less bias source, and infomation that has less political agenda, simply reserach on the things yourself.
-
It's about providing the populace with other alternative views other than GOD's commandment.
It's up to the collective intelligence of the population to decide on the majority view, unless of course if you feel that your population consist of morons, then that's another issue.
-
It's about providing the populace with other alternative views other than GOD's commandment.
It's up to the collective intelligence of the population to decide on the majority view, unless of course if you feel that your population consist of morons, then that's another issue.
This kind of statement always makes me wonder whether it's our alpha male instinct speaking or is it logic speaking.
I don't see the advantage of intentionally favoring chaos just because we don't like the current order. Remember that unlike our elected Members of Parliament, a free press answers to no one but their investors.
They can create all kind of sensational news, creating panic and hysteria with none of the responsibility attached to that power. The myth that a free press would only spread Truth is delusional, they will report only on what sells. They are a commercial entity but hold the power to shift public opinions.
That said, i'm not against a "more free" press but i'm simply presenting the other side of the coin.
The human race individually speaking is pretty rational but history have told us that the intelligence of a mob is inversely proportional to the amount of people in it. It's not a matter of whether your population consists of morons, it's that the voice of the moron is always louder.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
It's about providing the populace with other alternative views other than GOD's commandment.
It's up to the collective intelligence of the population to decide on the majority view, unless of course if you feel that your population consist of morons, then that's another issue.
Like what people here wants about the free press...you are basically asking for a news you WANT to hear, and not what you need to hear.Trying to convince the public at accept a good policy that serves the nation well in the long terms but is annoying to us in the short term is hard.
The use of a free press is there to let the public hear what they likes to hear. If the public in this case dislike a good long term solution, or ones that allow us to maintain our standard of living by taking a few luxury away ( for example cars) a free press will simply attack the government non stop until the public gets what they want and not what they needed.
Which means, the only way for a free press to work for the interest of the nation is to ensure that those involved in those bussiness is idealisitic and strong in their belief ( but not to a level where they become delusional) . Those involved in the free press needs to be experts in alot of issues and can really identify what is good or bad for the nation.
Which means they might be more boring for the viewer to watch...less gossip news and etc.
Which in turn, means the company might not be able to support itself finanically....
Look at CNN and compare it to the BBC for example, the CNN is more sensational news because they are a private company. The BBC on the other hand is more neutral in its reporting which is aided by the fact that they are government funded.
-
free press should also include newspaper that dont or own by the SPH.
i had often read malaysia english newspaper and i must admit , their freedom of media press is definitely much freerer than ours.
the reporters dare to ask sharp question on the leader of the state but wherelse most question for the DPM. PM , minister are often either SOP question or question that had been screen.
yes, singapore are not stupid and we can search the net, watch BBC, CNN.do note tat these 2 channel are not free.
what happen to the older generation of retirees whose only source of information on the world and singapore politics are mostly from old media such as channel 8 and chinese newspaper.
are we singaporean given a chance to hear alternative views so that we can judge the truth. i must admit, most singaporean are indeed political naive and knowledge of a frog look up the well.
-
Look at it this way, with free press, there will be a diverse array of information about our government. Of course, there may be those who're anti-PAP who, like it or not, are going to view policies with a jaundiced eye.
However, with free press, those who're pro-PAP are also entitled their say. People can argue on a same level that everyone can enjoy: the press.
With free press, Singaporeans would have more materials available to them and with it, they can choose properly their ruling political party in an election. This isn't bad, is it?
Of course, it'll take centuries, or even milleniums for free press to be introduced into our strict regime. After all, the last thing PAP wants is to lose their seats.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
This kind of statement always makes me wonder whether it's our alpha male instinct speaking or is it logic speaking.
I don't see the advantage of intentionally favoring chaos just because we don't like the current order. Remember that unlike our elected Members of Parliament, a free press answers to no one but their investors.
They can create all kind of sensational news, creating panic and hysteria with none of the responsibility attached to that power. The myth that a free press would only spread Truth is delusional, they will report only on what sells. They are a commercial entity but hold the power to shift public opinions.
That said, i'm not against a "more free" press but i'm simply presenting the other side of the coin.
The human race individually speaking is pretty rational but history have told us that the intelligence of a mob is inversely proportional to the amount of people in it. It's not a matter of whether your population consists of morons, it's that the voice of the moron is always louder.
It's logic speaking.
Having free presses will cause chaos? Is that a fact?
You means chaos for the ruling P4P and PM Lee, because he will need to think of ways to fix the people? I suppose you think the current P4P MPs and Mass Media answers to the people? The P4P MPs answer to the Lee regime!!! Likewise for the Mass Media now.No doubt free presses answers to investors for returns to make investments worthwhile. If the presses resort to false reporting leading to decrease in readership or viewship, which means less profits, less returns for investments.
Let's not go bonkers by fantasizing about doomsday events where readers at the behest of the presses (thru false reporting), going about the streets hacking up people. Any facts to substantiate your logic? What a dictatorial regime fears is free presses, because with a more divergent political view, it will affect their popularity with the masses.
Mob or dictator, it's your choice really, you are entitled to your opinion.
-
Originally posted by ray245:
Like what people here wants about the free press...you are basically asking for a news you WANT to hear, and not what you need to hear.Trying to convince the public at accept a good policy that serves the nation well in the long terms but is annoying to us in the short term is hard.
The use of a free press is there to let the public hear what they likes to hear. If the public in this case dislike a good long term solution, or ones that allow us to maintain our standard of living by taking a few luxury away ( for example cars) a free press will simply attack the government non stop until the public gets what they want and not what they needed.
Which means, the only way for a free press to work for the interest of the nation is to ensure that those involved in those bussiness is idealisitic and strong in their belief ( but not to a level where they become delusional) . Those involved in the free press needs to be experts in alot of issues and can really identify what is good or bad for the nation.
Which means they might be more boring for the viewer to watch...less gossip news and etc.
Which in turn, means the company might not be able to support itself finanically....
Look at CNN and compare it to the BBC for example, the CNN is more sensational news because they are a private company. The BBC on the other hand is more neutral in its reporting which is aided by the fact that they are government funded.
What you want to hear and not you need to hear? Oh yes! We want to hear FACTS and diverse opinions. We definitely don't want to hear propaganda! Take for example the current inflation this year, it was reported in the media that rising commodity prices was the result of it. Did the government ever say that GST and influx of immigrants was also the cause of such inflation? Do most of us ever tell our potential girlfriends our cons or do we just tell them our pros? The less bad things they know about us, the more they are likely to fall for us, it's a case of adverse selection and moral hazard.You have to be precise about this. Is it serving the people well or serving the PM and his cronies well? Each Ministers pay is about the same as the US President; how does it serve the people? Implementation of GST, in the past the poor don't need to pay GST, now they have to contend with a tax of 7%; how has this policy serve the people? CPF a retirement savings for the people, through some transaction, the money is circumvented to Temasek which made returns of above 15% a year, while CPF members are paid 3-4% interest; how has this policy benefitted the people?
News sensationalization is a form of advertisement, it seeks to draw attention to the issues. But if it turns out to be false, it will affect the reputation of the news media, hence a decrease in readership and profits.
-
The only free press you will ever get in sg is when you do your own ironing at home.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4jUTS4Y3g0&feature=bzb302
Famous anchor got fired because he gave his opinion that footage of the September 11 during McCain's presidential rally shouldnt be shown because it is kinda exploiting the victims...MSNBC promptly fired him..clear example of pro-govt stance and uncanny resemblance to something local..
-
OK.... um..... actually my focus was not really concern abt PAP stuff...... cause we all know a lot of ya'll are already talking about that.
I actually want to focus more on international news.... such as the current israel-america-iran nuclear tensions, the nuclear tension also with N Korea, Tibet Issue....
stuff like that.
We all have our individual opinions that are swayed by what we see. How if got one news channel make it seem like israel is gonna strike "innocent" Iran which is supposedly harvesting nuclear energy for it's own use, while the other claims "evil" Iran's growin "nuclear threat" is endangering "innocent" Israel.
Would it be likely to cause any threat to internal security?
-
So you rather let the Safe Times tell you what to believe?
-
Free press can assist in check and balance on the ruling party.
-
I'd like to think that gen x and gen y readers are smart enough not to rely 100% on SPH news. CNA's rather famous for not checking their sources as well, difficult to rely on local media completely when it comes to accurate news reporting.
Best to increase exposure before making our own judgement about various issues. Anyway imho, there is no such thing as objective reporting lor. And as long as news network rely on headlines to sell, you cannot count on them to be objective. Worst still, some have no integrity.
Read the headlines, buy the papers or click on the header only to find the whole article splattered with allegedly lah, supposedly lah, was said to be lah.
Very few facts are actually provided, most are just insinuating ideas because most reports are shaped by political and cultural landscape lor.
-
Originally posted by DigitalArt90:
OK.... um..... actually my focus was not really concern abt PAP stuff...... cause we all know a lot of ya'll are already talking about that.
I actually want to focus more on international news.... such as the current israel-america-iran nuclear tensions, the nuclear tension also with N Korea, Tibet Issue....
stuff like that.
We all have our individual opinions that are swayed by what we see. How if got one news channel make it seem like israel is gonna strike "innocent" Iran which is supposedly harvesting nuclear energy for it's own use, while the other claims "evil" Iran's growin "nuclear threat" is endangering "innocent" Israel.
Would it be likely to cause any threat to internal security?
Imagine if you will right now, Bush has an ability to control the press, he will be telling everybody that WMD exist, he was absolutely right in invading Iraq. He would always be right with this press and the American public will all be hoodwinked.
No other press will be able to provide contrarian or alternative free views.
-
Let's not go bonkers by fantasizing about doomsday events where readers at the behest of the presses (thru false reporting), going about the streets hacking up people. Any facts to substantiate your logic? What a dictatorial regime fears is free presses, because with a more divergent political view, it will affect their popularity with the masses.
If you read carefully my post i did not exactly advocate that it would be a doomsday scenario if we have a free press.
I'm merely expressing the view that my idea of a free press would be one that could shift public opinions but do not have to submit themselves to the people for scrutiny, unlike voted officials. They do not have to say that it's the absolute truth, they can simply "alleged" or "supposedly" their way into the public. And no court of law could persecute them without being biased.
What you're doing now with my post is already a good demostration of the power of an unaccountable free press. I have never said it would result in "going about the streets hacking up people" or anything to that extent. I merely presented the other side of the coin. You are the one fantasizing about what i'm trying to say.
No doubt free presses answers to investors for returns to make investments worthwhile. If the presses resort to false reporting leading to decrease in readership or viewship, which means less profits, less returns for investments.
The terms False and True reporting is only relevant in a Court of Law. If a newspaper put in "allegedly said" they can absolve themselves of all responsiblity if the reporting is false. As far as they're concerned, as long as the headline was controversial enough that the people picked up the newspaper and paid the money. They've won.
Tell me, can you truthfully say that the Headline "Britney Spears flashed her privates" will not sell better than the "Cure discovered for Cancer" ? Are you so sure that telling the Truth will sell better?
Lastly, i did NOT say i don't want a "more free" press. But a free press is not going to be an absolute thing, it is not neccesarily always a force of good. If you want this free press so badly, that you're going to have to accept the potential baggage that comes along with it.
You twisting my words to an extreme outcome is exactly what i fear from a free press.