Newspaper Apology. Why some don't .....
-
Fyi:
Forum: the Sammyboy's Alfresco Coffee Shop™ Forum
Subject: Newspaper apology. Why some don't..
From: (HENDRIXTAS)
To: (ALL)
DateTime: 12/09/2004 16:50:28
Recently the Economist apologized to MM Lee and PM Lee for its
article on Temasek. It had to pay damages to these two honourable
gentlemen.
The Straits Times and the local TV media went to town with this news.
It had capital value. The fact that a reputed magazine like the
Economist tendering an apology and paying compensation was an
admission that
all is above board in Temasek as well as in SIng Inc.
It was vindication as far as international publicity is concerend
about
how squeaky clean Sing Inc is. Hence the great Singapore media hoohah.
Over the years and as recently as a few weeks ago, newspapers in
Australia and Canada published articles about the same subject
matter -
Temasek and nepotism - that are more critical and pointed than the
Economist. Besides there were articles about the succession issue and
dynastic
rule alleging nepotism of the highest order. Few months earlier, the
Australian published an article - ALL IN THE FAMILEE - a highly
critical
write up on the level of nepotism in SIngapore. Compared to these,
the
Economist article was nothing.
How come these newspapers 'escaped' from ever tendering an apology or
ever paying compensation for libel, like the Economist ?. In fact
these
newspapers were never even sued or even threatened with legal action.
The answer is simple. In the case of the Economist and IHT, they were
stupid enough to sign an undertaking with Sing Inc saying that any
legal
dispute regarding articles published in these will be settled in a
Singapore court of Law. That's it. Singapore courts will have
jurisdiction. There you are. This will exlain to you why these two -
The
Economist and the IHT - always seem to end up paying damages while
other
newspapers elsewhere are not even challenged by the Sing Inc setup.
Why did the Economist and IHT sign such undertakings with Sing Inc
several years ago. Stupidity. Years ago when Sing Inc was flaunting
itself
as another HUB - Publishing hub of Asia that is, these two British
publications rushed in to set up publishing units in Singapore. That
required them to sign this stupid undertaking. Thus whenever their
new editor
or reporter writes something like this, forgetting the undertaking
the
earlier management had signed, the consequences are this. They end
up
paying damages and Dirty Harry gets the additional free publicity (
not
necessarily true ) to the effect how clean and straight his tiny red
dot gahmen is. Harry also gets to show how charitable he is by
donating
the damages received to charity !!.
This explains why the Aussie, Canadian and US newspapers whack the
shit
out of Harry's Sing Inc and go unchallenged by Dirty Harry and Co.
They
dare not challenge, for if they do so, the courts there will summon
for
certain official papers and documents as per the defendants request.
That may expose a lot of truths and wroms which Harry and Co loath to
divulge. For Harry, silence is golden here.
Only last year a Canadian court threw out Dirty Harry's law suit
againt
Mr Deval Nair for an article written by him and published in a local
newspaper. The judeg described the intent of the legal suit in very
derogatory terms.
Now, that you know.
The stupid Economist seem to be making the mistake over and over
again.
And giving Dirty Harry free good publicity too. -
same reason why sammyboy is based in Australia.
-
The Australians shd solve their own racial and obesity problem first.