I believe that the media in
Contrary to what most people believe, I think that the media is trying its best to work within the present restrictions such as self-censorship, and yet, bring us the full details without stepping on anyone's shoes. This predicament has given rise to what I call 'creative journalism'.
Let me elaborate:
According to today's report on the Channel News Asia website,
Singaporehas scored high marks in a survey on tourists' perception of the local service quality. ... After breaking it down into its component parts, the survey showed that what tourists want most is courtesy, along with product knowledge. ... The visitors also rank the service levels in Singaporehigher than where they came from except for Japanese tourists who think the service quality at home is still better."
Clearly, certain facts and findings of the survey were shielded from us 'for our own good'. The fact that the countries which rated Singapore shopping better were all lesser economies compared to us and that clear shortcomings were not indicated in the CNA report demonstrate the typical style of the Singapore media industry - selective journalism.
BUT, there is a slow shift towards true journalism and it was evident during the GE2006 when quite a number of gaffes by the PAP were highlighted readily by the media. My view is that creative journalism is more than just rebelling against the status quo and bringing the details to the public. It's about not stepping out of line and still doing the job.
This is one of the clearest examples that I have found thus far:
In an article titled "Singapore polls: WP can still contest Aljunied even if Gomez dropped, says minister" there was a crucial piece of awareness information inserted which had absolutely no relevance to the article and had no relation to the preceding paragraph or the one following it.
"PAP Chairman Lim Boon Heng said: "It is better if the WP...clears any doubt of transparency in the management of the WP. After all, this is a question they say of our government, that the government should be transparent. So one would expect the same standards of transparency that they're asking of the PAP to be imposed on the WP themselves."
Meanwhile an online petition has been started in support of Gomez. So far more than 300 people have signed it.
Mr Yeo also talked about the issue raised by some Singaporeans to Channel News Asia. They had said that they were concerned their identity card numbers could be purchased by political parties at the Elections Department."
This is a true example of creative journalism. Although it does not offend anyone by going into details, it gives the reader (the public) a chance to know there was an online petition which had a significant response. It is up to the reader to do a simple search which would lead him or her to the online petition itself.
In time to come, our local journalists would perfect this art of creative journalism and, in true Singaporean fashion, will be able to market this 'skill' to the world - way to go!
Section 182 Cap 224 (Penal Code)Whoever gives to any public servant any information orally or in writing which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, or to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,000, or with both.
Section 503 Cap 224 (Penal Code)Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.(Punishment under Section 506 - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both; and if the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years or more, or impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.)