Roses and rockets 11
This "Roses and Rockets" idea comes from my old mentor, Reuters, which used it to distribute compliments (Roses) or criticisms (Rockets) to its large force of correspondents and sub-editors worldwide during the 60s and 70s.
It was all in good spirit done for a vital feedback purpose. Even the best got a rocket once a while; and the newest recruit would sometimes earn a bouquet of roses.
Readers' contributions that are concise, informed and reasoned are very welcomed - but please, no personal complaints or rude remarks. Littlespeck will, of course, subject itself to the same criterion.
Oct 9, 2004

Rockets

For ChannelNewsAsia reporting on Oct 6 that Taiwan's foreign minister Mark Chen had "apologized for his angry remarks against Singapore." It was wrong and a poor interpretation of what the man really said.

It was obvious his 'sorry' was deliberately blurred to look like an apology when it was not, concocted to defer the tremendous pressure Chen was facing at home.

And CNA fell for it. Reported by the TV channel, his comments came this way: -

"Facing the lawmakers and reporters, Mr Chen said: 'For those who are not used to my words...I express my apology.'

He was asked if that include Singaporeans? 'Yes, yes, I'm sorry. They don't understand what I said. I'm sorry,' he said."

It wasn't an apology to Singapore, the country, or the people, collectively.

The Straits Times sub-headline got it right, "Taiwan minister apologises to offended Singaporeans."

Its report said, "Some people cannot understand such colourful expression. I would like to express my apology to such people, including Singaporeans".

Why did CNA get it so wrong? Was it being over-anxious about wanting to score a point and point the miserable thing behind us?

This raises another point, which is related. When newspapers make a mistake, they issue a correction and apologise, what happens when TV or radio make one, can the public expect one?

And how can it be done?

Rockets

During worsening Malaysia-Singapore relations, the media on both sides sometimes made it worse, consciously or not. 'Singapore bashing' we would yell at Malaysians journalists whenever we felt victimised.

Malaysians would retaliate by accusing the Singapore media of demeaning their country by playing up negative stories, like crime, inefficiency, corruption, etc.

I think The New Paper deserves a Rocket for recent stories that revealed a lack of fair judgment, even bias against Malaysia.

(1) "She bleeds to death while giving blood" (Sept 15) was about a young woman who had died from excessive bleeding after giving birth because the private hospital in KL did not have enough blood for transfusion.

The full-page story was taken from Sin Chew Daily, Malaysia. That's fine, but then it carried a box-report headlined 'What Singapore hospitals do?" which starts,

"The probability of expectant mothers bleeding to death in Singapore is close to zero, (Singapore) doctors said."

For a neutral reader, it smacks of one-upmanship journalism, a "we're better than you" bias. Was it intentional? No one can be sure.

Adding to this impression was another long hospital boo-boo story on the facing page about a 62-year-old Perak woman, who was wrongly told by a hospital that she had HIV. She had lived with the shame for five years.

(2) Next "I was topless in my tent" (Sept 18) The New Paper carried an interview with a 17-year-old Malaysian girl who was permanent resident here.

She had just completed a three-month National Service stint in Malaysia which was aimed at promoting discipline and racial harmony. "It was hot, humid and dumb, very uncomfortable".

To quote a girl calling Malaysia's movement to instill nationalism in its youths as 'dumb' isn't objective journalism. She's only a 17-years-old kid!

As a journalist, I would not normally like to see editing outspoken comments, but we should exercise good judgment.

In Singapore, we have stronger complaints by a few young men about national service, too - but the press has always kept them out, so why this double standards?

Roses

If I could I would like to present a Rocket to the government minister for suggesting that news and comments should be kept strictly apart, a new invention of traditional journalism.

When it was uttered early this year, it was apparently aimed at TODAY newspaper, which had a habit of making its reports look like a comment just to be different from The Straits Times.

But this 'Rockets and roses' exercise covers only the media not anyone outside.

So I'd like to present a bouquet of roses to the Straits Times for not only disagreeing with the minister's suggestion, but went ahead to do what he said newspapers should not do.

Whether it intended to or not, it showed disregard to an impractical, if not silly, suggestion.

Here's how The Straits Times (Feb 28) presented its budget report on Page One:-

"IT WAS a Budget that was prudent yet bold in its vision.

"Prudent for the way it tightened government spending and sharpened it to target those who needed help.

"Bold for the decisive way it positioned Singapore as a land of opportunity, a hub for business and talent." And so on. All this on its main news report!

No, it wasn't someone wrongly putting the editorial as its main story. At least, the minister showed restraint by not coming out to criticise this mixture of news and comment.

Roses

For the Sunday Times for lighting up everyone's weekend, better choice of human-interest stories, good layout and improved writing.

The same, too, goes for The Sunday Paper, which runs a good crop of interesting stories on most weeks.

Looking forwards to the promised revamp of The Straits Times and its three weekly magazines.
By Seah Chiang Nee