Roses and Rockets - Six
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 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.
June 29, 2003

Rocket - New York Times "scandals"
Not unknown here

"We're Singaporeans, and we do things our way," is often heard (not always right) - but it should not allow editors and reporters in Singapore throwing time-honoured ethics out of the window.

One wrongdoing now creeping into Singapore's newspapers - I'm sure elsewhere, too - involves giving reporters a byline for reporting a story half a world away by simply rewriting from foreign copies.

Such an act would have got me fired from Reuters and other serious media. It is a sin that recently scandalised the mighty New York Times.

Banning bylines from arm-chair reporting makes sense: How can you rehash other people's copy of an event 10,000 miles away and claim it's your own?

That's what it means when it has the reporter is bylined.

Of course, any newspaper can put together a report by rewriting from foreign copies if properly attributed if its done for readers' benefit.

At best, a byline claim will chip away credibility; at worst, the paper is accused of lack of integrity by pretending it has a reporter on the scene when it hasn't.

Editors in Singapore have a duty to maintain ethics. Rising competition and the Internet (with its access to almost any media anywhere) make it tempting to do it.

New York Times was an example. One reporter Jayson Blair, since dismissed, was caught plagiarising other people's stories on numerous occasions.

In another case, Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent Rick Bragg, also quit when he was investigated for improperly using the reporting of a freelance journalist for a by-lined feature article.

No such charges have been levelled on a Singapore journalist here - not because it has not happened, but because editors and journalists don't see it as a clear-cut plagiarism matter, or as an integrity issue.

Besides public editorial watchdogs aren't strict about byline-rewrites.

Put it this way again. Plagiarism is plagrialism when you take someone else's copy and use it under your own byline.

A desk rewrite with clear, proper attribute of sources, without saying it's your own reporter's is acceptable (copyright conservatives may even disagree).

For that reason, here are two rockets for two stories below.

Rocket No. 1

For a Streats (June 26) report under its own reporter's byline about a roundup of 1,000 radical clerics in Saudi Arabia.

The reporter did not report from Riyadh nor personally interviewed anyone for it - but probably rehashed it from Reuters.

It was a good story - but it happened far away. Yet it was written as if the reporter was there (in fact reference to Reuters was vague).

There are two circumstances the byline was justified:

(1) If the reporter had got the information by interviewing (through phone or e-mail) sources in Riyadh or talking to eyewitnesses at Singapore airport. It was none of these.

(2) If the reporter was himself an authority on Saudi Arabia (having worked there) writing a personal column with add-value comments, analysis or talking to experts.

Rocket No. 2

For the Sunday Times (June 29) whose reporter wrote a long, interesting, story from the wierd diary of Mad Max, the Max Factor heir, who was sentenced to 124 years for drugging and raping three women.

"It provides a glimpse into his demented mind", she said. Good writing. Good story.

It ran the top half of Page 4 under Crime News, under the reporter's byline without saying if it was written in the US or Mexico where the story broke or - as it probable was - in Singapore..

If it was armchair reporting, it had to be made clear how she had gained access to the diaries. If she herself had got the them herself, then obviously it would have been a great achievement (deserving a Rose).

But since it never claimed it was an exclusive, it was evidently taken from somewhere? But where? Was it from the Ventura County Star or NBC that were mentioned in scattered places?

If it was just a rehash, how can it justify a byline?

Rose

Like stepchild Cinderella, an underrated medium here is Radio FM 93.8 news station, which frequently churns out some gems in its peak coverage - 7.30-9.00 am and 5.00-6.30 pm when people are in their cars.

It has, of course, its own faithful followers but the number pales in comparison to television and the print media.

The radio is generally under-visited most of the day for obvious reasons, most people are in the office. Only retirees, housewives listen and many of them are rewarded for it.

I have tuned into some of its recent morning programmes and congratulated myself for doing it.

Among the shows I liked were interviews with "think-tankers" on Acheh, the Muslim problem in Southern Thailand and the recent UMNO meeting, as well as phone-ins on local issues like the Northeast Line or public housing defects. Good stuff. I learned a lot.

Unfortunately audio is no match for visual. But its biggest problem is that most of its goodies go unplublicised in advance in print or TV. Better advance notice and marketing will do radio a world of good. Definately a Rose.

Rocket

Many Singaporeans would have missed the shocking news in the Straits Times on June 26 that two Indonesian maids, aged 18 and 20, had fallen to their deaths - only two hours apart.

No one could say it's a small, insignificant story.

Yet the national daily tucked it very unprominently at the bottom of Page 12, single column, 9-paragraphs - in a space dominated by the Slim 10 court case.

It is not known whether the two unfortunate girls had committed suicide or fell by accident. In their prime of life, they had worked for their employers only less than a year.

That the media badly downplayed the news is obvious; the reason for it is not.

Supposing the two were not foreign maids, but Singaporeans, would the news not have got more attention - maybe even put on Page 1? So why the difference?

A Rocket for poor editorial judgement.

Next to this story was a more prominent report of how two Singapore teens had duped a classmate of $35,000. This story more important than the death of two foreign maids? How can that be? Yet it was carried next to it across three columns, 15 inches.

There're two added reasons for this Rocket.

One is that some of our neighbours already have an impression that Singaporeans are an insensitive lot when it comes to other people's misfortunes.

The second is our poor record of treating foreign maids. By omission or commission, our media may be contributing to this.

Is it because there was insufficient information at the time of going to bed? That would have explained the small coverage but until now, The Straits Times has not followed up on the story. Neither has any of the tabloids.

The sad part is that it may be misconceived as hushing up an embarrassing story?
By Seah Chiang Nee