Roses and Rockets - Nine
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.
Aug 3, 2003

Rockets 1

News coverage needs to be more objective and balanced if Singapore wants to become a media hub, whose news is credible to Singaporeans and the region. Three bad cases here: -

(1) Weekend TODAY (Aug 2-3) covered on Page 1 the statistics row between Manpower Ministry and the two Nanyang Technological University's economists with this opening salvo:-

"Even as analysts had started a grumble campaign about how opaque labour data was, the two men who launched the Great Job Debate quietly slipped off the bandwagon.

"Gone was the assertiveness with which they had started that three out of four jobs in recent years had gone to non-residents." (The emphasis in bold is mine).

This implied criticism may well reflect the opinion of the two TODAY reporters, but it should not be allowed to creep into the reporting. Do it in a separate personal column or a feature, if they feel like it.

A reporter's duty is to present the facts objectively and let the readers judge. It is not to make anyone look better or worse than he is whether pro- or anti-government.

To portray the two economists as "quietly slipping away" from an earlier assertiveness is less than fair to two distinguished persons and implies a biased expression.

To its credit, the TODAY story had carried comments that also put blame on the Manpower Ministry's failure to be open with its statistics.

(The economists also said the government figures refuting their case had never been made public until now.)

If that is the case, is if fair to subject the two academics to such an unfair comment.

Another rocket is the failure to explain why the original three economists have suddenly become two. What has happened to the NTU panel's chairman, Dr. Lim Chong Yah, who presented the fingings.

(To be fair this fault is not just TODAY. The other papers, too, had suddenly dropped any subsequent reference to explain why the name was omitted.)

Was he the leader of the team that made up the findings or did he merely announce it as chairman of the panel? To be fair to Dr. Lim, it should be made clear.

Rockets (2)

The second Rocket is for Radio FM93.8 news channel.

The US Senate approved the Singapore-US Free Trade pact by a margin of 66-32; in other words one-third voted against it after a tough battle.

Why did Radio FM93.8 describe it as an "overwhelming" approval?

Prior to the vote, the radio newsroom has reported that it "is expected to give overwhelming approval" to the bill.

The word "overwhelming" was used again to describe the vote.

It was a good, tough fight, but it was not an overwhelming approval. To most listeners "overwhelming" means "overwhelming" - like 90 per cent or close to it.

The wire services didn't used the word, so why does Radio 9.38 use it?

ChannelNewsAsia's Malcolm Browne later put the picture more accurately by commenting on the some of the difficulties encountered.

Journalists who exaggerate the good news and play down - or ignore - the bad ones while reporting Singapore don't help it at all. In the Internet world, it may even hurt Singapore's credibility as a transparent nation.

This applies particularly to reports of foreign surveys, where some past practices had been to play up those that show us as doing well - but downplayed or left out the bad ones.

Rockets (3)

The Singapore Democratic Party took issue with what it called a skewed coverage by TODAY of the recent International Youth Conference for Democracy.(We erroneously identified Mr. Dharmendra Yadav as the writer. Apologies to all.)

In an article "The press does it again" it observed that TODAY was among only a few local newspapers who even bothered to show up.

However, the paper gave prominence to the remarks of one participant, who was critical of Dr Chee Soon Juan.

Ms Lee Ching Wern, the reporter for TODAY, dedicated much of her story to Ms Chua Ruo Mei's comments, which included a remark about Dr Chee's questioning of the Singapore government about the Indonesian loan during the 2001 elections.

"Dr Chee, after what you did in the last elections, I was not impressed. You did not get your facts right. The US$10 billion was a loan to Indonesia and not a gift. If there is nothing to fight for in Singapore, you cannot accuse young Singaporeans of being apathetic," she reportedly said.

The report, according to SDP, might have misrepresented the tone of the conference by spotlighting on one comment against the its leader while ignoring most of others speakers who were critical of the ruling People's Action Party,

To back it up, he gave a detailed report of what others had said. The SDP has a point.

TODAY could have chosen not to cover the event; that was its prerogative but once it chose to do it, the paper had an obligation to present a fair, balanced report.

I think the New Paper on Sunday (Aug 3) did a better job.

It did a write-up on the same young lady (Chua Ruo Mei), but in a more credible, even-handed manner under the headline: "Meet a feisty Junior College girl: She questions Deputy Prime Minister Lee (Hsien Loong), then ticks off Chee Soon Juan."
By Seah Chiang Nee