"Why are you selling your soul to the devil?"
That was what somebody told me, quite incredulously, when I said that I've applied for the SPH scholarship.
Of course, I can't blame her. The reputation of The Straits Times among bloggers and the online community is not a positive one. In fact, the daily has been "demonised", accused of being biased, a tool for propaganda, and a stooge for the government.
Surf SingaporeDaily, and you are likely to find a ST article, or the journalist who wrote it, or the paper itself being criticised left, right, and centre. Many have swore that they've quit reading ST a long time ago, and they're quite proud of it.
I can imagine a Straits Times Anonymous group gathering in a room, sitting in a circle and sharing about their joyful experiences.
"I dumped my copy of ST into the bin, and never looked back," says a 22-year-old girl in a sweet voice.
"Once, I was a brainless citizen, but now, thanks to the internet, I'm set free!" says a 40-year-old man in polo tee and shorts, the type you often see sipping coffee at the hawker centre.
Amen and amen. One wonders why they should not set up a new religion.
But don't be so quick to label me an anti-ChriST. I have my gripes about ST and the state of the local media too. But I think some perspective is needed.
Back to the question: Do I think that ST is that bad? The answer is a categorical no.
Yes, I agree that The Straits Times is state-controlled, and many of its stakeholders are linked to the government. Yes, I agree that the quality of writing there pales in comparison to some of the top-notch newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. And yes, I agree that the paper is biased in its coverage of government policies. The Editorial Team is overwhelmingly pro-government, and this is reflected in the op-eds.
However, I must say it is doing its best under existing restrictions. Being the oldest paper in the country, it is difficult to undo years of tradition. It plays the expected role of being nation-building by the PAP's definition, and this is something that will take a lot of inertia to change. You can describe ST as a victim of its circumstances. The real culpit here must be the law of the land: the ISA, the NPPA, as well as a judiciary that has been used to sue dissenting politicians and media for libel.
And the ST does have its own gems as well. The Saturday special is an enlightening read, most of the time. Some of the opinion pieces are well-written. And the ST is quite stringent when it comes to reporting hard news.
Journalists themselves have also gotten an unfair portion of the flak. Being in such a large organisation, the journalist often has to adhere to the demands of the editorship as well as the ST's policies. The piece of writing that ends up on the paper often bares only a small resemblance to what the journalist originally wrote.
This is not to say that journalists are not totally absolved from bad and biased reporting. But I just want to highlight this fact: the journalist is but a small spoke in a very large wheel. And at the heart of everything lies the government.
Furthermore, the ST can be likened to a very large oceanliner, and blogs to small pecking fishes. I'm not trying to look down on bloggers, but to highlight differences between MSM and new media. While criticism is awash all over the internet about ST and its articles, the paper has no ability to react. As a result, there is a gigantic imbalance as far as online sentiments go.
Here's how it works: ST publishes an article, which is viewed as biased by the online community. Blog reactions flood in, criticising the ST for whatever reason. As a large oceanliner, the paper is too slow to respond, to counter the arguments raised by netizens. It tries to steer, but is unable to do so quickly enough against the tide of criticism.
This is something the ST should try to change. Journalists should be more actively engaging the blogging community, not as enemies, but as active citizens working towards better public discourse. The new media should not be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity. ChannelNewsAsia and Mypaper have already done so, launching blogs featuring their own journalists.
It is therefore the imperative of the journalist themselves to decide what to do with it, and also to counter criticism that may arise as a result of the articles they write. While management may be scrambling to make sense of this new beast, journalists by themselves have the independence and savvy to better engage netizens. That is the advantage of being young and nimble.
That was what somebody told me, quite incredulously, when I said that I've applied for the SPH scholarship.
Of course, I can't blame her. The reputation of The Straits Times among bloggers and the online community is not a positive one. In fact, the daily has been "demonised", accused of being biased, a tool for propaganda, and a stooge for the government.
Surf SingaporeDaily, and you are likely to find a ST article, or the journalist who wrote it, or the paper itself being criticised left, right, and centre. Many have swore that they've quit reading ST a long time ago, and they're quite proud of it.
I can imagine a Straits Times Anonymous group gathering in a room, sitting in a circle and sharing about their joyful experiences.
"I dumped my copy of ST into the bin, and never looked back," says a 22-year-old girl in a sweet voice.
"Once, I was a brainless citizen, but now, thanks to the internet, I'm set free!" says a 40-year-old man in polo tee and shorts, the type you often see sipping coffee at the hawker centre.
Amen and amen. One wonders why they should not set up a new religion.
But don't be so quick to label me an anti-ChriST. I have my gripes about ST and the state of the local media too. But I think some perspective is needed.
Back to the question: Do I think that ST is that bad? The answer is a categorical no.
Yes, I agree that The Straits Times is state-controlled, and many of its stakeholders are linked to the government. Yes, I agree that the quality of writing there pales in comparison to some of the top-notch newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. And yes, I agree that the paper is biased in its coverage of government policies. The Editorial Team is overwhelmingly pro-government, and this is reflected in the op-eds.
However, I must say it is doing its best under existing restrictions. Being the oldest paper in the country, it is difficult to undo years of tradition. It plays the expected role of being nation-building by the PAP's definition, and this is something that will take a lot of inertia to change. You can describe ST as a victim of its circumstances. The real culpit here must be the law of the land: the ISA, the NPPA, as well as a judiciary that has been used to sue dissenting politicians and media for libel.
And the ST does have its own gems as well. The Saturday special is an enlightening read, most of the time. Some of the opinion pieces are well-written. And the ST is quite stringent when it comes to reporting hard news.
Journalists themselves have also gotten an unfair portion of the flak. Being in such a large organisation, the journalist often has to adhere to the demands of the editorship as well as the ST's policies. The piece of writing that ends up on the paper often bares only a small resemblance to what the journalist originally wrote.
This is not to say that journalists are not totally absolved from bad and biased reporting. But I just want to highlight this fact: the journalist is but a small spoke in a very large wheel. And at the heart of everything lies the government.
Furthermore, the ST can be likened to a very large oceanliner, and blogs to small pecking fishes. I'm not trying to look down on bloggers, but to highlight differences between MSM and new media. While criticism is awash all over the internet about ST and its articles, the paper has no ability to react. As a result, there is a gigantic imbalance as far as online sentiments go.
Here's how it works: ST publishes an article, which is viewed as biased by the online community. Blog reactions flood in, criticising the ST for whatever reason. As a large oceanliner, the paper is too slow to respond, to counter the arguments raised by netizens. It tries to steer, but is unable to do so quickly enough against the tide of criticism.
This is something the ST should try to change. Journalists should be more actively engaging the blogging community, not as enemies, but as active citizens working towards better public discourse. The new media should not be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity. ChannelNewsAsia and Mypaper have already done so, launching blogs featuring their own journalists.
It is therefore the imperative of the journalist themselves to decide what to do with it, and also to counter criticism that may arise as a result of the articles they write. While management may be scrambling to make sense of this new beast, journalists by themselves have the independence and savvy to better engage netizens. That is the advantage of being young and nimble.
