The recent Tan Lead Shake saga has offered a revealing insight into the state of journalism in Singapore. And no, The Straits Times is not The State's Times, as many bloggers like to say.
Before I proceed, here's a summary of events that has happened over the past week:
The brother of opposition politician Tan Lead Shake, aka Slipper Man, was found dead with multiple stab wounds. The victim was murdered by his wife. The news ran in the June 29 edition of The Sunday Times, explaining details of the murder and background information of Lead Shake's life as an opposition politician.
On the same day, National Solidarity Party member Law Sin Ling posted an angry response on a Yahoo! group, which was subsequently reproduced on Sgpolitics.net and The Online Citizen. In it, he accused The Straits Times of "journalistic madness", mocking the opposition and the dead, and brazenly betraying their "thicket of putrid inner value."
Angrier comments poured in, calling the Tan Lead Shake article a "piece of trash" and an "abominable despicable unconscionable exploitation for political mileage".
Another anonymous comment put it more crudely, with such vulgar eloquence:
"&@#!%$&*% I would not want to translate that, those were words meant for the piece of prostituting shit of a journalist."
In summary: yet another PAP-bashing, Straits Times = PAP conspiracy theory.
I personally think Sin Ling has gone too far in his criticisms. An examination of journalistic 'News Values' will explain perfectly why the article was framed that certain way, with 'Slipper Man' Tan Lead Shake highlighted in the article.
News Values are simply the criteria that editors use to decide what makes news.
Much space was given to the article, not because of some PAP conspiracy to dent the opposition (it's not the GE yet). Rather, the news was simply interesting.
Firstly, it involved a somewhat prominent personality, but not famous enough to make front page or a 6-page spread.
Secondly, the moniker 'Slipper Man' was used not out of disrespect, but because it reveals an interesting aspect of Lead Shake's personality.
Thirdly, the emphasis on Lead Shake's losses in past General Elections was necessary because hardly anyone would know about him prior to his brother's murder.
And lastly, this was no conspiracy for a very simple reason: the PAP is not in cahoots with the Straits Times.
And it is true that Tan Lead Shake is a SDA member, or rather - was. However, I must admit that the article could phrase it better, by naming him as a "former Singapore Democratic Alliance member" instead.
There is not the slightest trace of politicalisation in the article. The PAP boogeyman did not pop by to the newsroom one day and proclaim: "You must cover this! Let's smear the opposition!" The article did not attempt to suggest that Tan Lead Shake was somehow involved in the murder attempt. The facts spoke for itself.
As any Singapore journalism student will tell you, the government pretty much leaves the press alone, unless intervention is needed. The government is too sophisticated for that. Restrictions and OB markers are already in place to manage the media.
The article was just that: a typical murder case - with Tan Lead Shake, an opposition member, unfortunate enough to be related to the victim. In any other country, even those with a free press, any opposition politician with his brother murdered would receive similar treatment by the media.
It seems that the only one politicising the situation is NSP member Law Sin Ling himself.
Before I proceed, here's a summary of events that has happened over the past week:
The brother of opposition politician Tan Lead Shake, aka Slipper Man, was found dead with multiple stab wounds. The victim was murdered by his wife. The news ran in the June 29 edition of The Sunday Times, explaining details of the murder and background information of Lead Shake's life as an opposition politician.
On the same day, National Solidarity Party member Law Sin Ling posted an angry response on a Yahoo! group, which was subsequently reproduced on Sgpolitics.net and The Online Citizen. In it, he accused The Straits Times of "journalistic madness", mocking the opposition and the dead, and brazenly betraying their "thicket of putrid inner value."
Angrier comments poured in, calling the Tan Lead Shake article a "piece of trash" and an "abominable despicable unconscionable exploitation for political mileage".
Another anonymous comment put it more crudely, with such vulgar eloquence:
"&@#!%$&*% I would not want to translate that, those were words meant for the piece of prostituting shit of a journalist."
In summary: yet another PAP-bashing, Straits Times = PAP conspiracy theory.
I personally think Sin Ling has gone too far in his criticisms. An examination of journalistic 'News Values' will explain perfectly why the article was framed that certain way, with 'Slipper Man' Tan Lead Shake highlighted in the article.
News Values are simply the criteria that editors use to decide what makes news.
Much space was given to the article, not because of some PAP conspiracy to dent the opposition (it's not the GE yet). Rather, the news was simply interesting.
Firstly, it involved a somewhat prominent personality, but not famous enough to make front page or a 6-page spread.
Secondly, the moniker 'Slipper Man' was used not out of disrespect, but because it reveals an interesting aspect of Lead Shake's personality.
Thirdly, the emphasis on Lead Shake's losses in past General Elections was necessary because hardly anyone would know about him prior to his brother's murder.
And lastly, this was no conspiracy for a very simple reason: the PAP is not in cahoots with the Straits Times.
And it is true that Tan Lead Shake is a SDA member, or rather - was. However, I must admit that the article could phrase it better, by naming him as a "former Singapore Democratic Alliance member" instead.
There is not the slightest trace of politicalisation in the article. The PAP boogeyman did not pop by to the newsroom one day and proclaim: "You must cover this! Let's smear the opposition!" The article did not attempt to suggest that Tan Lead Shake was somehow involved in the murder attempt. The facts spoke for itself.
As any Singapore journalism student will tell you, the government pretty much leaves the press alone, unless intervention is needed. The government is too sophisticated for that. Restrictions and OB markers are already in place to manage the media.
The article was just that: a typical murder case - with Tan Lead Shake, an opposition member, unfortunate enough to be related to the victim. In any other country, even those with a free press, any opposition politician with his brother murdered would receive similar treatment by the media.
It seems that the only one politicising the situation is NSP member Law Sin Ling himself.
