Be very afraid. The ST Forum Editor is here

Muhammad Hydar/

The Straits Times (ST) has been regularly accused of recontextualising letters in its forum section. People in the realms of alternative opinion have shown as to how letters of a critical yet constructive nature (particularly at the establishment) have been edited to a point where the intended meaning is either blunted or removed.

Critics of ST and the PAP would have scoffed at Mr Samuel Wee’s letter published in ST.

The letter tells of Mr Wee’s emphatic approval of Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Han’s comments on Singapore’s education system.

However, Mr Wee’s original letter has now been circulating around the web.

A quick read would reveal the most obvious of ST’s biased editing and fabrication.

The original article had Mr Wee describing the misleading presentation of statistics made by the ST report on social mobility.

Here are some excerpts:

Original Letter – It is indeed heartwarming to learn that only 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats do not make it to university.

ST-edited Letter – It is indeed heartwarming to learn that almost 50 per cent of children from one- to three-room flats make it to university and polytechnics.

————-

Original Letter – His statement is backed up with the statistic that 50% of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic ladder score in the bottom third of the Primary School Leaving Examination.

ST-edited Letter – His statement is backed by the statistic that about 50 per cent of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic bracket score within the top two-thirds of their Primary School Leaving Examination cohort.

————

There’s even a paragraph that didn’t exist in the original letter.

Original Letter – Therefore, it was greatly reassuring to read about Dr Ng’s great faith in our “unique, meritocratic Singapore system”, which ensures that good, able students from the middle-and-high income groups are not circumscribed or restricted in any way in the name of helping financially disadvantaged students.

ST-edited Letter – Therefore, it was reassuring to read about Dr Ng’s own experience of the ‘unique, meritocratic Singapore system’: he grew up in a three-room flat with five other siblings, and his medical studies at the National University of Singapore were heavily subsidised; later, he trained as a cancer surgeon in the United States using a government scholarship.

——————-

The original letter is satirical. Obviously, it is atypical in terms of ST’s writing style. This begs the question as to why the letter  was published on paper and screen and with such a extreme make-over.

Knowing ST’s tendency to ‘change’ letters, the original letter should have been written in a unambiguous and clear manner. This would leave little room for the forum editors to wriggle out and ‘interpret’ the letter to the establishment’s liking.

Nevertheless, it still doesn’t excuse the hack job the letter received.

Any counter-argument of ST’s forum editors not understanding the satirical nature of the letter is ludicrous seeing that, as editors of the country’s award-winning and highest-selling newspaper, they should clearly recognize and understand satire.

With such prestigious industrial standing, the editors should know not to drastically edit, fabricate and completely change the meaning of the letter.

If the letter is too satirical for ST or that the editors are doubtful (highly improbable), then it shouldn’t be published. It’s simple as that.

The late author and New York Times columnist, William Safire, defined spin as “deliberate shading of news perception; attempted control of political reaction.”

Is ST’s editing of Mr Wee’s letter an example of journalistic spin?

Well yes, a close one. It’s no secret that our education system favours students of a upper socio-economic status. Often, we are thrown statistics to demonstrate otherwise. Mr Wee’s original letter challenged ST’s framing of such statistics.

Is ST’s editing of Mr Wee’s letter an example of  bad journalism?

Yes, in every sense of the word. In this case, any journalism student would know that it’s a fundamental no-no to alter the entire meaning of a reader’s letter.

This raises more questions. How many of ST’s forum letters have received such manufactured make-overs? Why was Mr Wee’s edited letter published when it is significantly different from the original?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “If you read something in the Straits Times or on CNA, you must know that it’s real”.

Well sir, I have read Mr Wee’s letter in ST and I know for a fact that it is not real nor is it the truth.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Singapore sovereign wealth funds – Part 2: Anathema to a free market

By Benedict Chong “The government solution to a problem is usually as…

“英、澳、新西兰、香港等已停课” 林鼎质疑教育部决策

今日,本地媒体报导,人民行动党社区基金会(PCF)旗下凤山126座的Sparkletots幼儿园,一名老师确诊患上武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19),该中心关闭一天消毒。 对于再有教职员确诊,人民之声党领袖林鼎律师表达忧虑,指出其他国家如英国、澳洲、新西兰、香港和越南等国家,都已下令停课。 “王乙康(教育部长)可以给各种理由让照常开课合理化,但任何理智的人都会知道,疫情当前不停课,实则让莘莘学子曝露在风险下。” 除了林鼎,也有民众发起网络请愿,呼吁教育部长暂时停课,迄今已有8千166人联署。也有不少网民在《海峡时报》留言,质疑当前教育部坚持开课的做法。 上月至今涉及师生的确诊病例 上月7日,一名42岁在维多利亚初级学院工作的女子确诊(第32例);之后再有两名学前班的兄妹,因为曾与一名确诊亲戚接触,被命令必须在家隔离,就连幼园也必须进行消毒工作。 上月21日,24岁的新加坡理工大学(SIT)学生(第86起病例)确诊。他也是理工大学首位感染的学生。 上月27日,卫生部证实一名就读莱佛士书院12岁学生确诊。 本月4日,国际商业园的新意元幼源( Creative O Preschoolers’ Bay)出现确诊病例,该幼园也必须关闭两天消毒。…

Rat found in House Brand basmati rice packet

Facebook user Vegnesh Jodimani shared a shocking discovery on Saturday, 2 March…

穆斯林员工被要求撤下头巾? 诗家董接受劳资政联盟调查

有穆斯林员工在工作期间带头巾,竟被要求拿下,涉嫌歧视引发争议,致使劳资政公平与良好雇佣联盟(TAFEP)介入调查。 事缘于上月29日,诗家董百货公司(TANGS)的摊位商家anastasiabyraine,在社交媒体Instagram上申诉,自己的马来员工努林(译音,Nurin Jazlina Mahbob)在首天上班时,两名自称是诗家董的经理,要求她拿下头巾才能继续在摊位工作。 经过“商量”后,员工虽然被允许在其余时间能够戴上头巾工作,但由于在对话时,引起其他顾客的注意,商家却收到了来自诗家董的信息,指她必须立即撤掉她的摊位。这与最初的协议不同,原本可以摆摊至8月13日。 对此,诗家董百货公司发言人于昨日(18日)向《今日报》解释,旗下员工并未曾要求任何人将头巾取下,而当日之所以会发生争执,是因为员工欲提醒商家要遵守有关规则,但竟收到负面回馈。 “我们并无意造成伤害,因此在重申指引时也并未有恶意”,诗家董也表示,目前也正积极与商家联系,澄清当初的意图。 针对要求马来员工拿下头巾一事,诗家董表示企业的宗旨一直是多元化,欲与不同种族合作,与商家秉持相同原则,因此不会要求马来员工拿下头巾,这显然是不敬的行为。 《今日报》报道,摊位商家则指责,诗家董的相关人员,以极为苛刻的语气与努林说话,“我询问他们要求拿下头巾背后的理由,他们仅说是专业。为什么带头巾就不能表现专业,真的很荒谬,有必要为此发声。” 商家也怒斥诗家董不让他公开此事,只是不停重复不能带头巾,因为违反他们的准则。 种种不合理的行为让商家决定在网络上公布此事。她认为他必须为她的员工挺身而出,告发这些“离谱”的行为。 商家也出面回应,她从未有过任何收到所谓的指示规劝,她只有在7月27日首日运营时,被告知要全黑服装的规定而已。…