I read the article by Bertha Henson and to my surprise, the author mentions that "I’ve had to face the ire of PAP heavyweights who complain about unflattering pictures or supposedly misleading headlines during past polls or the amount of acreage given to the opposition. Yes, the PAP complains too about media bias."
All well and good, but where are the evidence to back up that claim?
LTK went ahead and mentioned the biasedness in front of an audience, so that every Singaporean can listen to his views. He isn't afraid that the MSM will retaliate or respond.
Further, if "PAP heavyweights" are giving negative feedback directly to the MSM but does not cast any such issues in the public light, it seems to imply that:
1) Some "heavyweights" have direct connections to the MSM
2) Some "heavyweights" may have certain control over the MSM
3) When the MSM does show some "unflattering/misleading" articles not in favour of the PAP, or have coverage of the opposition for which some "heavyweights" are uncomfortable with, such "complaints" are not, or seldom, exposed to the public – Why? Is it because the public might actually think that there is no such "unflattering/misleading" article, or that the public disagrees that there is too much coverage of opposition parties, and expose the party's pettiness, desperate need for control over the MSM and "bullying" tactics which LTK was speaking of?
4) Assuming that there are indeed instances when the PAP complains, the MSM does not respond (or has a meek and little-noticed response) to their complaints in the way that chief editor Wu guy so passionately and quickly responds to LTK's comments – Again why the different types of response for similar complaints against the MSM?
In fact, I was even more amused to see that Mr Baey Yam Keng has once again decided to jump into the fray and defend the MSM. At least the comments from Zaobao editor Goh Sin Teck are expected, as the MSM obviously have to issue statements that they are fair and not biased, etc. But the fact that the responses from so many MSM editors and even PAP members are given so much coverage, again speaks for itself. Perhaps some members of parliament have yet to grasp the concept of staying silent on an issue that doesn't directly involve them, rather than speaking up and saying the wrong words, and get "quoted out of context" yet again.
Of course, no MSM in the world would openly admit that it has (or at least certain editors have) a certain biasness toward or against any political party. Like what LTK said, let the readers judge for themselves.
That is why we need alternative news sources, like TOC, bloggers who post pictures and youtubers who post videos. The MSM has been dominated by SPH for too long, and they forget that with the current technology, anyone get get access to alternative news sources, videos and photos. And such alternative news sources not only exposes the biasness or any slanted reporting, it eats away the profit margin and income of the MSM.
Oh, and another interesting point to note. This "MSM saga" and the whole by-election, there is another silent victory for the opposition parties in Singapore. Why? Not just because the WP have won another seat in parliament, but it has put the dominant party and even the MSM on the defensive. One usually goes on the defensive when they realise they have to hold the line, or their territory is in danger of being overrun.
Copyright - The Online Citizen 2019
The Online Citizen -- Singapore’s longest-running independent online media platform.