By Andrew Loh
Irony, like karma, sometimes is instant.
The Singapore Government has taken issue with an editorial in the New York Times (NYT) published in December last year about the riot in Little India: that the article “offered scant evidence for its suggestion that the riot arose from workers’ building frustration”; and that the NYT refused to publish the Government’s response to the editorial.
Singapore’s Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) disclosed these in a statement to the media on 14 January.
Ironically, it comes a day after the Government’s own mouthpiece, the broadsheet Straits Times, provided an attempt at explaining its report of a false story by its senior writer, Ching Cheong, about how the uncle of North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, was “eaten up” by “120 hounds” which had “been starved for three days”.
The story was picked up by the international media and went viral worldwide in the week of 6 January, with many questioning the authenticity and truth of the story. [See here: “120 dogs and the Straits Times”.]
On 13 January, the Straits Times came up with what was a convoluted, 1,200-word long article titled, “Fact, opinion and media’s fifty shades of truth”.
In the longwinded piece, the Straits Times’ “Readers Editor”, Yap Koon Hong, stoutly – or at least he tried to be, apparently – defended Ching’s “120 hounds” story.
Besides the very conspicuous absence of an apology for what was clearly a case of poor editorial oversight, and a lack of verification of facts, Mr Yap goes on what could only be described as twisted logic in his explanation.
In particular, his remark about what ‘truth’ is and how this is ascertained, or not, is telling.
“[The] truth in media is as much a function of opinion as it is of fact,” Mr Yap declares. “Readers often think that newspapers must publish only the ultimate Tao – unimpeachably verified facts – and if they do not, editors and journalists are being tardy and unprofessional. In fact (and this is technically an opinion, see what I mean?), truth is often as nuanced as the currently proverbial fifty shades of grey.”
He goes on: “Also, facts may not necessarily be accepted as the whole truth and nothing but, even if they are certifiable.”
And ending his piece, Mr Yap says:
“It is true that a newspaper’s duty and credibility depend on getting the facts right. It is equally true that the inability to verify the accuracy of a story may still require a newspaper to run it because of the tale’s portent. For better or for worse, this is the Tao of media practice, which is the daily grapple in deciding how to offer readers an informed, best guess about what happened and why, when there is no factual way of knowing.”
And the punchline:
“That was what Mr Ching did and ST published, as most reliable newspapers would.”
Well, not so fast.
It is well known that the Straits Times’ claim as a responsible or reliable newspaper has taken quite a hit in recent times, with more Singaporeans abandoning it and raising questions about its standards and professionalism.
Indeed, Singapore Press Holdings, the umbrella company which houses the Straits Times, in its latest corporate report, says its newspapers and magazines circulation continued to decline.
In the past few months, especially, reports in the Straits Times were heavily criticised by the public for either engaging in speculation, or for putting out wrong information.
For example, the Straits Times falsely reported that the man killed in Little India on 8 December which sparked the riot was a Bangladeshi. In fact, he was an Indian.
The false report was criticised by the Bangladeshi High Commission here in Singapore. The Straits Times did not apologise for this.
The MCI, too, kept mum.
In fact, there were several mis-reports, falsehoods and speculations in the local mainstream media about the riot.
But the MCI, strangely, kept entirely silent and seemed disinterested and nonchalant about them. Not a word about all of these from the ministry.
It is even stranger if you consider that it was the MCI minister, Yaacob Ibrahim, who had gone all the way to Parliament in June last year to criticise a member of the public for a posting about the availability of face masks during the haze which had descended on Singapore then.
And now, the same MCI issues a “strongly-worded” statement against the NYT.
But given how the Government mouthpiece, the Straits Times, has explained how “truth” is quite illusory at times, should not the Government then give others, whether local or foreign, the benefit of the doubt, as Mr Yap seems to be also asking for?
For remember, Mr Yap said, “[Facts] may not necessarily be accepted as the whole truth and nothing but, even if they are certifiable.”
But the real truth of the entirely sorry saga about the “120 hounds” is this, so aptly put by this blogger:
“Rather than candidly admitting its mistake and apologising for its lapses, Readers’ Editor Yap Koon Hong instead penned a rather half-hearted admission coupled with yet another fantastical spin about how ‘truth is often as nuanced as the currently proverbial fifty shades of grey’…”
And:
“[The] Straits Times is guilty here of a terrible doublethink. On one hand, Yap emphasises the importance of factual verification when he slams the dismissal by critics of such a version of events as “premised on assumption, not factual verification” and affirms that “a newspaper’s duty and credibility depend on getting the facts right”. Yet on the other hand, he contradicts himself by spinning a strange concoction about how “truth in media is as much a function of opinion as it is of fact” and how “truth is often as nuanced as the currently proverbial fifty shades of grey”.
“What gives? So much for ‘[making] every effort to report responsibly’ and ‘[telling] it like it is’!”
It is a sad thing to see how the Government has adopted double-standards in the way it treats those media – whether foreign or online – which it doesn’t control, and that which is under its thumb.
It doesn’t speak well of either the Government, and Mr Yaacob in particular, and the Government’s mouthpieces.
As long as it continues to be biased and lack professionalism, preferring to attempt to distract and obfuscate even when the facts are clear as day – the Straits Times screwed up with its story, pure and simple – its credibility will continue to take a dive down south.
But this writer, for one, will not be shedding tears over a newspaper which is not even able to see that it was wrong, or able to admit such.
Perhaps the New York Times could use Mr Yap’s own explanation in its response to the Singapore Government. But, of course, such an elaborate explanation will not be accepted by the authorities here. It would probably be dismissed as hogwash – which it is, actually.
And this too is ironic.
“Readers often think that newspapers must publish only the ultimate Tao – unimpeachably verified facts – and if they do not, editors and journalists are being tardy and unprofessional. In fact, truth is often as nuanced as the currently proverbial fifty shades of grey.”
“In practice, getting the facts to tell the truth can be next to impossible anywhere. It virtually is in a closeted state like North Korea. Also, facts may not necessarily be accepted as the whole truth and nothing but, even if they are certifiable. The reason is that a publication not only reports what happens, it also publishes what it – or any number of people – thinks happened. The truth can be opaque in nations with an open media as well.”
“It is true that a newspaper’s duty and credibility depend on getting the facts right. It is equally true that the inability to verify the accuracy of a story may still require a newspaper to run it because of the tale’s portent. For better or for worse, this is the Tao of media practice, which is the daily grapple in deciding how to offer readers an informed, best guess about what happened and why, when there is no factual way of knowing. That was what Mr Ching did and ST published, as most reliable newspapers would.”
- Straits Times’ “Readers Editor” Yap Koon Hong defending the paper’s screw-up in its wrong report about the uncle of Kim Jong Un being “eaten up” by “120 hounds” which had been “starved for three days”.
