Veteran journalist Bertha Henson, addressing to journalists in the Singapore media industry, wrote: 

“Now it looks like you’ve lost the fight and are completely resigned to playing the role of publicist. Not only that, you seem to have forgotten basic journalistic principles and I mean stuff like grammar and housestyle and getting the 5Ws1H. You’ve descended to repeating press releases which are themselves badly written.”

Ms Henson, a former editor for The Straits Times (ST) and The New Paper (TNP) in a scathing Facebook post, was voicing her concerns over the deterioration of journalistic standards in Singapore and the ability for local journalists to “clearly and concisely” write a story with a strong angle.”

She asked if the local journalists realise what was happening to them, and being sidelined by the biggest newsmaker in Singapore and the government who is “supporting your operation with State funds”.

Politicians Are Not On The Side Of Media

SPH Media Trust (SMT), a not-for-profit entity was spun off from newspaper publisher and mainboard-listed company Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) on 1 Dec last year. It was then announced in February this year that SMT will get funding from the Singapore government of up to $180 million annually over the next five years which is S$900 million in total.

The announcement that SMT — which hosts the main bulk of Singapore’s publication such as ST, TNP, Lianhe Zaobao (Chinese broadsheet) and others with 2,500 employees — would be funded by the government, sparked concerns from Members of Parliament (MP) over how the public would perceive the neutrality of the press.

In answering the question filed by a People’s Action Party (PAP) MP on how the Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) will ensure editorial independence continues to be upheld in the newsrooms. Minister for MCI, Ms Josephine Teo said that SMT has exercised editorial independence since its establishment in 1984 as Singapore Press Holdings. Adding that funding support does not change that, as is the case with Mediacorp since 2011.

In a clear and outright criticism by Ms Henson on the Singapore’s 4th Generation (4G) political leaders in regards to their approach with media, she wrote:

“The 4G  isn’t on your side. They want only their messages heard loud and (un)clear. I bet that they see the media as a hindrance if it goes about doing the job they are supposed to do. Now I think they see the media as a wonderful mechanism to convey any message or narrative that they see fit. That’s why they hold closed door dialogues etc and continue to trot out that old chestnut about how having reporters will stop people from being frank – as though it’s something to be encouraged. And they think they are doing everyone a favour by giving a briefing on what happened later. Or they summarise the “findings’’ in a report or they tell you how many pieces of “feedbacks’’ they have. And you duly repeat that there has been extensive public consultation and intensive reviews. You have no part to play in building a community of civic minded citizens unafraid to speak up. In fact, you have to be an MP to get questions answered.”

While journalists never had much a say in media to government relationships but their predecessors in the local media had tried to have a say. She pointed out that they were lucky as politicians at that time knew the value of a credible media and that they knew that they had to get out there to answer questions. Ms Henson had been in the industry since 1986 after she graduated from university and left SPH in 2012, where she subsequently founded the defunct Middle Ground in 2015.

Ms Henson contrasted the difference between how the politicians back in her days were quick to hold press conferences as opposed to briefings while the politicians nowadays ignore journalists entirely in hope that “no answers mean no story”.

She claimed that current politicians would tell the journalists to look at their Facebook and journalists would “do so dutifully because you’re afraid to miss any pearls of wisdom.”

“They go on TikTok and have their own mock interviews on YouTube done by their ministry minions. They hold “doorstop’’ interviews so as to look casual but we all know it’s only because they have something to say – not because you have something to ask.”

Erosion Of Trust In Media

On the point of building trust, Ms Henson wrote that most people do hope that the media plays the role of asking questions that they themselves might have.

“The more “cut-and-paste’’ there is, the faster the erosion of the credibility of the media. And when the media can’t even spell right or is sloppy about the details, then they aren’t even good enough to be a teaching tool for language.”

“For Singapore, the plethora of laws and the demise of some alternative media only serve to make sure that one voice remains as the purveyor of truth and collective opinion. A voice that isn’t “moderated” by anyone. Increasingly, journalists don’t think it’s their place to ask certain questions or to bother officials, in case they are being tagged as “unfriendly’’. And there are no other types of journalists to irritate the G into responding. (They moved abroad or lost heart)”

Ms Henson wrote that she thought any deterioration of professional standards could be reversed at least slightly since the public trust is not so closely tied to the fortunes of the parent company and its board.

“But the opacity of your operations and governance process only serves to confirm that it is business-as-usual…and thanks for the money.”

Ms Henson in conclusion, said that she can’t blame journalists if they lost heart in the news-gathering process as well as the freedom to decide how to put the news across, quiet quit or just quit, however she still beseeched for journalists to hold the line, and put professional principles into practice.

“You do NOT always have to do what the G says. You should tell readers about the obstacles you face in getting information. You should list the questions you want answered. You should behave like a public trust, not a public agency. And that is actually IN the G’s interest too.”

Ms Henson lamented in the comment section of her post, saying: Frankly, the fault is ours. We don’t care if the media deteriorates coz we so proudly proclaim we don’t read it. And sometimes we don’t even know why except that it’s fashionable to be anti-media.”

“But it’s important for us to know that the media reports local news well (because other media agencies wouldn’t care). Or it will lead to a dumbing down of our country, an incurious and complacent population which clings on to the idea of “trust” without needing to exert our brains.”

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

ST's Factual Inaccuracies and Innuendos : Tan Jee Say's Response

By Tan Jee Say – After nearly 2 weeks of to-ing and…

MARUAH: Replace CDCs with elected non-partisan councils

Local human rights non-government organisation (NGO) MARUAH, in its 4th position paper of…

Motorcyclist collides with taxi at the discretionary right turn junction; MPs urged to expedite the removal of discretionary right turns at all junctions

A motorcyclist collided with a taxi who made a discretionary right turn…

职总企业将收购咖啡店集团

职总创优企业合作社(NTUC Enterprise),将收购本地咖啡店和小贩中心运营商Kopitiam集团。 职总创优企业发文告指出,交易预计今年底完成,惟仍待监管部门批准。职总企业认为,他们与咖啡店集团拥有共同经营理念,即提供可负担且实惠的美食。 执行董事纪德坤声称,职总企业将善用综合优势,提升并打造国内有活力和弹性的日用品行业,最终咪表乃是为客户提供更好体验、为员工和其他相关利益者创造机会。 职总企业强调,收购策略符合职总企业的社会使命,为新加坡社群的利益服务。收购也进一步完善和提升现有熟食业提供经济实惠美食目的。 职总企业旗下八大社会企业,在保健和乐龄护理、孩童护理、日用品、熟食和金融领域,为民众提供可负担和有质量的产品和服务。 “特别是在熟食业,我们透过职总富食客提供可负担、有素质和健康的用餐选项。为调控价格,职总富食客旗下小贩中心和咖啡店,每个摊位独有提供2元至2.80元的经济套餐。” 此外,还有针对低收入消费者的“禾园”社会关怀计划,为消费者提供1.50元起的实惠健康套餐。 1988年创办的Kopitiam,如今拥有56家食阁、21间咖啡店、三个小贩中心和两个中央厨房。集团旗下有上千名员工,管理1000多个熟食摊位。 职总富食客(NTUC Foodfare)旗下则有33家食阁和咖啡店,包括14家食阁、10间咖啡店和九个小贩中心。 收购完成后,富食客和Kopitiam将继续独立营运,现有管理团队和员工不会更动。客户、摊位租户和其他相关业者可以照常运作。