SPH journalist Geoffrey Pereira got “boomzed” on his blog
From our Correspondent
[Read our latest rebuttal to Mr Geoffrey Pereira's second article on 13 November 2009 here]
Straits Times journalist Geoffrey Pereira’s article – “Attack on Temasek Review – not SPH” has won the distinction of being the “most commented” of all the ST blog articles with 28 comments so far! (The average number of comments on Temasek Review articles is 50, with its “most commented” at more than 200)
Mr Pereira had published the article on 6 November 2009 blaming Temasek Review of being “ignorant” of IT matters and “maligning” SPH of launching his imaginary DDOS attack against our site.
His misleading article was demolished almost immediately by us with an article 3 hours later followed by subsequent write-ups explaining the technical aspects of the controversy.
As soon as the matter was cleared up, Mr Pereira’s blog was bombarded with a deluge of comments from netizens lampooning him and SPH for the utterly deplorable piece!
John questioned the IT knowledge of Mr Pereira:
“reading the writers blog seems to suggest that he got his knowledge of IT from reading WIKI and Google….”
Office Tea lady encapsulated our sentiments exactly:
“TR was talking about you guys grabbing TR contents that were archived since 2008. They were NOT talking about you grabbing content SINCE 2008.
What needs to be archived anyway since 2008? So one can do a search? But you can always do that with google. Not unless you want to have copies for safekeeping.
Now you understand why the TR guys are agitated 
Hahaha. They all say it’s silly. I know. But speakers at the speaker’s corner normally get agitated when the police starts making video records. We’ll be on the loop.”
Freedom house does not mince his words:
“This is one of the most atrocious articles I have ever read about DDOS and DOS violation in any press. There are so many wide sweeping assumptions which are clearly invalid.I can only assume this must have been a rushed piece. In which case one really needs to question the internal controls in SPH to ask as to why this ill written piece was even allowed to see the day of light. Where may I ask was the editorial checks?
Next time if you have no idea what you are talking about. Please dont write about it. A newspaper is supposed to inform, not to mislead.”
James took a dig at Mr Pereira’s spelling mistakes which were corrected subsequently:
“Geoffrey, your designation is stated as “VPN Journalist, Editorial Systems Suport”. It seems like you don’t have enough support as it is missing a “p”?
Perhaps the ground you’re standing on is not so solid after all. “
Neutral criticized Mr Pereira for not getting basic facts right:
“”In fact, from midnight on Nov 1 to about 6 am, (covering a period of the alleged attack) no one from SPH accessed the TR site.”
Please lar, didn’t even bother to get the date of incident correct : [TR] FACT #2: Timing of the incident occurred between 31st October 2200 hours to 1st November 0100 hours. How to believe what you write like that? ”
Steve Wu quizzed Mr Pereira on his understanding of IP spoofing:
“Well, well. The fact that Geoffrey Pereira is not a techie has worked against him; I have little doubt that he is lying.
Let’s set aside the doubts about IP spoofing and the hit rates for the time being. There is other damning evidence.
I understand that TR uses Apache, so the HTTP header called User-Agent for each request is logged by default (check e.g. /var/log/httpd/access_log). If Pereira and his colleagues were just casually browsing TR as he claimed, the User-Agents which were logged would consist of normal browsers like IE, Firefox, etc. There should be no spiders and other creepy crawlies.
It will be easy to confirm if Pereira is lying. In fact, one may even identify the type of spider that SPH uses, being armed with a more complete list of User-Agents found at http://www.user-agents.org .”
Sysadmin sympathizes with Mr Pereira though:
“Pity this guy really, kenna arrow to write on something he has ZERO knowledge about.
But then who to blame? Want to wayang also must do some reading up. Now kenna thrashed by readers from TR left right, up and down.”
Since the publication of Mr Pereira’s article which is a pretty obvious attempt to discredit us completely, we have been inundated with emails of support and encouragement from our readers.
The Temasek Review team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to our readers who have stood stoutly by our side during this difficult period of time.
Our editor has written to SPH CEO Mr Alan Chan to seek clarifications on the matter. We have yet to receive an official reply from him or any SPH staff.
We would consider the matter closed and would not comment further on it unless SPH decides to release any more statements through its VPN journalists from Editorial Systems Suport…oops, we mean Support.
Related articles:
>> Open letter to SPH CEO Alan Chan
>> Debunking Mr Geoffrey’s claims in his misleading article: “Attack on Temasek Review: not SPH
>> Attack on Temasek Review: not SPH
>> SPH IP caught grabbing “content” from Temasek Review
>> Debunking Mr Geoffrey’s claims on “IP spoofing”
Loading ...
Ambros Francis on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 9:24 am
Soon Mr. Geoffrey Pereira will have a new makeover appearing cleanly shaved.
Suk hoi on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 9:31 am
My view is that TR certainly looks more ethical and more professional than SPH.
aceman on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:29 am
Just sue SPH for lying and make them pay and pay!
English Writer on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:42 am
Yes, I too find it amusing that ST Geoffrey Pereira has made a spelling mistake when it is incumbent upon a so-called journalist to write well and proof read his articles to eliminate spelling errors and other typos.
I also find it amusing that TR has taken a dig at Mr Pereira over his spelling mistake.
As pointed out by me and a few others, TR still continues to have spelling mistakes and grammar errors in its articles.
Perhaps TR shouldn’t indulge in schadenfraude so fast without first improving its editors’ and writers’ English proficiency.
LPPL?? on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:59 am
English Writer on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:42 am
And your English proficiency? stop farting in a well.
Sinkapore on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 11:43 am
English Writer said: I also find it amusing that TR has taken a dig at Mr Pereira over his spelling mistake.
You may have a technical good grasp of english but your understanding of english is strangely lacking.
TR DID NOT ‘taken a dig at Mr Pereira’ as you claimed, it was another reader named James.
Also, I am still looking forward to you writing an article for TR with PERFECT ENGLISH, I am sure a lot of readers are looking forward to it: )
So, when?
Time for Change on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 12:07 pm
English Writer on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:42 am
Your presence here is very annoying. Wish you would contribute a comment on the article instead of correcting the grammar. You must be a very lonely person with your irritating manner.
Legal Eagle on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 1:18 pm
And maybe you should learn to use big words correctly before trying to use them on others.
It is spelt and capitalised as Schadenfreude.
So amusing.
Quote by English Writer on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:42 am
Perhaps TR shouldn’t indulge in schadenfraude so fast without first improving its editors’ and writers’ English proficiency.
Surprised! on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 3:39 pm
A obvious fact is now an open truth, this sure does well for TR in terms of publicity.
Thank you for keeping the only official media [which in effect, affects other media more] on its toes.
Time for Change on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 7:15 pm
Anyone who can work for so long at the Shitty Times must be a loser. Obviously lacks ambition.
English Writer on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 8:28 pm
@Legal Eagle,
Hi, my bad, unlike TR editors, I feel embarrassed about my spelling mistake and I admit mis-spelling schadenfreude.
But you got it wrong too by saying it should be capitalised in my sentence context.
In German, Schadenfreude is capitalized, as are all nouns; when used as a loanword in English, however, it is not, unless the origin of the word is meant to be emphasized. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude)
@Sinkapore,
“… … through its VPN journalists from Editorial Systems Suport…oops, we mean Support.”
If the above conclusion written by TR’s editors doesn’t mean taking a dig at Mr Pereira’s spelling inability, then I don’t know what “taking a dig” means.
Perhaps you’d like to enlighten us since you obviously use a different dictionary from us.
Sinkapore on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 4:08 am
@English Writer,
1. I am still looking eagerly forward to ANY article written by you in PERFECT ENGLISH.
2. If quoting what someone said is considered DIG, then I have nothing to say.
Anonymous Coward; Cult of the common sense on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 9:30 am
@Sinkapore
Quite obviously, you do not understand the meaning of taking a dig at someone as English Writer has pointed out. No where can I find a reference that the following line, “… … through its VPN journalists from Editorial Systems Suport…oops, we mean Support.” is part of Mr Pereira’s original article and if isn’t, how can it be taken in the context of a quote?
On another note, can someone please enlighten me on what exactly is a VPN journalist? One that doesn’t sit in a newsroom but works remotely from home via a VPN connection?
Anonymous Coward.
On Hindsight on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 10:10 am
Not VPN Journalist lah…it is VP ‘n’ Journalist.
reader on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 3:13 pm
Any PROFESSIONAL news site that wish to be taken credibly needs to try and eliminate their spelling and grammar errors.
Even in an ‘A’ Levels GP essay, you can have the best points and the cleanest logic, but if you have many language errors, you are not going to leave a good impression and you are not going to get a high score.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, insisting that critics of TR write perfect articles is like PAP insisting that their critics come forward and run for election.
Why can’t people just admit that yes, there is room for improvement, and then seek to work on it? I really can’t understand.
Sinkapore on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 10:41 pm
@Anonymous Coward, someone DID post that remark on the ST’s site but maybe it has been deleted?
indexer on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 11:53 pm
No, wait, Geoffrey Pereira got “boomzed”? “Boomz” is supposed to be good, right? Shouldn’t it be “shingz”?
Forgive my poor sense of humour.
deoxin on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 12:03 am
@Sinkapore
i think u dont get what the two AngMoh experts trying to say.
the “…Suport…oops, we mean Support.” was in the last sentence ..ending of the article. the sentence is original piece, i.e. written by TR. it is not a quote.
u’ll get it if u check the last part of the article again.
scroll up, please. go on…
Anonymous Coward; Cult of the common sense on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 12:11 am
@Sinkapore
Apologies about that mate. I didn’t realize that someone has removed the post.
English Writer on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 1:06 am
@ reader,
Exactly, we share the same sentiment of hoping TR will improve.
If TR wants to be taken seriously as a news medium, then TR editors and writers must treat the craft of writing seriously.
More importantly, they should respect their readers by proof reading, spell checking etc, doing whatever it takes to ensure a well-written article.
Granted, now and then typos do appear due to human error but at least it shouldn’t be so widespread that readers are forced to conclude that they are being taken for a ride by “non-professional” news people.
magnum on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 2:55 am
i did post on ST’s site abt the VPN thing. it was originally VPN journalist then ppl started to comment on what a VPN journalist is. then suddenly it became VP AND journalist. i pointed that out and my comment got deleted. for all those saying TR is running on poor english should take a look at these type of errors coming from ST. its a state owned site with govt resources and this happens. shame.