Change required from others first for change expected from Temasek Review
February 16th, 2010 | 
Author: By Hurr Riyahi
In the last year, Temasek Review has evolved and grown to be an important source of information, news and opinion about Singapore. It has been quoted in international media as a news and opinion source hereby recognising its legitimacy. Mainstream media opinions and information of citizens’ opinions have become questionable at times due to its lack of independence given its self-declared pro-government approach.
Reporters from mainstream media and even PAP MPs in Singapore have replied directly to Temasek Review, something totally or almost unprecedented. That again is due to the fact many Singaporeans, foreigners and external journalists are visiting this site more than the online sites of other local mainstream news channels.
Given these trends and the kind of power and influence Temasek Review yields on and off the internet, there are growing calls from numerous quarters for changes in Temasek Review so that the site meets their expectations. Temasek Review being a champion of change ought to heed the calls for change directed at it. However for each of the area in which Temasek Review falls short of their expectations, there is a bigger reason due to others explaining the shortcomings. Hence for change to occur in Temasek Review, change is first required from others.
Temasek Review needs newspaper and TV news channel license
One of the key criticisms levelled on Temasek Review is that its pieces need to reach highest standards of journalism. I find this humourous when it comes from Singaporeans because many people in and outside Singapore find mainstream media in Singapore to be lacking of any basic standards of journalism. The reason why Temasek Review lacks the such high standards is because it is online citizen journalism which is run by citizens. In online citizen journalism the standards are very unclear and do not match conventional journalism. Nevertheless it will be a positive change for Temasek Review if it can attain such high standards as conventional journalism because it will also mean it will be better than local mainstream media.
However the structure of Temasek Review has been rather loose from day one. Just like many other online websites providing news, it invites all citizens to write. It also does not have full time editors. There is no formal processes. There isnt any Temasek Review core team even. There is no vetting or editing even to the articles.Those who do contribute to this site do not even know each other. They do not control each other’s actions either. They do not take responsibility for one another’s actions or decisions. There is no stakes for anyone. Even an article like this that includes criticisms about Temasek Review is allowed as it is not going to damage the site’s or anyone. But as mentioned again this is online citizen journalism. This is how things work on such a site. Its perfectly alright for such a site as it does not violate any nature of such sites.
Another key criticism levelled on Temasek Review is the kind of personal attacks made by netizens posting comments targeting the writers, the site itself, other individuals, the government etc. This is true for almost every article in Temasek Review. In fact for each postings one can see two or more sides being taken from which such personal attacks are hurled. Then again certain segment of Singaporeans, no matter what political affiliation they may have, have a tendency to use personal attacks. Unfortunately it is quite the culture in certain sectors of Singaporeans.
As mentioned earlier Temasek Review does not have a formal organisational framework or operations team. Basically one or two guys just log on and approve comments at rapid rate unless if its too unacceptable. For a more moderated discussion, Temasek Review needs full time dedicated personnel to manage this website. If Temasek Review is expected to show standards of conventional journalism, then it requires the freedom and resources needed to be a conventional media. Given Singaporeans are not going to pay for an online website, it is impossible to hire such full time personnel. The only alternative is Temasek Review be given a newspaper and news channel tv license and allow it provide news, opinions and information in the manner some quarters expect. Should anyone think closing down Temasek Review will resolve the problem, they are wrong. Especially since there are nobody who is owning it. Most importantly there are far too many netizens who will simply create a Temasek Review clone the very next day. One can expect many such sites springing up instead of just one.
In any other country a site such as Temasek Review will not have achieved as much importance as it has achieved in Singapore. That is purely because of the repression of media, news, information and opinions. Things also have deteriorated to the extent where foreign media sometimes are relying on Temasek Review and other online citizen journalist websites to find out what is happening in Singapore. Nobody other than the government and its controlled state media created a need for Temasek Review and other citizen journalism.
What is interesting is not the some quarters in Singapore are worried about Temasek Review but they are worried about online citizen journalism. They think they can counter it by themselves going online. It didnt work. They also imagine that if they can exert pressure using rules and regulations for conventional journalism, they can exert some control. Welcome to the new world era. The realities in the internet are not that simple. Their only last bet is to integrate Temasek Review with conventional journalism by allowing online citizen journalistic sites to have newspaper and news tv channel licenses.
In that way only can you demand and expect conventional journalistic standards. That is also the only way you can expect to promote more moderated discussions. In fact this can be a really positive step forward allowing the various quarters to engage themselves more actively and directly on a common platform.
Mainstream journalists must stop their anonymity
The other change expected of Temasek Review by local mainstream media is for its contributors to stop being anonymous. That is so hypocritical because there are intelligence agents in local mainstream media who are anonymously writing under the designations as journalists. Some of them are even open secrets. The only other countries where citizens write anonymously on websites are in countries where there is severe repression, oppression, autocracy and dictatorship. Until a day comes when there is media freedom and intelligence agents stop writing under the disguise of journalists in mainstream media, there will always be websites where people express opinions anonymously.
Set standards for all journalists in Singapore
Another set of criticisms put out at Temasek Review includes that the site is sensationalizing news, being anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist etc. Which Singapore media outlet including local mainstream media has not been accused of such things? It is not that media sensationalizes news but the way media emphasizes or prioritize or report news. Society itself has to set standards for all journalists not just for Temasek Review. Instead society becomes selective in its criticisms and that is unhelpful. Each group tends to launch at whichever news outlet that it is unhappy with and when another group is aggrieved in the same manner by another news outlet, the former group sit silent. Society also needs to access what is the role of media in Singapore society. Till now its something solely decided by politicians. Some argue media is the voice of conscience of society but how can it be in Singapore if for instance main stream media calls itself to be
pro-government. In issues of religion and race, Singapore for the last 50 years have regarded them as taboo topics even though they are key issues of our multi-racial and multi-religious society. The failure to establish platforms and standards on how they should be discussed has made journalists in Singapore being incompetent in covering them adequately and appropriately. Singaporeans and not politicians should be heard on how the society wants to deal with this.
Way forward for journalism in Singapore
Even though Temasek Review has long term vision and is working hard, it has already accomplished itself for what it set itself out for – premiere online citizen journalism site. Tomorrow whether Temasek Review grows bigger or shuts down is immaterial. It has set a certain standard and inspired necessary number of minds that online citizen journalism will carry on with or without it. Journalism has been one area in Singapore which primarily for half a century has been about conquer, control and power. Such hegemonistic approach has failed today with internet. It is time politicians, Lee Kuan Yew and mainstream media shed this attitude and work towards a free and open media environment. For fifty years they imagined that their continuity relied on a tightly controlled media environment. Today, its clear their continuity relies on an open media environment.
Posted in 40 Responses to “Change required from others first for change expected from Temasek Review”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Foyce Le Xuan George Yeo GIC highnote5 highnotes5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo press conference Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism Malaysia MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League Sex silviu ionescu Singapore Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Wendy Chong
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
How to change journalistic standards when you yourself often say you sensationalize news to get more readers. So when others do that to attack you, you really have no moral authority to counter.
Hi,
Most of the time, the Temasek Review is certainly a good read and a refreshing dose of well-thought-out pieces. Please accept my appreciation for all the good writing.
In this article, I thought I detected some frustration and defensiveness from the author, and if that is true, I’m wondering why.
As was mentioned specifically, TR is an online citizen news and opinion outlet with little/no editing or moderation.
—–
There are a few points on which I hope the author could enlighten me:
> Temasek Review needs newspaper and tv news channel license
Why? One nice thing about an Internet website is its ability to reach out to its audience regardless of (most) geographical, legal, social constructs.
> One of the key criticisms levelled on Temasek Review is that its pieces need to reach highest standards of journalism. I find this humourous when it comes from Singaporeans because many people in and outside Singapore find mainstream media in Singapore to be lacking of any basic standards of journalism.
I find this comment strangely defeatist, cynical and unbecoming of what I’d imagined TR’s principles to be.
Have a look at sites like Wikipedia, perhaps? Even though anyone is allowed to contribute, the standard of writing is pretty decent. The key lies in effective, responsible moderation.
The Temasek Review does not need a full-time team of paid editors or journalists as long as members of the public step up and volunteer to do it. If the Temasek Review team does not hold itself to “higher standards of journalism,” it would be doing itself and its intended audience a disservice. Just because most local media do not hold themselves up to “basic standards of journalism,” it should not mean that the TR should not care either.
If there are no formal processes, ask for suggestions, perhaps. Saying things like “this is how things work” doesn’t really help, IMHO. It’s like saying, “Oh the ruling party has governed for a long time, this is how things work.”
No one is leveling criticism at the TR for not being perfect. I just get the feeling that the author seems negatively motivated by the suggestions he/she received.
> Unfortunately it(launching personal attacks) is quite the culture in certain sectors of Singaporeans.
> For a more moderated discussion, Temasek Review needs full time dedicated personnel to manage this website.
So let’s cultivate an atmosphere of positive comments through well-publicized rules and moderation. The TR already has a moderation system. How about letting readers report offensive (under a set of TR house rules) comments as well?
Please do not (in Dubya’s words) “misunderestimate” the power of true online citizenship journalism.
> If Temasek Review is expected to show standards of conventional journalism, then it requires the freedom and resources needed to be a conventional media.
How much more free should the Internet be?
How many resources in the form of enthusiastic, qualified volunteers does TR need?
Donations work well for Internet hosting.
A more proactive system of contribution and moderation will do the trick. This I say with confidence because there are so many examples of free, online, sustainable Internet sites where readers flock to.
Rather than expanding other columns and spreading yourselves too thin, may I suggest that you focus on a few sections which are most true to the Temasek Review’s principles.
> Most importantly there are far too many netizens who will simply create a Temasek Review clone the very next day. One can expect many such sites springing up instead of just one.
There–you’ve said it yourself. There are too many people who want to see the TR prosper and take off, so invite them to be a part of it.
> In any other country a site such as Temasek Review will not have achieved as much importance as it has achieved in Singapore. That is purely because of the repression of media, news, information and opinions.
Hmmm… not to belittle the Temasek Review, but I suspect you will find that even in the US, there are websites set up by people to discuss issues of all sorts, and these sites are regarded by devoted readers almost as gospel. TR is serving a great function by trying to provide us a voice. It should not be chastising its readers for suggesting improvements. In fact, there should not be a divide between readers and contributors. We can work together to make TR better.
> In that way (getting licenses) only can you demand and expect conventional journalistic standards. That is also the only way you can expect to promote more moderated discussions.
Why are licenses required to make TR better/well-funded? I’m really scratching my head here…
——
I’m not sure what I should take away from the author’s article. Could he/she enlighten me on some of the above please? The very headline “Change required from others…” sounds so negative to me. Progress in history has mostly resulted from taking the initiative rather than from passive behavior I would argue.
Thanks, and Happy New Year
Bravo, Temasek Review!
RESPECT….
Why should TR obtain newspaper and TV news channel license and be subjected to rules and regulations?
If not for TR, a lot of Singaporeans would still be ignorant of a lot of things.
The writer is apparently babling…but this is just my view.. what change is he expecting from others – “Hence for change to occur in Temasek Review, change is first required from others.”
“Temasek Review needs newspaper and TV news channel license” -
really.. whatever for? in order to reach the highest level of journalism? I cannot imagine why?
As Buah Chiku on Tue, 16th Feb 2010 4:59 pm said
“Just because most local media do not hold themselves up to “basic standards of journalism,” it should not mean that the TR should not care either.”
unless TR is planning on modeling itself after the MSM.
“As mentioned earlier Temasek Review does not have a formal organisational framework or operations team. Basically one or two guys just log on and approve comments at rapid rate unless if its too unacceptable. For a more moderated discussion, Temasek Review needs full time dedicated personnel to manage this website. If Temasek Review is expected to show standards of conventional journalism, then it requires the freedom and resources needed to be a conventional media. Given Singaporeans are not going to pay for an online website, it is impossible to hire such full time personnel. The only alternative is Temasek Review be given a newspaper and news channel tv license and allow it provide news, opinions and information in the
manner some quarters expect.”
- really? I cannot imagine why a newspaper and news channel tv license to allow it to provide news, opinion… is the ONLY? alternative. Is the writer saying that TR can live with its exsting resources if they are given these licenses? and this is the ONLY alternative?
“Should anyone think closing down Temasek Review will resolve the problem, they are wrong. Especially since there are nobody who is owning it. Most importantly there are far too many netizens who will simply create a Temasek Review clone the very next day. One can expect many such sites springing up instead of just one.”
As Buah Chiku indicated, TR should “There are too many people who want to see the TR prosper and take off, so invite them to be a part of it.” and remain the unfettered free media online without the encumbrences of having the licenses.
“What is interesting is not the some quarters in Singapore are worried about Temasek Review but they are worried about online citizen journalism. They think they can counter it by themselves going online. It didnt work. They also imagine that if they can exert pressure using rules and regulations for conventional journalism, they can exert some control. Welcome to the new world era. The realities in the internet are not that simple. Their only last bet is to integrate Temasek Review with conventional journalism by allowing online citizen journalistic sites to have newspaper and news tv channel licenses.”
Again such online citizen journalistic sites do not need to have the licneces that the writer seems to be curiously and repeatedly affirming as a necessity?
Legitimacy as a ‘news and opinion source’. I cannot disagree. Legitimacy as a source of insightful opinion, well, that’s another matter altogether.
And secondly, as the international media isn’t really aware of the intricacies of singaporean history; that they are generally more magnanimous of fascism when it rears its bestial head outside of its national auspices; and they tend to take the cue from the locals; it is no wonder that they would not simultaneously deem it a site of fascist proportions as well.
Most of the commentators on this site are probably of fascist and racist inclinations themselves, and which might account for TR’s popularity. As i’ve stated before, you can tell a site’s nature from its oversights, and from commentators failing to take issue with it. In that, both are indicted. However, i wouldn’t expect most to appreciate this point here, or anywhere else for that matter. They lack the necessary empathetic sense for that.
But that said, I still have to give TR credit for quite excellant investigative journalism and up-to-date information.
I wonder who these people are that want TR to change?
I’ve donated to TR before for providing newsworthy information (though at times I may not agree with some of the views)and I think most followers of TR news are like me, appreciating the indepth views & extremely good coverage by TR writers. You have no need to change, you do a better job that ST & BT combined.
I will continue to donate periodic within my means so long as the team from TR continue doing what I consider important – providing excellent information on issues pertinent to Singapore & Singaporeans.
Thank you TR from a daughter of Singapore.
Re post of Buah Chiku above @16th Feb 2010 4:59 pm
i am particularly impressed by Buah Chiku’s sharp dissection of Riyahi’s article, summarising that “it (TR) should not be chastising its readers for suggesting improvements”. I, too, felt that this is the thrust of the whole lead article from Riyahi today; this tone is also subtlely EMBEDDED into the Title of the article. See again…”Change required from others first for change expected from Temasek Review” .. isn’t this a very aggressive stance? Buah chiku said it was defensive, for me i think it is too aggressive, i thought it meant “you guys please change first! don’t act smart till you change first!”, this is how i read it and i was honestly very surprised at this new post from TR. I read through the entire long piece and was none the wiser.
What bothers me most is that a month ago, TR asked for opinions, tons of it were given, and surprisingly today we see HurrRiyahi’s article apparently not very much enjoying all the feedback received, but rather making implications like “..this is how things work” so succintly summarised by BuahChiku above.
In my opinion, a more positive way to go, is for TR to categorise the types of responses received and explains its final position – agree, disagree, think about it.
I felt that all the solicitation for readers proposals on future strategy, a month ago, was a waste of time, if the result is just this strange article from HurrRiyahi. Although Mr Riyahi claims that there is no proper core team and each TR staff does his own thing and publishes independently, it is now quite clear to me, who is the brains behind TR.
Also, TR produces lightning fast responses and many articles with strong facts behind them (i especially appreciate them being able to dig up what PAP used to say in the 50’s and then used against them now), this speaks well of the organisation capabilities, and many readers would like to support TR, and i bet,even with money, if TR can first address some of their primary frustrations (as evidenced in the feedback). I find it completely unacceptable that TR stance had always been to build up the readership regardless of slant of the article even if it carry ambiguous implications that may mislead. If building readership is the goal, TR might as well have a picture of female breast at the side. You will get the readership quickly. Some readers already calling TR cheap tabloid, and i think it is going that way losing credibility. See those comments on the pastor issue, it’s all there.
zero
CAuse TR now want more money?
Why old town white coffee is having free advertisement?
1. Why do TR need a newspaper and tv news license for online news unless TR is going into print and broadcast tv business which requires lots of capital? even if TR has capital,it is unwise to become tied by the rules of the license.
2.as for anoynimity, i have no problems so long the article is good. what’s the use of a name if the article is bad?
3.no problems with discussing “sensitive” topics, if you don’t discuss,doesn’t mean that the issue will go away, it will just manifest in another way which may be uglier than mere discussing
4. continue with this headless organisation, so that even if one head is “chopped off”, organisation still runs by itself.
1. The people behind TR are passionate but not full time – I do not think there is anything wrong with that (in fact there are certain benefits to this arrangement)
2. The author clearly is defending TR’s position against the various accusations till date – this is given its success (if not successful and influential, then wont kanna so much criticisms) both in terms of reach and content.
3. TR’s success so far is not a function of any structure, persons per se, or huge financial backing….its success is built on simply 2 CSF (Critical Success Factors)
- The huge pent up frustration of the people against almost every policy of the PAP.
- Since it is On Line based – being never down is an important plus point. Unless I am mistaken, there are people out there like that can not sleep, but cannot NOT read TR daily.
4. TR is not a cheap tabloid – some of the news are, so reporting it does not necessarily make the medium that delivers it cheap.
However, having said all that…I feel that
a. Moving forward, TR needs to clarify to the On Line world – WHAT IT REALLY IS, STAND FOR and Simply…WHY IT NEEDS TO, CAN Exists.
b. With the previous feedback, TR should be in the process (however long) to work on personnel issues, organization and financial matters. Even though there is no legal obligation, there is a moral one to clarify to the netizens.
It needs to do this for a simple reason – Trust and Support.
What makes TR’s success is precisely what is limiting it too. Most hardcore readers and commentators of this site are xenophobic, and the articles cater to them, always singling out foreigners for trivial reasons. There are not many outlets catering to these extreme views so it is no surprise that this publication is popular. Fortunately for the World, there aren’t many true racists in any country so the readership will always be limited.
Censor?
I congratulate TR for the splendid works despite some major constrains. You have provided an outlet and a voice for the average Singaporeans whose interests are completely ignored and shut out by the papist leegime. That these people are throwing obstacles into your path proved that u have succeed way beyond what has been though possible. Just keep on doing what u have done. The pressure is on the papist leegime and the MSM to reform to incorporate the interests of average Singaporeans.
@Buah Chiku /@zero
In my opinion, the two of you are probably the most enlightened minds to have read most of TR’s recent threads. Good observation and good insightful points being raised by the two of you. I concur with your views.
Frankly, TR does not appear to be to be a ship set on a direct predetermined course. It is sailing like a ship without a captain, and command of the vessel at times, seem to be a case of all hands on the bridge (instead of the deck). So who in TR does the tempering? Every responsible media channel needs an editor-in-chief, whose duty is to steer its “operations” in line with its objective and focus. This, in my honest opinion, TR has failed to achieve. A news and forum site without such central control can only navigate into irrelevance.
Change? For what? Continue the good work.
Sensational is a way to emphasise the truth as we all know it. If something is bad, then say it’s bad. Why change the angle to be polite? To cater to the minority who can’t accept the reality? That’s hypocrite.
Don’t bother journalism. It’s nonsense. By the time you check your grammar, spelling, details and tone of article, it’s too late. Things have changed. That’s why MSM can never compete with TR. Don’t change. Whack them hard like you always do.
Go to About Us:
“The Temasek Review is an internet newspaper which aims to provide an independent, balanced and unbiased coverage on socio-political affairs in Singapore. We are not linked to any political party or commercial entity.
Our news coverage and opinion editorials are written from an unique and independent perspective to set you thinking and analyzing in order to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved.
As an independent Singapore news site, we will endeavor to provide space for columnists and reader comments from across the political spectrum to foster, facilitate and promote serious debate and discourse which is solely lacking in Singapore.”
IS THERE A PROBLEM OR ISSUE WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENTS??
“Temasek Review being a champion of change ought to heed the calls for change directed at it.”
Up till now, I can only refer to TR as a sensationalising, instigating and provocating website…I do not even associate it with being a alternative media to ST.
They simply pick-up articles or stories from other sources, and then mixed it with pepper, salt, chilli etc (sometimes with sugar of course) to suit its many readers who are thirsty for the government and christian’s blood, and you get another piece of sensationalised article coming from TR.
I really do not think there’s any changes needed, after all, TR do not even have their own editorial stance or core principles in the first place!
Lately, it had even started to delete any postings that do not agree with their stand…so, what change are we talking about?
Simple language: Credibility & Professional Organisation=quality
staff = newspaper & tv license = $$$$moola-money
duit UNDERSTAND??? no money no talk
Mr. Hurr should I be wrong my humble apologies after all its money that makes the world goes round.
@So What? , you have no idea how saome readers can spill shit not worthy of reading but merely waste space.
Just because TR is a good and friendly host does not mean that anyone can visit TR and spill shit all over her, agree not?
To :your supporter:
You are correct to say that “Sensational is a way to emphasise the truth as we all know it. If something is bad, then say it’s bad. ”
No one has any problem with TR exposing the bad things about PAP. We love it. But let me give you just one example *there are more” which i find unacceptable in Tr reporting. A month ago they ran an article headlined “foreingers swarm singapore schools”. But you read the article it is just 10%. In one class typically 40 kids, you have say 4 kids. This is “swarm”? This is professional journalism? If something is bad, please, say it’s bad. I agree with you totally sir.
zero
Really heartening to read all the comments so far, especially @Potatoehead, AM, soojenn, A2ed, zero, cy, 坡仔哥哥, 2 face, get your facts right and So What? Glad to see y’all around.
It shows that we all care and have ideals for the Temasek Review.
Ideals which sound mostly the same I think–make TR a trusted, respected outlet for citizen voices.
Opinions on the implementation details are slightly different it seems
and it would help if the folks who started TR share more of their ideas about where they would like TR to go.
I do think there is a good critical mass to build on and it’d be a waste to let this positive energy dissipate because of content that does not “foster, facilitate and promote serious debate and discourse” <- thanks to the aah-haa!
As Yoda said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to… "
May I propose some ideas for posting comments, for what they may be worth:
- All opinions are welcome and everyone has the right to agree or disagree.
- Have a set of house rules for moderation, maybe something like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/4176520.stm
– No racist, defamatory, derogatory comments
Why? Comments of such nature do not help the discussion.
I'm not trying to speak from a pedestal or something. Stupid, unhelpful, knee-jerk statements pop into my head all the time. I bitch about how crowded the MRT trains are, how people don't give up seats and all that, and yet sometimes I happily stare at my phone while seated.
But I honestly think pure ranting/complaining without suggesting alternatives and making personal attacks do not help.
Let's make TR or any such forum a great place to "foster, facilitate and promote serious debate and discourse" on the topics which are dear to us readers!
There is no need to change anything. If there is one thing I hope to see in TR, it would be more depth in their reporting.
TR did well in exposing things that Government tried to hide from us but for most of the time, TR tried to sensationalise it too much in my opinion.
Use facts to counter and leave the readers to decide. To not try to promote an anti-government stance.
Goondoo says, stay focus is the best for TR.
(Temasek Review needs newspaper and TV news channel license)
Why restrict the site to government rules and regulations? This is internet remember? One of the factor that Temasek review becomes popular because it is not controlled by government. Isn’t not it?
IMHO, TR is growing too fast and needs to do cruise control. DO NOT expand for ther purpose of expanding or things will go out of control since manpower is short and scarce.
DO NOT get complacent and thread on grounds one would be wise to stay clear of, just because the system hasn’t ‘touch’ TR yet doesn’t mean that they wont in the future.
Is is always wise to err on caution than regret on impulse.
All these movie reviews, food and cartoon are fitting more for gossip mags, not suitable for a serious site like TR. Its a waste of scarce manpower and time better use on reporting serious news.
I agree with A2ed and Zero. TR may have been started with a noble aim of giving an alternate voice.
BUT, in the process, attracted and also itself changed to one of PAP bashing and anti-S’pore establishment.
That is fine, but that takes out the core and heart of it – giving alternative view. If writers and contributors have free hand in writing anything they like, then TR is no different from any other non-sense blog. Objectivity is lost, and really no journalism standard exist.
I am anti-government myself – but to criticize them, you need on build on credibility. And what I see on TR is blatant biaseness. One look and the “credibility” of this site drops.
Be more neutral and objective, and TR will more potent than that stupid ST.
Zero, I respect your views but 10% is TOO TOO TOO MUCH. TR is saying this out for me. This is how Singaporeans feel the truth. If TR says it politely and mild, it won’t be the reality. Why turn TR into cripple and mute? That is the style of shit times. It’s a waste if TR become like shit times.
To your supporter @17th feb 2010 11.13pm
Hi yoursupporter.
A lot of problems happen in this world because people use extremes when they discuss a subject. Example:PAP said if you don;t vote them in, the opposition will squander all the national reserves. Who says so. the oppostion could redistribute a portion of it in a fair way to society, but certainly not ALL of the reserves. Extreme type of arguments are very deceptive.
Likwise in your comment above you are suggesting that i am advocating to “turn TR into cripple and mute”. This is extreme. All i am saying is that TR should by all means say things it wants to say, BUT in a responsible fashion. Do not sensationalise and say “Foreigners SWARM” the schools. By common logic, swarm means that you need to have perhaps 40-60% of the total. You can’t say 10% is “swarm”.
Yes, for you, you say 10% is too much. You are entitled to your view. In which case the title could bear some hint that there are people with your point of view. So The title of their article could well be a poser “increasing number of PR’s in local schools!” That is fair statement. Or “Now 10% already in local schools – what next?” Or “4 in 10 are occupying places in our local schools – is this desirable?” .. it is up to the creativity. But no, it is irresponsible editing to use the word “swarm” when it is 1 in 10.
zero
The problem with TR is that there is too many indian chief each with their own standard and personal agenda.
Even TR cannot be united, how to expect a united opposition party?
To say TR is better then ST? that is debatable still.
TR relentlessly publish article about the Romania incident to ‘inform’ the citizen it says.
But why no conclusion article when Romania waived the immunity? TR refuse to follow up anymore suddenly when things are going well for the government?
i do agree that TR is starting to look like a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. what used to be a platform for an independent voice away from the state media has spiralled down towards articles and reports leaning towards systematical bashing of the ruling party.
just like most readers, i am not a supporter of the ruling party one bit, but to constantly resort to ruling party-bashing and anti-sg fanning is not very constructive as it only makes TR lose credibility as an independent voice of singaporeans.
like some of the readers have mentioned, a more neutral and objective stance will be more desirable for TR if it is to gather more respect and attention from the powers up above. already it is definitely believeable that TR is more popular than todayonline and it just proves the clout TR can leverage on. harness this popularity and TR can trully command some respect!
To The Sim
TR doesnt follow up anymore on Romania case because its policy is to expose the bad things the government is doing or has done.
Actually I am fine with that, it’s their policy, it’s their website.
The only big issue i have is that each exposure of goverhment’s bad doings, must be fair and valid and not consist of misconstrued, twisted, and manipulated lies – especially the ARTICLE TITLES. I had quoted some examples in various threads, but TR is behaving like Pappies, no response, don’t want to talk about it.
I believe that more donations will be forthcoming if they improve their credibility. Right now they are behaving just like Pappies doing – holier than thou attitude. Just look at this thread. 99% of the responses are pointing in the same direction.
zero
Thanks to TR, I have now stopped buying Straits Times altogether! I’ve had enough of their spin and lies!
Not just too much Indian chiefs – but also too much people with too much time on their hands – like me.
Not working or taking care of the kids and typing this.
zero, why this is extreme? IMHO, that is only your personal opinion. To Singaporeans, TR reflects our view and the feeling deep in our hearts. TR has grown so good and popular now because of how it reflects the view and feeling of reality without polite fake show.
About anonymity, your argument does not hold. If you are concerned the MSM has shady figures, then I should be even more concerned about here. There’s practically no safeguard against shady figures here.
The MSM people write in their own names. People can judge and assess these personalities for themselves. In any case, their articles segregate facts and opinions. If you are uncomfortable about their opinions, you can cut out those opinion pieces from specific writers and use it for wrapping vegetables.
Over here, I don’t know whether any specific writer has any vested interests in the focus of any specific articles. If discerning readers spot mistakes in the articles, these are conveniently covered up anonymously. It’s impossible to judge whether it’s an honest mistake or a pregnant lapse.
To your supporter @11.30 pm
One of the chief grouses against the People’s Action PArty is that they indulge in self-praise. It is common to see them start something and then after that regardless of what happens they praise the results. Sometimes it is true. At other times, atcually the actions are failures or at best neutral in the effect, but… the media place a veil over the bad points and everything becomes “good”.
When you said, “TR has grown so good and popular now because of how it reflects the view and feeling of reality” . The writer Mr Riyahi even said, TR “accomplished” already the objective and IS the “premiere online citizen journalism site”.
Is this too much of a self-praise?
只有不满，才有不断的进步。As it is TR is completely happy with its self-delusion that it is the premier site, and as the title of the article said, “The Readers must change first before TR can change”.
Personally, I also support TR and believe that it has the capbaility to be the premier site.. but it hasn’t reach there yet defintiely. Recent articles and the way they are worded, are suggesting that the standards are going down… things like sensationalising a non-issue, dragging on to an issue when it is already resolved, continuing to fan hatred and animosity.
You said it “reflects your feelings”. Is that the purpose of this site? Or is it to point to a direction and recommend the solution? Is this site based on stirring up feelings at the expense of truth, positive solutions, common sense, and all other wholesome ideals?
zero
TR is doing a great job. A little rough around the edges, but can be easily smoothed out.
LEAVE ALL EMOTIONS ASIDE. Let us deal with reality.
FIRST UP, TODAY’S NEWS IS NOT TOMMORROW’S NEWS BY JOURNALISM’s DESIGN, regardless of whether it is accurately reported or twisted.
There is no repeat broadcast or print of yesterday’s “news”.
TR is an open debating floor just like a dance floor in a funky disco. The music can vary at each spin, so can the ANONYMOUS dancers stay, leave or enter the dance floor of their own choosing – UNINVITED NOR RESTRAINED WITH EACH CHANGE OF MUSIC. The dance now won’t be in syn with the previous music beat. In one sense, the music and dance beat now “stale” as fast as today’s news is stale to be available of tommorrow’s news.
BUT TODAY’S NEWS MIGHT BE ALL CAREFUL DISTORTIONS.
TR exists to allow for rigorous dissection of “news” ( more accurately is information only ) beyond today. It stretches “intellectual dance” for however long and interest of participation of its bloggers will invite themselves.
That is the beauty of alternative media of stretching the longevity of today’s “news” .
Otherwise, fouled journalism is like a fart trail. It leaves stealthily with the journalist seeking to hide the truth but the stinks already unleashed irritates the truth and senses for a while more of its surrounding to leave its well-targeted victims some injurious fragrance confused of informed judgment.
Should TR change before MSM change? My answer is definitely NO. TR is here to bring us distorted information of today as tommorrow’s “news”- correcting and corrected by its bloggers.
WHY CHANGE THE STATUS QUO WHEN IT ADDS VALUE.
UNORTHODOXY MEETS NEATLY AND NICELY WITH UNORTHODOXY. How else can it be effective otherwise????