I’ve always been enamoured by professions imbued with a “higher calling”. Nurses, doctors, activists, and the last time I checked, journalists. After all, isn’t a major point in the whole “journalists vs bloggers” debate? The claim that journalists are held to a higher standard in terms of reporting, and more importantly, ethics?
To be fair, the title “journalist” has expanded a lot in recent times. In this age of self-publishing anyone with a novel idea and internet access is able to address an audience. One could argue that the folks at celebrity gossip website TMZ are journalists to some degree. Or the tabloids for that matter. After all, they do bring news to an audience that craves for the genre.
My argument here is not whether Ris Low is news. My own rudimentary understanding of the word’s definition is that “news” is the opposite of “old’s”. Anything that is current is news. Any instant thought on an old subject is a new thought, any content created is fresh content, any pointer leading to old content is a new pointer. As such, it is all news, and it is all relevant if you find the appropriate audience.
My argument is that the Straits Times has failed to live up to journalism’s higher calling. I will constrain this discourse only to Ris Low - there’s no knowing how long we could go on if we were to address the allegations of biased and incomplete reporting.
The role of the press has traditionally been the middleman between authorities and their people. She walks the line between being the government’s mouthpiece and the people’s defender. Above all, the role of the press is to elevate the level of discourse.
The whole Ris Low saga is a scathing revelation of ST’s priorities. In her latest online posting ST’s Online Editor Joanne Lee defends the stance that Ris Low is still news. She is defending ST’s extensive coverage of Ris Low even after Ris has stepped down as Miss Singapore-World. She is defending articles about Ris having to retake her exams (implicit allegation that Ris was caught cheating on her exams would be the news angle here) and Ris not allowed to shop alone.
Is it news? The two articles are the top read stories on the Straits Times Online, so yes. Does it sell papers, attract readers and eyeballs? Yes. If journalism were solely a business of dollars and cents, there probably would be no question. But we hold journalism to a higher standard than just the making of money. The question with producing this sort of news, I would pose to the journalists at the Straits Times, is this: At what cost?
Ris is a 19 year old for crying out loud. You’re really going to do this? Is it worth the short-term bump in online views, the pittance of ad revenue? Is there any empathy left in you? When you first picked up your pen, you did it with empathy. It wasn’t business, you were young then and money wasn’t the motivation. You wrote because you wanted to show the world a reflection of themselves from a myriad of perspectives. The stories of personal triumph, the informative investigative pieces you had spent so much time putting together, the call for action to help those who are suffering?
Do you not see, in your dogged pursuit of Ris Low, that you have caused suffering?
As Asians we are probably used to the Spockian justification, “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (or the one, yes yes). But the public does not need updates on Ris Low. We do need a press who will have the courage to accept the long-term view that the shareholders are best served when the people are well-served. The short-term gratification of getting the public’s fleeting attention at the expense of what the Straits Times could and should be is a bloody waste.
The comments on Joanne Lee's post are way more insightful than her actual post, but then again, that's what I've come to expect of her blog. It's one thing for the New Paper to be doing this sort of thing, but it speaks very badly on the nation as a whole when the national newspaper starts going after red herrings.
"...it speaks very badly on the nation as a whole when the national newspaper starts going after red herrings."
Things to consider:
(a) small island state: beyond municipal issues (which are always covered) and their nation-building responsibilities, there isn't much they have left to fill the pages.
(b) Readership, I believe, is on the decline, including their online portals.
(c) SPH is a listed company. In other words, the management's priority is their shareholders, who hold the former responsible for the company's financial performance.
If you sit on the other side of the fence and think about how small the media industry (of which, journalists are a sub-set) here is, perhaps there is a plausible reason for the national newspaper to dabble in sensationalism and tabloid fodder.
While I agree with Lucian that this Ris Low thing has been done to death and it insults journalism as a noble profession, there is a possibility that Joanne's hands may be tied (an example would be her incessant sprinkling of links back to ST Online in her tweets, as Lucian had observed).
"...it speaks very badly on the nation as a whole when the national newspaper starts going after red herrings."
Things to consider:
(a) small island state: beyond municipal issues (which are always covered) and their nation-building responsibilities, there isn't much they have left to fill the pages.
(b) Readership, I believe, is on the decline, including their online portals.
(c) SPH is a listed company. In other words, the management's priority is their shareholders, who hold the former responsible for the company's financial performance.
If you sit on the other side of the fence and think about how small the media industry (of which, journalists are a sub-set) here is, perhaps there is a plausible reason for the national newspaper to dabble in sensationalism and tabloid fodder.
While I agree with Lucian that this Ris Low thing has been done to death and it insults journalism as a noble profession, there is a possibility that Joanne's hands may be tied (an example would be her incessant sprinkling of links back to ST Online in her tweets, as Lucian had observed).
I kinda agree and also disagree with Lucian. Let me try to explain: I agree because as a fellow human being, I feel sorry for Ris Low in that her private life is revealed to thousands of strangers. I felt annoyed at ST in that sense.
But the part where I disagree (about ST exploiting Ris Low for readers) is that the additional coverage made me understand and sympathise with Ris Low. I realise she has a mental health issue, and there's nothing to be ashamed about it. In fact, I begun to empathise with her motivations and problems. Had ST stopped at the beauty contest saga, I would have remained annoyed at ST but I would also have thought Ris Low was a prima donna (which I am seeing that the issues are deeper than that and may not be entirely within her conscious control).
If you can't fill the pages, perhaps not so many pages are needed. Some things are better left unwritten, in the same manner some things are better left unsaid. There is a lot the press in Singapore could do to fulfill the much-needed role of watchdog but remains undone.
I'm not saying that ST needs to utterly forsake their shareholders, but they need to realise that in order to be true to journalism's "higher calling", some things need to be placed above monetary reward and many times, even above personal safety.
It's not Joanne's tweets that I was referring to. If ST's online articles ever link, it is only to their own online assets. It comes across as an irrational hoarding of goodwill, and an inability to understand the connectedness of the world wide web.
Kudos to you Lucian! What you are doing, is what our world needs.
Wow, are they still talking about her?
I won't even go into the whole issue about "higher calling" here.
The articles are insignificant and uninteresting bits of information about a minor-celebrity at best. It's a local beauty pageant, for crying out loud. The articles make ST look like a small town newspaper operating somewhere out in the boondocks.
Isn't there something more relevant to write about? Something more interesting than the retaking of exams of a 19-year-old ex-beauty pageant queen? Are there so few events of interest happening on the island?
It's strange that a journalist (or would she be considered a blogger here?) has felt compelled to write an entire article about how something or someone is still news when it's not news anymore.
It's like a bakery trying to sell dried-out day-old bread as fresh bread at full price.
"Hey, this isn't yesterday's bread... it was baked today!"
Yeah, we'll buy that.
Not.
another reflection of what the public demands - tabloid fodder as opposed to real world news...
sad.