TOC and Quality of articles.

[scroobal]

Classic example of splitting hairs. TOC writers and editors should learn to go for substance and relevance to society rather than turning out gratituous articles as fillers like the one below.

There are many hot buttons topics out there. Try to interview a young singaporean couple facing challenges finding a home. Challenges such as COV, agents who mislead, attitude of HDB staff, comparisons with other countries etc.

We heard the version from the state directed press, what about your version. Writing article sitting on your butt is not going to cut it.



http://theonlinecitizen.com/
Top Story
Straits Times’ perplexing definition of ‘netizens’
Friday, 25 September 2009, 11:29 pm | 234 views


Gangasudhan

The Straits Times (ST) seems to think netizens are only those who comment on the ST’s discussion boards.

Following up on the now-infamous Ris Low ‘scandal’, the Straits Times ran a story today with the headline Netizens slam Ris Low.

However, the ‘netizens’ quoted in the article were traced back to comments that were posted on a single thread on the Straits Times (online) Discussion Board in response to the reports “Ris guilty of credit fraud” and “I will not give up crown” (ST, 25 Sept 09). Based on the ‘quotes from netizens’ used in the article, it appears that the reporter (one Ms Felicia Wong) came to the conclusion that netizens ‘had a field day heaping criticisms’ primarily from reading 23 comments posted between 9.28am and 12.09pm today[1] on this particular thread.

TOC counted 7 ‘netizen’ quotes in the article of which two were attributed to named Straitstimes.com readers, one was named but not attributed to any source, and the remaining four were anonymous. And of these seven quotes, 5 were undeniably from the 23 comments mentioned earlier with the remaining two quotes whose sources could not be ascertained being referred to as coming from ‘commenters’ (one would naturally assume these would be commenters of the thread in question).

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I was a bit puzzled and bemused when I read that article.

Fighting over the definition of "netizens"?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

I reallly got angry this time. Real waste of bandwidth. TOC does not have to deliver articles and comments daily. Thats means they can focus on quality. I read it twice just in case I missed something of value or failed to identify a theme or point. No luck.

They also seem to forget that the Straits Times is not the issue but their masters are. This constant tussle with straits times is not only a waste of time but takes the attention from pressing national issues.

I once met couple of FTs at an Ann Siang Hill coffeeshop for a chat via a friend. These guys were editors, journos for various publications that seem to concentrate in the vicinity. We talked about quality of media content. No one bothered to talk about SPH, as it was a waste of time, so we talked about everything else. The gist of the message that I was geting was that substance was seriously lacking but they noted that command of the language was high. They could not understand that. One lady told me that its like a keen chap who wants to be an athlete, has all the gear right down to light as air spikes but comes in last in competition. TOC flashed on my mind.

They did highlight Alfian and Alex as standouts and exceptions to their general feelings and were keen to know about their background.

I was a bit puzzled and bemused when I read that article.

Fighting over the definition of "netizens"?

Goh Meng Seng