TOC: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC

[Perspective]

If Truth is Fact, there shouldn't be the need for two words to talk about the same thing.

It is quite a fact that many other two words mean the same thing. That is why the thesaurus and the word "synonym" came about.

Someone is telling misinformation to another person. If you merely reported the "FACT", you will only be saying this guy tells that guy this and this. But you have never reported the "TRUTH" that he has bluffed that guy.

I'm don't think people who reports misinformation is reporting a fact, but will let readers make their judgement. If I were in that shoes confronted with a word I would say it's a "version".

I would have thought that you are very well worse in English and logical thinking but end up a word smith that would only follow the book.

As said forummers will make their judgement, but whatever smith, I would not argue that the moon is cube-ish at this age, much less chiding another for poor eyesight when they see a round moon. BTW wordsmith is not one who follows the book. There are a lot online dictionaries these days.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

I would say that MSM supports the PAP by only reporting the facts and the govts position on the facts. The AM helps by not only reporting the facts and the govt's position but also alternative views as they can be found and giving them space. With regards to democracy and the NCMP or NMP scheme, those views against or for are meant to be strictly for an analysis or OP/ED piece.

Straight reporting and fair reporting means reporting the facts as they are viewed by all the participants in the debate. Allowing your opinion to shape your reporting is the worse SIN a journalist can commit and I am glad for one that the TOC is trying its best to stay true to this journalistic practice. And frankly straight and fair reporting is NOT AS EASY as you make it out to be, considering the tons of ink spilt in journalism school on that issue

Again I have no issues with the strong position for or against which you seek but frankly that should be in theOP/ED Analysis section. Absolute truth is for every reader to decide for himself and not for the reporter to decide, a fair reporter will try to report both sides of the story or both sides of the debate and leave the reader to judge,




Locke

 

[Perspective]

Dear GMS

I would say that MSM supports the PAP by only reporting the facts and the govts position on the facts. The AM helps by not only reporting the facts and the govt's position but also alternative views as they can be found and giving them space. With regards to democracy and the NCMP or NMP scheme, those views against or for are meant to be strictly for an analysis or OP/ED piece.

Straight reporting and fair reporting means reporting the facts as they are viewed by all the participants in the debate. Allowing your opinion to shape your reporting is the worse SIN a journalist can commit and I am glad for one that the TOC is trying its best to stay true to this journalistic practice. And frankly straight and fair reporting is NOT AS EASY as you make it out to be, considering the tons of ink spilt in journalism school on that issue

Again I have no issues with the strong position for or against which you seek but frankly that should be in theOP/ED Analysis section. Absolute truth is for every reader to decide for himself and not for the reporter to decide, a fair reporter will try to report both sides of the story or both sides of the debate and leave the reader to judge,

Locke

I would say there's such a thing as a reporting slant. Notice this is a major issue with MSM absent in this thread.

On coverage of opposition parties, the MSM does not publish any of SDP's statements but reports on all their court cases. It also does not report opposition new faces but zoom in on people who may be "controversies" like Gomez, Steve Chia, Yaw. In the meantime, it reports on government to as straight up as possible. What I think TOC does is to report in a way slanting it in the other direction - negative towards the government.

 

[scroobal]

You captured it well.

Maybe it helps if I sort of summarise the main points;

1) There is a genuine desire in the early stages to have a vehicle that provides a platform to provide alternative but fair views. I am pretty sure it was not neutral to start with as that would just clog up the focus and it will just be another CNN.

2) There is no doubt that many individuals in the TOC genuinely feel that the MSM is gagged which a blind, lame and quadreplegic individual could ascertain in a moonless night.

3) Like everything else in life, popularity means many things. But it should not move away from the original intention. The same blind.......... should reasonably after 2 years stepping back ascertain that TOC is not providing altenative and fair views. Its carrying on a function of just reporting politics and thrend appears to be a middle ground (not moderate) more neutral.

4) What is clear is that its being led by the nose and conveniently serves the PAP. The fact that one of its writers thinks that TOC is anti-establishment is shocking - how so.

5) It is certainly convenient for PAP with alternative views gather in one location but have their views moderated and neutralised.

Anyone who tells me that TOC is a bastion of free press and a sincere vehicle of alternative and fair views must be kidding themselves.

TOC, as I am aware, is supposedly modeled after the Korean Citizen Reporting website or closely similar to Malaysiankini. But as it develops, it is no longer what it has aspired to be. Independence does not mean merely reporting "FACTS" which could contain falsehood or some misinformation but it must includes "Truth" or "Truthful judgment". That's the point.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

Bro, do see the big picture. Nothing cynical. If ist starts quacking like a duck.

TOC serves a purpose - yes.
TOC does it well - yes
TOC covers things that MSM do not - Yes
TOC has satiated the public need to engage in political discussions - yes
TOC has done the correct thing in encouraging democratic development - Yes and No.

Up to 1984 this was the situation
RCs/MCCs/CCCs serve a purpose - yes
RCs/MCCs/CCCs do it well - yes
RCs/MCCs/CCCs do things that Govt bodies don't do - yes
RCs/MCCs/CCCs are doing the correct thing by encouraging democratic development - yes

Then the Govt stepped in and refused to appoint JBJ who was elected by the people to be the advisor of these grassroots organisations which was not considered anything but non-partisan.

Here are a series of PAP controlled entities that till today a lot of naive people think are not political in nature

NTUC
People's Association
RCs, and all Grassroots Organisation

Ever wonder why PAP MPs or the Govt do not engage TOC. Ever wonder why Andrew has not been sued by Chua and SPH. Ever wonder why Choo is not No.1. Ever wonder why Choo does not make any similar statements like Andrew. Ever wonder why Choo is called to comment and advise on blogs and online media by high profile local entities but not Andrew. Do you know how to identify the political variables that make the power equation in a relationship.

Why don't you submit an article on subversion and control of grassroots organisations by the PAP to TOC. Not only will TOC editorial management not carry it, they will also not agree with you.

Dear GMS

I hope we can differentiate between OP/ED and pure reporting. You seem to disagree with the TOC for not having a strong enough OP/ED position, fair enough , but I would disagree with that view based on their initial objectives and their still limited resources

As to the reporting, I believe they have been factual in covering the issues at hand. I also applaud them in covering factually events which the MSM will never cover and highlighting issues and opposition events which the MSM will only give two or three lines to. If that is all they CHOSE to do for the next three years and they do it well, I would say they HAVE done the correct thing in encouraging democratic development

Facts, Facts containing falsehoods, Truth and Truthful Judgement. Truth and truthful judgement is again relative and putty for an aspiring politician like you. You are just as ready to disagree with the TOC when its purported truth and purported truthful judgement disagrees with your world view. Fine by all means but lets leave that to the Op Ed battle but in reporting just report the facts as it is known to the best of one's knowledge at that time and not on what is suspected.





Locke

 

[scroobal]

Looks like it does work. I suppose for you NTUC is truly a labour union.

It offers "critical reporting" or media slants as it is commonly known. But Alex Au would be "analysis" or "critical analysis".

 

[scroobal]

I actually expected you to state that you perceived it as neutral. You went one better. Looks like TOC is indeed a roaring success.

What I think TOC does is to report in a way slanting it in the other direction - negative towards the government.

 

[Perspective]

I actually expected you to state that you perceived it as neutral. You went one better. Looks like TOC is indeed a roaring success.

No roaring success. To me online politics changes nuts.

Perhaps TOC has shifted to neutral gear of late since the NCMP issue but was more critical for the last 2 years of its presence.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

i forgot to include kevin tan, hussin mutalib and alfian saat in this credible group...

Might lend weight that its not approved by party appartus. Good point. By the way, no way in hell will Chua, George, Lim or Au will get in. Chua had a huge fight with HDB his previous employee on policies and left for academia. Solid bugger. WKS and old man has to die first after his tangle with parliamentary reporting and the knuckleduster is still out for Lim. .

well i think they also went to ground of sorts during the initial part of the mas selamat kestari fiasco...

Like I said before - SPH went to ground and this has never happened before. But do wait for Saturday and by then a suitable position might emerge or they might unleash the mother of all political dimwits - Paul Jacob.
.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

you have raised some interesting points...

however one thing that seems to have caught my interest viz TOC is that lately it appears to be giving greater coverage to SDP more so than when it first started...and hence attracting more of SDP's crowd...i wonder why?...

Why don't you submit an article on subversion and control of grassroots organisations by the PAP to TOC. Not only will TOC editorial management not carry it, they will also not agree with you.

 

[Perspective]

You captured it well.

Maybe it helps if I sort of summarise the main points;

1) There is a genuine desire in the early stages to have a vehicle that provides a platform to provide alternative but fair views. I am pretty sure it was not neutral to start with as that would just clog up the focus and it will just be another CNN.

2) There is no doubt that many individuals in the TOC genuinely feel that the MSM is gagged which a blind, lame and quadreplegic individual could ascertain in a moonless night.

3) Like everything else in life, popularity means many things. But it should not move away from the original intention. The same blind.......... should reasonably after 2 years stepping back ascertain that TOC is not providing altenative and fair views. Its carrying on a function of just reporting politics and thrend appears to be a middle ground (not moderate) more neutral.

4) What is clear is that its being led by the nose and conveniently serves the PAP. The fact that one of its writers thinks that TOC is anti-establishment is shocking - how so.

5) It is certainly convenient for PAP with alternative views gather in one location but have their views moderated and neutralised.

Anyone who tells me that TOC is a bastion of free press and a sincere vehicle of alternative and fair views must be kidding themselves.

Don't think TOC can swing one iota of vote towards the PAP bro, although the same goes to the opposition. So how does it serve PAP's purpose. Grassroots bodies promote the PAP during their interactions with resident. To compare TOC to grassroots is odd.

To say TOC has become neutral is at best, to say it serves PAP's purpose thereby it is proPAP seems a tad out of sync to me.

For the record, no blog has ever been sued if it relates not to wild allegations, whether TOC or Think Centre or the great Alex Au.

 

[Perspective]

you have raised some interesting points...

however one thing that seems to have caught my interest viz TOC is that lately it appears to be giving greater coverage to SDP more so than when it first started...and hence attracting more of SDP's crowd...i wonder why?...

Yes, why would a proPAP site as claimed by Scroobal, even cover anything on SDP.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

You guys have many ways to split a single strand of hair.

Talk so much about so many things but not one of you including the alternative parties know how to engage the populace.

HELLO! Talk about no more than 3 things. Better yet if can concentrate on one thing.

Here is mine -

1) Does the PAP care for Singaporeans?

Provide three examples because people cannot remember so many things.

a) FTs and jobs - how are you and your children going to compete with so many FTs. Will there be jobs for you when you get older. Older Fts will almost surely go back home, there will always be a steady stream of young FTs invited by the Pappies.
b) Housing costs - HDB charging high prices and FTs pushing demand and hence prices upwards. How are your children going to afford a decent home.
c) CPF - will there be enough to care for you. Why is the CPF continually being adjusted to the detriment of the citizens.

Keep it short and keep it simple.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

i stand corrected but i don't think Scroobal is claiming that TOC is a "proPAP site"...rather he seems to suggest that TOC is yet another 'tool' of sorts apparently being used/manipulated by the PAPs as a wayang show/valve release for the growing group of singgies seeking diversity/pluralism/political space in local civil society...while the PAPs in reality continue to hold on to dominant political power...

Yes, why would a proPAP site as claimed by Scroobal, even cover anything on SDP.

 

[Perspective]

i stand corrected but i don't think Scroobal is claiming that TOC is a "proPAP site"...rather he seems to suggest that TOC is yet another 'tool' of sorts apparently being used/manipulated by the PAPs as a wayang show/valve release for the growing group of singgies seeking diversity/pluralism/political space in local civil society...while the PAPs in reality continue to hold on to dominant political power...

That's been discernable to me for some time and I don't think TOC should be singled out. None of the political channels are touched as long as they are not the opposition. Whether it is TOC, Alex, temasekreview, Think Centre etc. whether it goes for "truth" or "fact" in Goh's words, or serves PAP purpose or not.

The way the PAP treats opposition vis a vis the rest is very clearly different and I thought that would be obvious to everyone by now. All that is left are people with genuine passion but do not stay active long if they are not elected, people whose egos have overridden their rationality and logical ability that's why they are able to stay on in a thankless job, or people who have certain forces behind them.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

It is quite a fact that many other two words mean the same thing. That is why the thesaurus and the word "synonym" came about.

I'm don't think people who reports misinformation is reporting a fact, but will let readers make their judgement. If I were in that shoes confronted with a word I would say it's a "version".

As said forummers will make their judgement, but whatever smith, I would not argue that the moon is cube-ish at this age, much less chiding another for poor eyesight when they see a round moon. BTW wordsmith is not one who follows the book. There are a lot online dictionaries these days.

You are really not getting it.

Let me put it in more simple terms.

Objective Truth is = ALL FACTS (not partial FACTS) + Common sense judgment.

Merely reporting PARTIAL FACTS are not TRUTHFUL reporting at all.

Therefore, one cannot claim that FACT=Truth because FACT is merely a subset of TRUTH and partial FACTS do not contribute to TRUTH. In contrary, partial FACTS may just become untruthful.

There are many examples on this one. For example, if CNN only reports on what Osama Bin Laden said in getting his men to fight against US, it is merely reporting a FACTUAL EVENT.... i.e. Osama said this and this... but if CNN did not report anything more than that, do you consider CNN is reporting something "Truthful"? If an alien from outerspace came to earth and read that article, most likely it will see Osama is the greatest hero while US is the evil empire!

Fact=Truth? Think again.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

True, Truth is to be discern by readers but if a media choose to report "PARTIAL FACTS", people may end up with wrong judgment of the matter.

A Media could claim to that all it has reported are FACTS but as long as they did not report ALL THE FACTS, it could not possibly be reporting truth.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

I would say that MSM supports the PAP by only reporting the facts and the govts position on the facts. The AM helps by not only reporting the facts and the govt's position but also alternative views as they can be found and giving them space. With regards to democracy and the NCMP or NMP scheme, those views against or for are meant to be strictly for an analysis or OP/ED piece.

Straight reporting and fair reporting means reporting the facts as they are viewed by all the participants in the debate. Allowing your opinion to shape your reporting is the worse SIN a journalist can commit and I am glad for one that the TOC is trying its best to stay true to this journalistic practice. And frankly straight and fair reporting is NOT AS EASY as you make it out to be, considering the tons of ink spilt in journalism school on that issue

Again I have no issues with the strong position for or against which you seek but frankly that should be in theOP/ED Analysis section. Absolute truth is for every reader to decide for himself and not for the reporter to decide, a fair reporter will try to report both sides of the story or both sides of the debate and leave the reader to judge,




Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Yes, why would a proPAP site as claimed by Scroobal, even cover anything on SDP.

Seems that you still don't get the drift.

Scroobal has never said the site is "proPAP". We are discussing Covert Ops and Scroobal is saying that TOC may be a part of the Covert Ops.

Seems that reading has escaped you altogether.

Goh meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

You are really not getting it.

Let me put it in more simple terms.

Objective Truth is = ALL FACTS (not partial FACTS) + Common sense judgment.

Merely reporting PARTIAL FACTS are not TRUTHFUL reporting at all.

Therefore, one cannot claim that FACT=Truth because FACT is merely a subset of TRUTH and partial FACTS do not contribute to TRUTH. In contrary, partial FACTS may just become untruthful.

There are many examples on this one. For example, if CNN only reports on what Osama Bin Laden said in getting his men to fight against US, it is merely reporting a FACTUAL EVENT.... i.e. Osama said this and this... but if CNN did not report anything more than that, do you consider CNN is reporting something "Truthful"? If an alien from outerspace came to earth and read that article, most likely it will see Osama is the greatest hero while US is the evil empire!

Fact=Truth? Think again.

Goh Meng Seng

Getting it? I don't think I need to repeat that the logic behind your assertion is absolutely there. It's the choice of words, though I understand the intention was to make it simple.

Partial truths or partial facts are not truths and facts. Certain truths and facts if hidden while the rest of the truths or facts reported gives a slant that I was talking about, especially if the truths and facts that are hidden puts an entity in a positive light and truths and facts in a negative light are reported.

My example of SDP is a case in point - it is a truth and a fact that they often break the law. It is also a truth and a fact that they feel good reasons to do so, some of which are common civil disobedience practice, wanting to share the load with civil society and elections cannot change anything (all which seems altruistic although I do not necessarily agree). By reporting without fail the first truth/fact every time it occurs but never even once the reasons i.e. truth/fact despite Chee keep plugging it on the website, creates a slant that they enjoy singing jailhouse rock probably for the free food and oranges, although both are truths/facts.

Now why would I disagree with you on that as it sounds similar to the Osama example.

 

[Perspective]

Seems that you still don't get the drift.

Scroobal has never said the site is "proPAP". We are discussing Covert Ops and Scroobal is saying that TOC may be a part of the Covert Ops.

Seems that reading has escaped you altogether.

Goh meng Seng

Maybe the word proPAP wasn't appropriate. So who is behind the covert ops?