What is this country turning into now?
It seems, another Indian temple is being torn down again - if we blindly accept without question the contents of The Star article here. Note that this report was issued first thing this morning and I also saw others carrying it the night before -
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/26/nation/2123686&sec=nation
*******************
Friday September 26, 2008
MPAJ officers tore down temple despite state govt saying no
By DHARMENDER SINGH, EDWARD RAJENDRA AND A. LETCHUMANAN
KLANG: The Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) officers involved in tearing down a Hindu temple in Ampang acted against a state government directive not to destroy places of worship.
Ronnie Liu, who is chairman of the state’s local government, study and research committee, said the state had issued a directive to all local councils to halt action against places of worship when it came into power but the officers defied the order.
He said that in taking the action last month the officers also bypassed the committee on non-Muslim affairs headed by state executive councillors Teresa Kok, Dr Xavier Jayakumar and himself.
“I contacted the council president a day after the incident and asked him to investigate the matter and identify those involved,” he said.
“I was told that he has submitted a preliminary report to my office but I have not read it since I am away in China now so it would be unfair for me to comment further.”
Liu had said a day after the incident that he was upset with the council officers’ actions and threatened that they would face stiff action.
Meanwhile Human Resources Minister Datuk S. Subramaniam said the MIC was extremely disappointed with the state government and MPAJ for allowing the demolition to occur.
“If a temple needs to be relocated due to road expansion or some major development, it can be relocated with the agreement that a new place of worship be built,” he said.
MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu has also condemned the demolition, saying that it went against the Opposition’s promise during the last general election not to demolish any temple.
“It is very uncaring of the local council to demolish the temple without first relocating it,” he said.
*******************
So, it seems that:
1. Fact: An Indian temple was demolished.
2. Fact: Three (3) Star Reporters were dispatched to investigate and write the article.
3. Fact: MIC was very quick to condemn the State Government, with both Samy Vellu and Subramaniam given space in The Star to condemn State Government.
4. Fact: The Star Reporters managed to track down Ronnie Liu who was away in China for his statement! (what diligence!).
5. Note: The Star Reporters did not appear to contact the local temple management. At least, the local temple management's view was not reported above. Why is that? Isn't it easier to contact a local person, than to contact Ronnie who was away in China? After all, wasn't there 3 and not just 1 Star Reporter to cover this story?
6. Note: The Star Reporters did not appear to contact MPAJ. At least, MPAJ's view was not reported above. Why is that? Again, isn't it easier to contact MPAJ?
7. Fact: Despite not contacting local temple management and despite not contacting MPAJ, The Star was quick to publish the above article.
Ok.
Something doesn't "feel right", isn't it?
Anyway, what happened next?
Well, at 8.37 PM, the Star carried a short, follow up story here - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/26/nation/20080926195028&sec=nation
This is what they print.
*******************
Friday September 26, 2008 MYT 8:37:15 PM
Temple demolished for renovation
KUALA LUMPUR: The Hindu temple in Ampang had been demolished by its own committee to make way for renovation and a face lift.
Ampang MP Zuraida Kamaruddin said the public condemnation of the demolition and accusation lashed at the local council and state government was unfounded.
The PKR MP said MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy’s allegations were completely unfounded and untrue.
“The truth is the temple was demolished by its own committee to make way for renovation and a face lift. They did this of their own accord and did not consult nor seek approval from the state government beforehand.
“We did not even know about the demolition until it happened,” she said.
According to her, the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was currently investigating the issue and was still waiting for the local council’s report.
*******************
Now, note this:
1. It seems this is a non-issue because the temple was NOT demolished under State & MPAJ approval, but was being RENOVATED by Temple Management!
2. An Ampang MP has bothered to check with MPAJ whereas in the first article, none of the three (yes - 3!) Star Reporters didn't.
3. The name of the Star Reporter for the second article is omitted. Is this done deliberately to minimize the credibility of this report?
So, what do you think is happening here?
Obviously, the 2 articles contradicted each other in terms of facts. The first article ass-u-med that the State Government had either lied to Selangor Rakyat, or was negligent in allowing an Indian temple to be demolished. And so, The Star went to town singing MIC's condemnation of the PKR State Government, which clearly created confusion if not hate amongst Selangor Rakyat against PKR State Government.
Then, we have the second article which dropped a bombshell! It was not a forced demolition by the state, but an active renovation by the temple management!
Which immediately raise these questions:
1. Was The Star genuinely negligent in its reporting of the first article?
2. Why is it - when there was 3 reporters assigned to the first article - that The Star failed to even check with MPAJ for the true story?
3. Why is it - when there was 3 reporters assigned to the first article - that The Star failed to even check with the temple management for the true story?
4. Why is it - when there are 3 reporters assigned to the first article - that The Star had no problems and appeared to be quick to seek not one but two (2) MIC views? Why was The Star so quick to politicize this news, when they haven't got all the facts?
5. And yet, how is it possible that despite the above, The Star reporters were able to be very diligent in their investigations - so much so that they were able to contact Ronnie Liu who happened to be outside the country at the time for his views ?!
6. Points 1. to 5. ass-u-mes that the second article is the true article because it is the later article. If so, didn't The Star realize that their first article was clearly a mistake?
7. If The Star realized that their first article was clearly a mistake, then, why didn't The Star issue an apology, and clearly state that the second article is a correction to the first article? Is The Star behaving responsibly by trying to sweep the first article "under the carpet"?
8. Didn't The Star realize that their first article has caused significant reputational and other damages to PKR State Government, by creating unnecessary negative impact on Rakyat's views towards the PKR State Government by virtue of their nationwide readership, when the first article was completely unfounded in its allegations?
9. Shouldn't MIC publicly apologize for being quick to unfairly criticize the PKR State Government on a completely unfounded basis?
10. This is obviously not the first time this happens. When will these lies / propoganda / poor quality reporting stop? Will our newspapers ever become a First World newspaper one day, or will it be relegated forever as a Third World newspaper? Is a change of government the only way to change this?
Sigh!
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
KB council bans lipstick, high heels?
This evening, the chatbox was chatting - amongst other things - about Kelantan where the topic about banning lipstick, high heels & rape prevention came up!
Personally, my knowledge about this is limited, and came primarily from the Star article below.
The Star attributed the source of reporting to Bernama, which should have raised eyebrows.
But the actual impact of that reporting surprised me in retrospect.
In the absence of conflicting information, none of us suspected anything and just ass-u-me-d that both Bernama and the Star were reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And in retrospect, this turned out to be a BIG mistake!
Anyway, if you still don't understand what I'm talking about, this is what the Star reported:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/24/nation/21636718&sec=nation
________________
KB council bans lipstick, high heels
KOTA BARU: Muslim women employees working here are forbidden to wear lipstick and high-heeled shoes to work.
This directive is contained in a municipal council circular dated May 25 and signed by its president Shafie Ismail, which has been distributed to business premises here.
A check, however, found that only a few tenants had received the circular this week.
The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan.
It stated that Muslim women were forbidden to wear thick make-up, bright coloured lipstick and high-heeled shoes which made a tapping sound.
Those who insisted on wearing high-heeled shoes should choose those with rubber soles.
Attempts to contact Shafie for clarification were futile.
The directive on the wearing of lipstick and high-heeled shoes are in addition to the wearing of scarves, which should cover the chest and not be of transparent material, blouses with long sleeves, which were long and loose, as well as socks.
Those who do not adhere to the regulation can be fined up to RM500. – Bernama
_________________
So, if you just read that and that only, what do you think?
Well, if you're like most people, I think this might be what you're thinking ...
"What a stupid & idiotic thing to do in Kelantan"
"It is stupid to ban lipsticks and high heeled shoes!"
"Lipsticks and high heeled shoes have nothing to do with rape prevention!"
"Men must take responsibility for their own feelings and actions, not the women!"
"Which stupid government in Kelantan introduced this? PAS?"
"Doesn't PAS has better things to do in Kelantan?"
etc. etc. etc.
Right?
So easy to think like this isn't it?
And like you, I also fell into that trap of thinking for nearly 2 days.
Until I visited this website here - http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/selamat-datang-ke-darul-al-taliban/
A few enlightening things:
1. More facts in that article. There is an actual copy of the circular in that link. It also has a copy of the pamphlet so that we can better understand what actually happened in Kelantan.
2. The first shocking discovery I got from the website is that the scope is not applying to the entire Kelantan state, but to just Muslim women traders within the ambit of Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bahru (MPKB) Bandar Raya Islam.
This was a real shock!
Bernama and the Star failed to clarify.
Instead, see how the Star and Bernama reported this:
"The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."
Wow!
Amazing isn't it?
How by just taking out the reference to the ambit, we were led to think that this happened throughout the whole state of Kelantan.
Do you think this is an omission?
Or the work of a clever writer?
3. Reading further the excellent investigative article by Helen Ang disclosed several other facts:
a. The circular and the pamphlet are 2 separate documents. (The Star reporting didn't disclose the presence of the pamphlet).
b. The circular is issued annually, and does not appear to be something new. (I didn't get this sense from the Star Reporting. Instead, I thought it was a new directive).
c. Where did MSM (Bernama, The Star) get the info in red bold about "... The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."???
Did the circular in Helen Ang's article refer to "rape prevention"?
If not, don't you wonder where MSM got this info from?
Helen Ang (the author) mentions the possibility that maybe the pamphlet might have something like that, but she was speculating at the time of writing her articles. Certainly, the "circular" didn't appear to say that.
Again, I ask you - do you think this is accidental omission?
Or is this the work of someone clever?
Well, I don't know about you, but I think this one deserves an A+.
Ok.
Despite the misreporting, MPKB did issue something and you might wonder "Does MPKB has the moral authority to even issue such a circular and pamphlet?"
What do I think?
Well, this is tricky.
Because if you had read just the Star & Bernama articles and nothing else, chances are good that you will have already formed your own opinions.
My guess - very strong opinions.
Which means, in practice, it would be very difficult for you to then take the personal effort to study the circular and the pamphlet in detail.
Have you tried looking at the circular and pamphlet in Helen Ang's article?
I did.
Unfortunately, the font size in Helen Ang's article of the pamphlet is far too small for me to read.
I couldn't make sense of what's written in there to be honest.
So, I still don't know what is actually written in that pamphlet.
Which means, I am still not able to form an intelligent view of what MPKB has actually issued.
Which means, I don't have a strong intelligent opinion.
But from the little that I can gather ...
There seems to be some sort of "uniform" code for the traders in MPKB.
In the pamphlet, I can see on the left side, an "example" of an acceptable dress code. In the middle, some examples of what isn't acceptable.
I also know that dress codes are a fairly common thing in many industries and service sectors. E.g. work uniforms like the army, police, nurses, doctors, factories, traders, etc.
But let me ask you another question.
If you had just read the Star and Bernama, what would be your immediate feelings towards Kelantan government?
You might think PAS is an idiot isn't it?
So, would this article then be considered seditious?
Any lawyers like to lend their views?
Personally, my knowledge about this is limited, and came primarily from the Star article below.
The Star attributed the source of reporting to Bernama, which should have raised eyebrows.
But the actual impact of that reporting surprised me in retrospect.
In the absence of conflicting information, none of us suspected anything and just ass-u-me-d that both Bernama and the Star were reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And in retrospect, this turned out to be a BIG mistake!
Anyway, if you still don't understand what I'm talking about, this is what the Star reported:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/24/nation/21636718&sec=nation
________________
KB council bans lipstick, high heels
KOTA BARU: Muslim women employees working here are forbidden to wear lipstick and high-heeled shoes to work.
This directive is contained in a municipal council circular dated May 25 and signed by its president Shafie Ismail, which has been distributed to business premises here.
A check, however, found that only a few tenants had received the circular this week.
The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan.
It stated that Muslim women were forbidden to wear thick make-up, bright coloured lipstick and high-heeled shoes which made a tapping sound.
Those who insisted on wearing high-heeled shoes should choose those with rubber soles.
Attempts to contact Shafie for clarification were futile.
The directive on the wearing of lipstick and high-heeled shoes are in addition to the wearing of scarves, which should cover the chest and not be of transparent material, blouses with long sleeves, which were long and loose, as well as socks.
Those who do not adhere to the regulation can be fined up to RM500. – Bernama
_________________
So, if you just read that and that only, what do you think?
Well, if you're like most people, I think this might be what you're thinking ...
"What a stupid & idiotic thing to do in Kelantan"
"It is stupid to ban lipsticks and high heeled shoes!"
"Lipsticks and high heeled shoes have nothing to do with rape prevention!"
"Men must take responsibility for their own feelings and actions, not the women!"
"Which stupid government in Kelantan introduced this? PAS?"
"Doesn't PAS has better things to do in Kelantan?"
etc. etc. etc.
Right?
So easy to think like this isn't it?
And like you, I also fell into that trap of thinking for nearly 2 days.
Until I visited this website here - http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/selamat-datang-ke-darul-al-taliban/
A few enlightening things:
1. More facts in that article. There is an actual copy of the circular in that link. It also has a copy of the pamphlet so that we can better understand what actually happened in Kelantan.
2. The first shocking discovery I got from the website is that the scope is not applying to the entire Kelantan state, but to just Muslim women traders within the ambit of Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bahru (MPKB) Bandar Raya Islam.
This was a real shock!
Bernama and the Star failed to clarify.
Instead, see how the Star and Bernama reported this:
"The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."
Wow!
Amazing isn't it?
How by just taking out the reference to the ambit, we were led to think that this happened throughout the whole state of Kelantan.
Do you think this is an omission?
Or the work of a clever writer?
3. Reading further the excellent investigative article by Helen Ang disclosed several other facts:
a. The circular and the pamphlet are 2 separate documents. (The Star reporting didn't disclose the presence of the pamphlet).
b. The circular is issued annually, and does not appear to be something new. (I didn't get this sense from the Star Reporting. Instead, I thought it was a new directive).
c. Where did MSM (Bernama, The Star) get the info in red bold about "... The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."???
Did the circular in Helen Ang's article refer to "rape prevention"?
If not, don't you wonder where MSM got this info from?
Helen Ang (the author) mentions the possibility that maybe the pamphlet might have something like that, but she was speculating at the time of writing her articles. Certainly, the "circular" didn't appear to say that.
Again, I ask you - do you think this is accidental omission?
Or is this the work of someone clever?
Well, I don't know about you, but I think this one deserves an A+.
Ok.
Despite the misreporting, MPKB did issue something and you might wonder "Does MPKB has the moral authority to even issue such a circular and pamphlet?"
What do I think?
Well, this is tricky.
Because if you had read just the Star & Bernama articles and nothing else, chances are good that you will have already formed your own opinions.
My guess - very strong opinions.
Which means, in practice, it would be very difficult for you to then take the personal effort to study the circular and the pamphlet in detail.
Have you tried looking at the circular and pamphlet in Helen Ang's article?
I did.
Unfortunately, the font size in Helen Ang's article of the pamphlet is far too small for me to read.
I couldn't make sense of what's written in there to be honest.
So, I still don't know what is actually written in that pamphlet.
Which means, I am still not able to form an intelligent view of what MPKB has actually issued.
Which means, I don't have a strong intelligent opinion.
But from the little that I can gather ...
There seems to be some sort of "uniform" code for the traders in MPKB.
In the pamphlet, I can see on the left side, an "example" of an acceptable dress code. In the middle, some examples of what isn't acceptable.
I also know that dress codes are a fairly common thing in many industries and service sectors. E.g. work uniforms like the army, police, nurses, doctors, factories, traders, etc.
But let me ask you another question.
If you had just read the Star and Bernama, what would be your immediate feelings towards Kelantan government?
You might think PAS is an idiot isn't it?
So, would this article then be considered seditious?
Any lawyers like to lend their views?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
MSM Blackout on RPK's Bombshell?
It's already been at least 36 hours, when RPK first dropped the "bombshell" with his latest Statutory Declaration (SD).
Malaysiakini first published it on Friday, June 20, 10.33 PM. ttp://www.malaysiakini.com/news/84831
And as I'm writing this at noon, this would make the bomb-shell at least 36 hours, if not longer.
Our regular chatter "newbie" was very quick with this story. He alerted this chatbox just a short 45 minutes later (Friday, June 20, 11:18 PM). Now, if only MSM is as quick as "newbie" (smile).
From the usual places, Netizens have already carried the articles with some blogs registering hundreds of comments! Some of the links are provided at the end of this article.
Surprisingly, some of the places on the Internet that I expect to see haven't yet carried them. Perhaps Net fatigue?
And I am dissappointed that none of the MSM that I visit on the Net carried that article.
I am basing this observation at the time I write this article which is around Noon, Sunday, June 22.
After all, at least 36 hours if not more has elapsed already.
- http://ktemoc.blogspot.com/ (see Saturday, June 21 entry)
- http://magickriver.blogspot.com/2008/06/rpk-for-igp-stonewall-begins-to-crumble.html
- http://www.mca.org.my/English/Pages/default.aspx
- http://drchua9.blogspot.com/
Malaysian Insider (being linked to BN) also hasn't yet carry this story - http://themalaysianinsider.com/. The irony is Malaysian Insider carried many very detailed, in-depth stories regarding SAPP ... you have to wonder why isn't it?
Disclaimer: It is possible that my article might become out of date and factually inaccurate since I base my observation at around noon today, which is around 36 hours after Malaysiakini published RPK's bombshell. I do not intend to maintain an update, as this is a personal blog to record my own observations of what the MSM does or didn't do within the first 36 hours of RPK dropping the bomb-shell.
Malaysiakini first published it on Friday, June 20, 10.33 PM. ttp://www.malaysiakini.com/news/84831
And as I'm writing this at noon, this would make the bomb-shell at least 36 hours, if not longer.
Our regular chatter "newbie" was very quick with this story. He alerted this chatbox just a short 45 minutes later (Friday, June 20, 11:18 PM). Now, if only MSM is as quick as "newbie" (smile).
From the usual places, Netizens have already carried the articles with some blogs registering hundreds of comments! Some of the links are provided at the end of this article.
Surprisingly, some of the places on the Internet that I expect to see haven't yet carried them. Perhaps Net fatigue?
And I am dissappointed that none of the MSM that I visit on the Net carried that article.
I am basing this observation at the time I write this article which is around Noon, Sunday, June 22.
After all, at least 36 hours if not more has elapsed already.
Here's a list of MSM which I've checked at noon, and still haven't carried the article.
- http://thestar.com.my/news/nation/
Interestingly, my "favorite" business newspaper which carried that wonderfully narrow AirAsia reporting also think that RPK's "bombshell" is not newsworthy enough. (http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/05/edge-on-airasia.html)
Why? Because I still haven't seen them publishing it.
But I note The Edge believed it is critical to print articles on SAPP VONC on AAB, so that its business and market readers are kept constantly up-to-date and take a timely market action. http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/index.jsp.
So, since The Edge didn't carry the article on RPK's SD, I guess the conclusion one must draw is that The Edge thinks RPK's bombshell will NOT impact business and KLSE market tomorrow! So, no need to worry, since if it's not in the MSM news, it's not real! (not)
And remember the University Teknologi Mara article that I blogged previously? http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/06/malaysian-blogs-didnt-lead-to.html; Remember it's so called survey and wonderful conclusion that Malaysian blogs do not lead to more Opposition votes? In that article, there were references to the so-called popular sites. Let me reproduce the sites here and see whether they carry / not carry RPK's SD article:
"Among the popular blogs and websites were Malaysiakini, Suara Keadilan, SPR, Harakah Online, Berita Harian Online, Utusan Malaysia Online, Malaysia Today, The Star Online and those of news agencies."
Let's see ... Malaysiakini carries it. Suara Keadilan carries it on its front webpage via link to DSAI's blog. SPR is irrelevant since this is an election website. Harakah Online surprisingly didn't have it on its front page at the time of writing (http://www.harakahdaily.net/). And as for the MSM and other news agencies, all the 3 sites mentioned there (Berita Harian, Utusan, Star) still did not carry them.
So, what could be the possible reasons for MSM not carrying this article?
Perhaps, one might try to argue that it is not the role of MSM to spread "lies" (and this is pre-judging that RPK's SD is a lie, which is yet to be determined). The MSM defenders might say that there is no truth to RPK's SD, or that cannot be determined yet, or that might be subjudiced to the present trial happening, or a thousand other possible reasons. (But never the reason that it would make all "big" people implicated look bad)
Even if any of these were the case, surely MSM could still interview at least the "big" people implicated by RPK's SD namely - Rosmah, Najib, Abdullah, Khairy - for their statements at the very least isn't it? After all, writing and signing a Statutory Declaration in Court is not exactly risk-free to RPK. It opens RPK to indefinite time-period liability, where anyone could bring RPK to courts with harsh penalties if it turns out that RPK has lied. I am sure - that if RPK lied - it should be very easy for them to vehemently deny and to proceed with court action to sue RPK for lying. Then, MSM can further publish that on their front pages, and everything is open and transparent.
But my question is - has MSM done this yet? Has any one of the newspapers sent their "investigative" reporters to interview the 4 people involved? Or more importantly, has any one of the newspapers sent their "investigative" reporters to interview RPK?
Why the deafening silence?
Isn't RPK's Statutory Declaration not the slightest bit "newsworthy"?
Won't our new law minister Zaid Ibrahim continue to blame "investigative" journalists for lacking guts if they don't print this?
What about the 150+ reporters who staged a walk-out recently to protest for freer media (the so called "walk for press freedom")? Where are these reporters now on this explosive story? Do all of them only know how to walk, but not know how to investigate and write?
A. Asohan recently did a piece criticizing the journalists and thinks that Zaid Ibrahim has a point when he pointed the fingers at the journalists. http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2008/6/15/columnists/straythoughts/21505152&sec=Stray%20Thoughts
http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/saying-it-like-it-is/
So, where is A. Asohan now? How come no piece from A. Asohan? Now a betrayer to his own kind is it? Or will he write another piece scolding his own kind again? Maybe he'll just shut up.
Do you really think NONE of the journalists cares?
Speaking for myself, I actually don't, since NONE is a very strong word. I believe there are still some journalists who cares. I'm sure they would leap at the smallest chance granted by their bosses to either interview RPK or the 4 people implicated by the SD. If only their bosses would give the go-ahead.
The deafening silence is why are the MSM bosses not even pushing their own people to investigate?
What are the MSM bosses so afraid of?
Isn't it their business to print news?
Why the censorship?
Afraid of the government?
The Law Minister Zaid previously implied to the press that there is nothing which the Press should be afraid of, when he puts the blame squarely on the journalist.
Or you think the Law Minister was behaving like a "lawyer buruk" when he addressed the Press?
Bottom line is - Mr Zaid - you cannot escape the fact that the government is PRIMARILY responsible for the present self-censorship dis-ease that the country is suffering over the last decades.
I can actually sympathize with the MSM.
Just imagine the Star say (or another MSM).
Let's say lar that the Star is bold and publishes it without fear nor favour to the government.
Can Zaid guarantees that the Star will not be penalized later by the government?
Can Zaid guarantees that he is going to be around perpetually in government to make sure later the Star doesn't get penalized?
Surely Zaid is not that naive?
And surely, Zaid does not expect the Star owners to be that naive too?
Of course, maybe the Star is not a good example, since the owners are also politically linked, and would want to see such news not reported.
If so, you can replace it with another MSM.
The point is this is only an illustration, and just my own thoughts and mumblings.
At first, I actually thought that it might have been an explicit Media Blackout instructed by the government.
But after writing this article, I'm beginning to think that perhaps that is irrelevant.
The self-censorship culture is now so strong, that maybe it doesn't even need an explicit instruction.
The bottom line is that there IS MSM blackout in the first 36 hours, and that is all we need to know.
And from a market perspective, we all know that News can MOVE Markets in a big way, depending on the news.
And So, censored (or delayed) News is not a generally good thing for Market players who rely on MSM only.
_________________
The original Statutory Declaration posted in Malaysiakini website - http://malaysiakini.com/doc/rpk_against_rosmah.php
Bloggers on RPK's SD:
- http://kamal-talksmalaysia.blogspot.com/2008/06/raja-petra-kamaruddins-statutory.html- http://ktemoc.blogspot.com/ (see Saturday, June 21 entry)
- http://magickriver.blogspot.com/2008/06/rpk-for-igp-stonewall-begins-to-crumble.html
- http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/ (go to Friday, June 20, 22:05 entry)
- http://bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/is-this-statutory-declaration-true/
- http://sloone.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/raja-petras-statutory-declaration-worst-than-c4/
- http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/ticking-time-bomb-and-rakyat-reeling/, http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/rpk-drops-the-mother-of-all-bombshells/
Politician bloggers, only LKS and DSAI carry so far:
- http://anwaribrahimblog.com/2008/06/21/perakuan-sumpah-raja-petra/
Note TDM's blog (http://www.chedet.com/) is silent. Other DAP and PKR bloggers are presumably silent since their leaders have already blogged on it.
In contrast, UMNO politicians are still silent. E.g. Khir Toyol (http://www.drkhir.blogspot.com/), Khairy J (http://www.rembau.net.my/index.asp)
MCA website & MCA politician is also silent, as expected. They see it worthy to comment on SAPP, but not RPK's SD.- http://www.mca.org.my/English/Pages/default.aspx
- http://drchua9.blogspot.com/
Malaysian Insider (being linked to BN) also hasn't yet carry this story - http://themalaysianinsider.com/. The irony is Malaysian Insider carried many very detailed, in-depth stories regarding SAPP ... you have to wonder why isn't it?
Disclaimer: It is possible that my article might become out of date and factually inaccurate since I base my observation at around noon today, which is around 36 hours after Malaysiakini published RPK's bombshell. I do not intend to maintain an update, as this is a personal blog to record my own observations of what the MSM does or didn't do within the first 36 hours of RPK dropping the bomb-shell.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Malaysian blogs didn't lead to opposition votes?
Came across this article reported by Asia One and circulated in MT - http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/9000/84/
Must say I am surprised by the studies reported there. It did not match my own experience, and makes me wonder if this is propoganda-linked? What do you think?
__________________
(Asia One) - A STUDY of the Internet's influence on the 2008 Malaysian general election found no evidence that those who read blogs and other online political content were inclined to vote for opposition parties.
(Seng comment: Wow! Is this a serious Study? Or still living in Denial?
Let's ass-u-me for a moment that the Study is genuine - what could possibly be the explanations? Is the study design flawed perhaps? Or could it be that the vast majority of blog-readers were already pro-Opposition parties years ago, and so, there was no change a year later because they remained pro-Opposition, and because of this "no-change", the researches misinterpreted that as "found no evidence"? If so, what's not reported in this article?)
The study, by four academics from Universiti Teknologi Mara's Communications and Media Studies Faculty, showed that 80 per cent of respondents were aware of blogs, which were popular with the middle class and below.
(Seng comment:
University Teknologi Mara ... Must say I'm not feeling terribly impressed now.
Popular with middle class and below only? Perhaps the middle class and below is a naturally higher % of the population, and so the sample merely reflects population if one does a simple counting which might not be the right way to do a sampling study to test this hypothesis ...
I do however notice that investing blogs (not necessarily the same as political blogs) tend to attract a reasonably high % of high net worth investors (just a general impression) who are also politically astute. I wonder if this is in line with your own experience?)
"After making the cross matching, we found that there was no strong evidence that supports the notion that the Internet content had moved people to vote for the opposition," Professor Madya Baharuddin Aziz told Bernama.
(Seng comment: LOL! This is NOT in line with my own personal experience. What about yours?)
Instead, the study showed that the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, which were thrashed at the election, failed to adequately address issues raised online.
The survey of 1,100 voters in four zones - north (28 per cent), south (22 per cent), east coast (19 per cent) and central (31 per cent) - showed that blogs were popular because they discussed issues in a different way from mainstream media.
(Seng comment: Yes. Blogs are interactive, and there is a real interaction between the writers and the readers, unlike MSM. Further the interaction is almost instantaneous, such as my chatbox. The connection is real and not distanced like MSM. Furthermore, most if not all blog articles are uncensored. Many are written from the heart, which enhances the connection further.)
When ministers and politicians also hop into this phenomenon, they give clout to blogs and online journalism, said Prof Baharuddin.
Among the popular blogs and websites were Malaysiakini, Suara Keadilan, SPR, Harakah Online, Berita Harian Online, Utusan Malaysia Online, Malaysia Today, The Star Online and those of news agencies.
(Seng comment: I'm not sure my personal experience agrees here ... Speaking for myself, I don't read Berita Harian nor Utusan Malaysia. The general feedback is that they are so pro-government that they can be sickening and potentially cause vomitting .... (smile) Just curious - what is your experience here?)
Prof Baharuddin said "digital media warfare" and the preference of the younger generation should be given serious thought, particularly with 1.8 million new voters in the next election in 2012 or 2013.
_____________
Conclusion
For me, I find that my own personal experience did NOT match the study.
1. For me, reading blogs over the past year has certainly influenced me to be more sympathetic to the Opposition than the BN coalition.
2. I did not read Berita Harian nor Utusan Malaysia at all, and so, not as much as the other blogs mentioned in that list. Whereas, Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today are probably the Top 2.
3. I also wonder who would want to commission a University study that concluded that Internet did not influence voting ... Here's an idea - why not commission a study to see in what way MSM and Internet reports the same event in different manner (such as Bersih or Hindraf Rally). Then, I would be very impressed with the relevance of our local Universities.
Which now makes me a little wary of the type and quality of the above study in our local Universities ...
Must say I am surprised by the studies reported there. It did not match my own experience, and makes me wonder if this is propoganda-linked? What do you think?
__________________
(Asia One) - A STUDY of the Internet's influence on the 2008 Malaysian general election found no evidence that those who read blogs and other online political content were inclined to vote for opposition parties.
(Seng comment: Wow! Is this a serious Study? Or still living in Denial?
Let's ass-u-me for a moment that the Study is genuine - what could possibly be the explanations? Is the study design flawed perhaps? Or could it be that the vast majority of blog-readers were already pro-Opposition parties years ago, and so, there was no change a year later because they remained pro-Opposition, and because of this "no-change", the researches misinterpreted that as "found no evidence"? If so, what's not reported in this article?)
The study, by four academics from Universiti Teknologi Mara's Communications and Media Studies Faculty, showed that 80 per cent of respondents were aware of blogs, which were popular with the middle class and below.
(Seng comment:
University Teknologi Mara ... Must say I'm not feeling terribly impressed now.
Popular with middle class and below only? Perhaps the middle class and below is a naturally higher % of the population, and so the sample merely reflects population if one does a simple counting which might not be the right way to do a sampling study to test this hypothesis ...
I do however notice that investing blogs (not necessarily the same as political blogs) tend to attract a reasonably high % of high net worth investors (just a general impression) who are also politically astute. I wonder if this is in line with your own experience?)
"After making the cross matching, we found that there was no strong evidence that supports the notion that the Internet content had moved people to vote for the opposition," Professor Madya Baharuddin Aziz told Bernama.
(Seng comment: LOL! This is NOT in line with my own personal experience. What about yours?)
Instead, the study showed that the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, which were thrashed at the election, failed to adequately address issues raised online.
The survey of 1,100 voters in four zones - north (28 per cent), south (22 per cent), east coast (19 per cent) and central (31 per cent) - showed that blogs were popular because they discussed issues in a different way from mainstream media.
(Seng comment: Yes. Blogs are interactive, and there is a real interaction between the writers and the readers, unlike MSM. Further the interaction is almost instantaneous, such as my chatbox. The connection is real and not distanced like MSM. Furthermore, most if not all blog articles are uncensored. Many are written from the heart, which enhances the connection further.)
When ministers and politicians also hop into this phenomenon, they give clout to blogs and online journalism, said Prof Baharuddin.
Among the popular blogs and websites were Malaysiakini, Suara Keadilan, SPR, Harakah Online, Berita Harian Online, Utusan Malaysia Online, Malaysia Today, The Star Online and those of news agencies.
(Seng comment: I'm not sure my personal experience agrees here ... Speaking for myself, I don't read Berita Harian nor Utusan Malaysia. The general feedback is that they are so pro-government that they can be sickening and potentially cause vomitting .... (smile) Just curious - what is your experience here?)
Prof Baharuddin said "digital media warfare" and the preference of the younger generation should be given serious thought, particularly with 1.8 million new voters in the next election in 2012 or 2013.
_____________
Conclusion
For me, I find that my own personal experience did NOT match the study.
1. For me, reading blogs over the past year has certainly influenced me to be more sympathetic to the Opposition than the BN coalition.
2. I did not read Berita Harian nor Utusan Malaysia at all, and so, not as much as the other blogs mentioned in that list. Whereas, Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today are probably the Top 2.
3. I also wonder who would want to commission a University study that concluded that Internet did not influence voting ... Here's an idea - why not commission a study to see in what way MSM and Internet reports the same event in different manner (such as Bersih or Hindraf Rally). Then, I would be very impressed with the relevance of our local Universities.
Which now makes me a little wary of the type and quality of the above study in our local Universities ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
