IHT apology sacrifices principles for money

Bloggers like Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein and Will Bunch reacted with a collective "WTF?" when this apology was carried by the New York Times, as the owner of the International Herald Tribune would do. The surprise reflects the difference in the practise and perspective of journalism between the US and Singapore, and is also an indication of how suppressed the local press is.

However, the IHT is not the first publication to be threatened or slapped with a libel suit from senior PAP politicians, and chosen to pay damages and stay rather than leave Singapore. This editorial by Clark Hoyt details why:

For The Herald Tribune and all the other news organizations that have paid damages to Singapore’s rulers (The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg) or had their circulation limited there (Time, The Asian Wall Street Journal, The Economist), the choice has been to stay.

For The Herald Tribune, the economic stakes are large: more than 10 percent of its Asian circulation is in Singapore. It prints papers there that are distributed throughout the region. It sells advertising to companies throughout Asia that want to reach readers in Singapore.

In other words, this is a decision rooted in monetary perspectives; the IHT sold its integrity for money. That is a very sad story for what I believe to be a bastion of journalism. The fallout has begun. Hoyt continues:

Safire told The American Journalism Review in 1995 that the world’s free press should unite and pull out of Singapore in the face of any new libel action. I think that is what should happen too, but it never has.

Google faced a similar painful dilemma in China. With potentially billions of dollars at risk, it stuck to its principles, and The Times applauded editorially. I think Google set an example for everyone who believes in the free flow of information.

This is probably why the New York Times, more than any other newspaper in the world, still has my respect.