More stenography from TODAY
Monday, May 3, 2010 at 12:32AM If you need an example of what I refer to as "stenographic journalism", look no further than this article published by Today. It is practically a rehash of the previous report on Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's speech in Parliament castigating the homeless couple, Mr I and Mdm S, and a further statement made by Dr Balakrishnan's press secretary, Miss Ho Moon Shin. It does not have a byline, nor any extra comment made by the author to the statements made by either the minister or Ms Ho. The author also did not question anything said by Ms Ho.
In other words, it is a glorified press release. The article might as well be written by the MCYS communications department, and no one would have spotted an ounce of difference. There were no questions asked, no doubts raised, nothing that indicated a remote hint of journalism. It's shameful.
But what astounds me the most is this very serious accusation from Ms Ho:
Ms Ho, however, countered that the MCYS was "also very concerned" that the woman had claimed she was not aware Al Jazeera had recorded her statement for broadcasting.
"She was under the mistaken impression that these were volunteers offering to help her.
"If this is indeed the case, then Al Jazeera also stands guilty of abusing the trust of the interviewee and unprofessional conduct," Ms Ho said.
At this point, I would like you to watch the Al Jazeera English (AJE) video again. Pay specific attention to the way AJE have filmed the couple in the video, as well as AJE's Laura Kyle's positioning in the video.
Ms Ho expects you to believe that Mdm S thought she was lied to by reporters masquerading as volunteers armed with a camera crew who would shoot silhouettes of her, and that Ms Kyle, who did the presentation about AJE not wanting to disclose the location for fear of bringing a raid on the homeless right outside their tents, behaved unethically.
I believe this slanderous accusation must be challenged in the way real journalists would. Mdm S is not stupid; she was fully aware of the fact that Ms Kyle and her crew are from AJE. That Ms Ho would accuse AJE of unprofessional, unethical behaviour when that is impossible to believe even from casual viewing of the AJE video is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who read her statement.
For this story to be reported in the manner that it was, Today is the organisation who fail to grasp what professional journalism entails, not AJE. How AJE would respond to such an accusation is their decision; however, I expect both Today and Ms Ho Moon Shin, in the words of Dr Balakrishnan, to "have the courage and the honesty to set the record straight" for propagating this blatant falsehood.
Reader Comments (2)
Note Ms. Ho's statement:
Ms Ho, however, countered that the MCYS was "also very concerned" that the woman had claimed she was not aware Al Jazeera had recorded her statement for broadcasting.
"She was under the mistaken impression that these were volunteers offering to help her."
"If this is indeed the case, then Al Jazeera also stands guilty of abusing the trust of the interviewee and unprofessional conduct," Ms Ho said.
I am afraid Callan has misunderstood these three sentences. From what I understand reading these, Ms. Ho does not believe the woman's statement that she is under the impression that the Al Jazeera people are volunteers. The last statement is logically correct;
And that is the women's impression and the Al Jazeera being professional cannot be both true.
Ms. Ho is trying to score what is called a "debating point"; and that is to point out a series of facts presented by the "opposition" that cannot be both correct; and thus the listening must choose to "disbelieve" one of the facts.
However, Ms. Ho in scoring this point, have betrayed her "combative" stance and her lack of willingness to listen to the other side.
Callan's misinterpretation of this has also betrayed his similar unwillingness to listen to the other side.
Both sides engaged in a "school debate" style to "win" and not use the exchange as a means of sieving out the truth.
@huang: That is not how I interpret Ms Ho's statements obviously. What I'm pointing out are a few simple things:
1. She, and MCYS collectively, declined to be interviewed by AJE, while casting aspersions on AJE;
2. Instead of trying to solve the homeless issue, she continued to repeat what her boss said;
3. And TODAY just printed exactly what Ms Ho said without corroboration or question.
Why do I read her statements to be accusatory towards AJE? Because she said ""She was under the mistaken impression that these were volunteers offering to help her." She left a clever way out by saying "If this is indeed the case", but that line was not questioned by the author of the TODAY article.
Any such statement that are not refuted strongly, and repeated enough, without being challenged, will attain the impression of a fact even when it does not contain an iota of it. And when TODAY carried a story without a byline that does not question anything, it is doing exactly that.
I also find it interesting you think I'm engaging in a schoolboy argument to "win". I'm not interested in "winning", whatever that means. I'm interested in making MCYS helping the homeless, and it is shameful to see such abject abdication of responsibility on their part. That you don't see that, or choose to see this as an academic exercise ("school debate") misrepresents me and my article.