To the Editor of The New Paper,
I am writing this email to you to express my disappointment and disgust at the front page of The New Paper of 26 April 2011 (attached to this email).
The front page features an image of SDP candidate Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, while the captions say: “SDP candidate ‘outed’ in gay forum video: Is S’pore ready for Gay MP?”
I understand that this headline was sparked by the press statement released by PAP candidate and Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and the rest of his Holland-Bukit Timah GRC team, drawing attention to the YouTube video of a forum on gay issues held in Singapore last year, and asking the SDP to be clear about its political agenda.
The press statement from the PAP team stated, “The issue is not Wijeysingha’s sexual orientation.”
In this context, why has The New Paper then seen fit to dedicate the entire front page to Dr Wijeysingha being a potential gay MP? Even the PAP, who were the ones to bring up this whole subject of discussion, has said that it is not about whether Dr Wijeysingha is gay or not.
The New Paper’s front page is then highly misleading, and serves to skew readers’ perspectives on the issue. In fact, I feel that the front page is nothing more than an attempt to play up homophobic sentiments in Singaporean society. This is a highly irresponsible move that has the potential to divide Singaporeans at a time when we most need to come together to determine the future of the country for the next 5 years, and undermines all efforts towards the inclusive society we aspire to be.
The article in The New Paper also contains a poll of 137 Singaporeans on the issue of lowering the age of consent in Singapore. I understand that this is in response to the PAP’s statement that says that “[t]he discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age”.
However, if the reporter (who I believe is Ms Bryna Sim) had even bothered to watch the YouTube video in question, she would have seen that the video did NOT actually contain a discussion of this issue. At no point in time did Dr Wijeysingha, or any other participant in the forum, actually put forth any wish for the age of consent to be lowered, or discussed the possibility.
For the PAP statement to have described the forum thusly was misleading and even dishonest, a blatant fear-mongering attempt to inaccurately conflate homosexual activities with paedophilia. The New Paper did not need to compound and validate this dishonesty by means of a poll.
It does not matter that The New Paper is not a broadsheet like The Straits Times. Tabloid journalism should not be equivalent to gutter journalism. As the second most-read English newspaper in Singapore, The New Paper is able to reach into the collective consciousness of the Singaporean public. There is thus a crucial need for standards of journalistic integrity to be upheld, especially during the elections period where the decision of voters will directly impact the future of the nation. This is more important than sensationalising issues to the extent of misleading readers in an effort to capitalise on an already distasteful episode.
I hope that The New Paper will apologise for its irresponsible coverage, and refrain from gutter journalism in the future.
Sincerely
Kirsten Han
UPDATE:
I received a reply from Mr Singh, one of the editors of TNP, this evening. He gave me his phone number and asked that I call him to discuss the issues. It turned out to be a rather interesting 35-minute conversation where I got to hear his perspective. I have summarised 5 points that I took away from the conversation in an FB note which I reproduce here:
Earlier today I wrote an email to The New Paper (TNP) to complain about their front page, and also about their doing a poll on lowering the age of consent for boys in Singapore.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did not read the article in the paper. I saw the front page when I was out for lunch, as well as on FB and Twitter, and was disgusted by the fact that of all the things they could have picked on in this whole episode, and all the headlines they could have had, TNP went with “IS S’PORE READY FOR A GAY MP?”
This evening, I received a reply from TNP editor Melvinderpal Singh, with a phone number asking me to call to discuss the issues I had raised. He just wanted to share his perspective with me, which is, of course, fair enough.
It turned out to be a 35-minute conversation, and I summarise the main points made by Mr Singh below. They are neither direct quotes and might not be in the same order in which he made them (‘cos I have some trouble remembering lah, it’s 35 minutes you know).
(I have tried as much as possible not to put my own point of view into this write-up so people can make up their own minds. I hope I have succeeded.)
1. One cannot criticise if one has not read the article
Mr Singh said that between the reporter (Ms Sim) and himself, they had received 7 email complaints, with many more criticisms online. However, he said that most of these complaints had come from people who were reacting solely to the front page without reading the article.
Mr Singh said that he had expected most intelligent and educated Singaporeans to have read the article before jumping the gun to judge TNP for their article.
He likened the prejudging of the TNP article without reading it to the case of The Satanic Verses written by Salman Rushdie, where a fatwa was issued and there was mass hysteria and even burning of the books although many people had not even read it, but were just judging it based on the comments of others. Similarly, those who were complaining about the TNP article were just basing their judgments on what they had heard in social media, and not on the actual article.
He also felt that many Singaporeans had conflated their anger at the PAP with their anger at the newspaper.
2. “Are Singaporeans ready for a gay MP?” was the angle TNP chose to take because they thought it was an important issue concerning voters
Even though the PAP said that Dr Wijeysingha’s sexual orientation was not an issue for them, TNP felt that it was an issue for Singaporean voters. They therefore went out to poll Singaporeans about whether they were ready for a gay MP.
76% of the Singaporeans polled said that they would be fine with a gay MP. This, Mr Singh said, actually helps SDP more than the PAP, and therefore he felt that it was quite “ballsy” of TNP to have taken this angle
However, TNP only polled approx. 130 (I forget the real number) people and so it would not have been statistically correct for the headline to say “Singaporeans are ready for a gay MP”. (This was in response to my question about why the headline could not have reflected the poll.)
He also said that TNP decided to do a poll about lowering the age of consent in Singapore because it was an issue raised in the video (albeit not by Dr Wijeysingha) and they felt that it was relevant to Singaporeans.
Mr Singh told me that TNP had been praised by Fridae.com before for being gay-friendly in their previous coverage.
3. It is only a smear campaign if what the PAP say about Vincent Wijeysingha is untrue
Mr Singh said that it would only be accurate to say that the PAP has launched a “smear campaign” against Dr Wijeysingha if what they are saying is untrue. However, what the PAP has said is true, and so it cannot be labelled a “smear campaign”.He said that he had asked the SDP if they had attempted to suppress the video in question, and that the SDP said yes. So the PAP hadn’t been “smearing” the SDP by implying they were trying to suppress the video, because they were.
4. The choice of headline is fair
When Mr Singh found out that I am a filmmaker by trade, he likened the headline of an article to the cutting of a trailer, saying that I would never cut a trailer that made it seem like the film was boring, but would pick the best, most interesting bits to put forward. Therefore, this was the headline that would be attention-grabbing.
5. Don’t add “fuel to the flame”
Mr Singh felt that my complaint to TNP was simply adding “fuel to the flame”, leading to more people to prejudge the article. I asked if TNP would now proceed to cover another angle of the story, picking up on the strong reactions online questioning Dr Balakrishnan. Mr Singh said that they would not, as they did not wish to add more “fuel to the flame”.
These are the top 5 points that I recall from the debate. We ended up agreeing to disagree, and ended the conversation civilly. He said that if I should ever wish to debate this issue more, I could get some friends together, and he could bring along some of the younger reporters, and we could discuss this over coffee.
harishpillay
April 26, 2011
The New Paper (being part of the state-owned SPH) continues to show that they have scant respect for journalistic integrity. Some years ago, this same paper splashed across their front page about a “Toh Chin Chye”. It was not the former DPM Toh Chin Chye but someone else with the same name. I called up the editor and questioned his need to have a headline that throws suspicion on an otherwise innocent person with the same name. I do not recall if they retracted it or not. I have never before that incident not after it, ever bought a New Paper. Not even for the sports.
So, in this instance, they seem to be continuing with the same level of incompetence playing to some agenda that we know is pro-PAP. It is important that as the center of gravity continues to move away from the MSM to online, we keep explaining to people what the MSM is doing and how those who are not online can be kept them informed. It is really up to us.
kirsten
April 26, 2011
It is not really surprising that TNP would sink to such depths, but that makes it no less disappointing and disgusting. The hysterical need to sensationalise and skew things with no sense of responsibility makes a mockery of all the journalists working for that publication. This is why, no matter how much I would wish to become a professional journalist, I will never be able to bring myself to write for SPH.
bookjunkie
April 26, 2011
I was utterly disgusted by this as well. I am waiting for this to backfire.
kirsten
April 26, 2011
I can’t believe the lack of journalistic integrity. UGH.
Jezebella
April 27, 2011
Kirsten, I beg to differ on Mr. Singh’s reply about how the complaint is not justified if one has not read the article.
I am not sure of your vocation, but as a student studying media and communications, I can tell you that titles matter a lot. Sometimes maybe even a lot more than the article itself. The title is a lead-in to the article. However, the way it is presented can form or even punch an impression on the minds of the audience, who might and might not read the article at all.
Another important is how many people has read the full article. There will be many people who has read the full article, but at the same time there will also be many people who has only read the headlines/title. The point is also that Singapore has a very fast-paced society (foreign friends have reflected their surprise at how Singaporeans seem to zoom here and there as if there’s no tomorrow) and sometimes people do not have the time or patience to actually read the content body. That is why an article’s title and lead is emphasized over and over again in any journalism class and that is also why you will always find the most important information of any well-written news article in the first paragraph. People generally DO NOT read the whole article, especially if it is a long one.
Therefore, the title and the lead-in plays extremely important roles. They are either the only things people read, or they strike up interest so that people will read the article. Both are equally influential and as an editor, Mr. Singh should be well aware of that. Ironically, he chose to only cover one side of the coin while leaving out the other.
Another point is that he suggests intelligent and most educated Singaporeans will read the full article. There is utterly no evidence to back his statement, and I find that an offensive statement to make. Does he know you have not read the article? If he does, I suppose I do have grounds to believe he’s making a slight at you.
Being at work, I cannot continue to type my other comments and insight on the rest of his points. I will log off for now. :p
mackinder
April 27, 2011
The impact of the title cannot be mitigated by post-publication explanations.
The medium is the message, and the target audience of the TNP, i.e busy lunchtime crowds would generally do this,
1) Look at the headlines
2) If the headlines are interesting, do a quick flip post-lunch at their desk
3) If 1 and 2 are met, then they may actually go on to read the articles.
Of course, if Manchester United played the night before, then all else is moot. They’d simply flip to the backpages.
Alan Wong
April 27, 2011
Obviously he is merely trying to defend what already seems to be some calculated move on TNP’s part to discredit SDP especially on the part about SDP trying to suppress the Youtube video. Maybe he should also try explaining to us as to how he thinks that someone can actually suppress a video posted on Youtube if they are not the original creator.
For my part, I think he thinks we are fools to begin with.
Leong
April 27, 2011
This is not the first time TNP resort to gutter reporting when SDP is concerned.
During the last GE, MM lee came out to chide Dr Chee about his uncouth behavior againt GCT. Next day the first page headline bared “Gangster Politics!” with Dr Chee’s face on it.
Looks to me SPH and Mediacorps have a agenda to work with PAP to run down the SDP
kirsten
April 27, 2011
His first question was whether I had read the article, and I did pick up on the slight, but decided to let it pass because there were plenty of other things to discuss.
I too was in media and communications (I have a Bachelor of Media Arts and did Film and Media Studies papers for my Honours degree) and currently work as an associate producer on documentary films, and what you’ve said was exactly the point that I was trying to put across to the editor – with very little success.
I think it doesn’t even really matter that Singapore is a fast-paced society; headlines and front pages of newspapers are crucial and important no matter where it is, or what the publication is.
It is the first thing that grabs people’s attention, it is the first impression they get. What they see in that headline or front page builds a perception, an impression and even an EXPECTATION of what they are going to read in the article – if they even get that far. If they do not read the article, then the impression that they got from the headline is the ONLY message they are going to take away with them. As such, a lot of thought and care is put into choosing a headline, because those few little words have a lot of power and potential.
It is surprising to me that an editor of Singapore’s second most-read newspaper does not seem to know that.
He also tried to justify the headline by equating it to movie trailers (in an effort to relate to my job). However, even when cutting trailers one should never mislead the audience, because that is unethical and dishonest. I know many Hollywood movie trailers DO, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay, and anyway, the consequences of a misleading Hollywood movie trailer is nowhere near that of a misleading headline on a newspaper in the heat of elections.
I understand his point that the the headline has to be “attention-grabbing” and attract readers, but one can also pick an attention-grabbing headline that does not skew the issue or carry certain connotations. Attention-grabbing is not equivalent to sensationalism.
Again, another point that I was surprised he did not seem to acknowledge.
harishpillay
April 27, 2011
For all that has been pulled out by Dr Balakrishnan, it appears that the matter is now on complete blackout in the MSM. I cannot understand the people who do this not realizing that the bigger, online media is still focusing on it and is still current. It is indeed the case that the MSM has abdicated any form of thought leadership.
When I was in grad school a couple of decades ago, I used to work for the campus daily as their copy editor. I had the privilege writing headlines everyday. I am a EE, hardcore techie by interest and training and no formal journalism training. But even I knew that writing a headline is really to draw attention but in a fair manner. Never sensationalize nor ridicule. In a lot ways, headline writing is not much different from today’s 140-char messaging ala twitter/identi.ca.
I think you should take up the offer by the editor to have a round table chat. It should be fun.
Dead Poet
April 28, 2011
What a load of crap. If Singh ‘s argument is ” It is only a smear campaign if what the PAP say about Vincent Wijeysingha is untrue”
How would he feel if i make statement ” Bisexual buggery is part and parcel of the Sikh culture” . So the onus will be on Mr Singh to prove that what I have said is completely untrue otherwise its not a smear. I as a person, choose to believe all the jokes.
Forgive me for having to use a racial reference. It is in no way meant to offend the Sikh community but just to put the argument to Mr Singh. The statement can be applied to any race.
Similarly, if I declare “Unprofessional TNP Editors gets their facts wrong again” . Its not a smear for TNP did screw up with the Mr Toh affair. That Mr Singh is a accurate statement.
Anonymous
May 2, 2011
People say this is too sensational and so biased against opposition, then when Straits Times has non-sensational pictures and just fair coverage of all political parties, people say biased again. Wtf.
kirsten
May 2, 2011
If you think that ST has had fair coverage of all political parties, perhaps you would be interested in seeing Maruah’s reports on elections coverage in the mainstream media:
http://maruah.org/2011/04/29/maruah-media-monitoring-of-election-coverage-day-1/
http://maruah.org/2011/04/30/day-2-of-media-monitoring-of-election-coverage/
http://maruah.org/2011/05/01/maruah-media-monitoring-day-3-30-april-2011/
kirsten
May 2, 2011
Now they are doing it again to Dr Chee. UGH.
R
May 2, 2011
Guys, it’s a tabloid. Since when were they beacons of journalism?
Natasya Nur
May 2, 2011
how LOW can you go, TNP?
never been a fan, rightly so. and i never will be.
my 70c would be better spent tossing it into a gutter. oh wait, gutter=TNP, so that would still mean i’m giving 70c to you. darn it!
SG-vote
May 2, 2011
We should put this Mr Singh at front page and write:
“The gay story reporter”
“Who writes to agree to disagree”
Ning
May 3, 2011
Even if we let the headline go, placing Dr Wijeysingha’s headshot next to the headline is misleading readers.
gutter replacement
October 24, 2011
Thank you for some other informative website. Where else could I get that type of information written in such a perfect method? I’ve a undertaking that I am simply now running on, and I have been at the glance out for such info.
NinthFASHION (@NinthFASHION)
April 30, 2012
To TNP: No gutter journalism, please. | funny little world http://t.co/PUOPLQXr