ChannelNewsLater… like grandfather story
Update:
As always, Gilbert has a great post. He highlights that stifling of criticisms would create a chilling effect that can only be detrimental to Singapore’s long-term interests. And I agree whole-heartedly.
TODAYOnline has also released a fairer and more balanced report on this incident. Kudos to them.
Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified: Singapore is the Victim
TODAYonline - Student shuts blog after A*Star threatens to sue
————————————————————————————————-
Credit for the ‘ChannelNewsLater’ part of the title goes to Mr Miyagi.
So ChannelNewsLater is behind the curve when it comes to news from the blogosphere. Is it surprising at all? All those layers of bureaucracy to go through, checking with superiors whether it is politically ok to run the story, whether their asses would get burnt, what angle should they take…etc etc… probably adds up to about 2 weeks. Yep, the lateness is actually just on time.
The annoying thing is that ChannelNewsLater claimed that they ‘broke’ the news. Laughs aplenty at the Singapore Ink; mr brown and Mr Miyagi points to Tomorrow.sg and RSF from 2 weeks ago. And then there is the shoddy quality of reporting. At least one factual error, and the bad editing and vagueness in particular seem to stand out.
What bothers me however, is that this is not a ‘news report’. It is quite something else altogether, though I know not what to call it, masquerading as a factual and accurate ‘report’.
Taken individually, each one of the above mistakes appear slight. When they are considered together within the totality of information, tone and angle however, and there is a realisation that something seriously wrong with the two reports.
Here:
Lawyers say bloggers need to understand they can be sued for comments in cyberspace.
Blogs are popular ways for the internet community to express their thoughts online.
But Chen Jiahao, a Singaporean studying in the United States, might have taken it too far.
…
Lawyers say bloggers need to be aware that they need to be responsible for what they say online.“I think that if the writings in the blog were indeed defamatory, then the person who has been defamed can actually take legal action against the blogger. In other words, he can be sued,” said Gilbert Leong, a partner at Rodyk & Davidson.
The real problem I have with the first report by Valerie Tan, is that it assumes that it is a clear-cut case. Did she not realise that since the blog was hosted on the servers of his university in Illinois, there could very well be issues of jurisdiction?[note1] Do Singaporean courts purport to exercise power in Illinois?
Furthermore, with the issue of jurisdiction in mind, does it make sense to only provide the views of a Singaporean lawyer, as though his opinion is conclusive, and that there is no further uncertainty? Did Valerie Tan at all even consider that the threshold for defamation in Singapore is vastly different from that in the State of Illinois?
The most damning thing about the piece by Valerie Tan is that it presents the whole issue in a very simplistic manner: watch what you say, as it will definitely come back to bite you. That does not sound much like a news report. It sounds like a lecture.
A*Star, in its response to Channel NewsAsia, said it found the public blog contained defamatory statements.
It also said it had the responsibility to protect its reputation and also that of Singapore.
So it warned the blogger of legal consequences unless the objectionable statements were removed and an acceptable apology published.
A*Star also said it welcomed a diversity of views in all media, but the statements made in the blog “went way beyond fair comment”.
The second major problem is that the piece by Wong Siew Ying throws away all pretence of objectivity altogether. While she took great pains to emphasis that the blog was public, and that the supposedly defamatory statements were found by A*Star, the report presupposes that as long as A*Star alleges that the statements are defamatory, then their allegations must therefore be true.
The last time I checked, A*Star is not a Court of Law.
A*Star can say that it thinks that the statements are defamatory, but whether they are or not legally, is still up to the courts to decide. Wong Siew Ying has presented A*Star’s opinion as fact. Surely there must be something lacking in ChannelNewsLater’s training program?
This is the reason why we need bloggers. Without us, who is there to keep our mainstream media honest and accurate? Without us, there would be no one to point out their mistakes, tease out their agendas, and deconstruct their faulty arguments.
The world’s most powerful media megalomaniac, Ruport Murdoch, says:
He issued a stark warning to the industry, arguing that the web was “a fast-developing reality we should grasp”.
He said consumers wanted “control over the media, instead of being controlled by it”, pointing to the proliferation of website diaries, known as “blogs”, and message boards.
Newspaper editors simply cannot afford to ignore this, he said, or to look down on readers or ignore what they actually wanted. “Editors too often ask ‘do we have the story?’ rather than ‘does anyone want it?’
“As an industry, most of us have been remarkably, unaccountably, complacent,” Mr Murdoch said.
While I do not have the figures for News Corp or Mediacorp, but I can say with a fair degree of accuracy Mediacorp is tiny compared to News Corp in terms of global influence.
And so when the world’s most powerful media megalomaniac, who is also owner of News Corp, tells you that consumers want to control media as opposed to be controlled, you had better listen.
We have had enough of lectures, enough of lessons, enough of warnings, enough of being told what to do. We don’t need ah gong to gong gu to us anymore. After 20 years, all those things have already been burnt into our consciousness. Now it is our turn.
[note1] I know some of you might point me to Gutnick v Dow Jones (link for lawyers, link for layperson), but we must remember, no other common law jurisdiction has considered or applied Gutnick, and I can certainly say that the facts of PY v Acidflask can be distinguished from Gutnick. So there.
Channelnewsasia.com - S’pore student shuts down blog after threat of legal action
Channelnewsasia.com - A*Star confirms warning to student over defamatory blog
Singapore Ink. ? CNA?s pretending to be on the case
mrbrown: L’infantile terrible of Singapore: The AcidStar Incident
My Very Own Glob {Curiosa Felicitas}: They really mean it when they say ‘this is the late news’
The Pen Is Mightier: S’pore Student Shuts Down Blog After Threat of Legal Action - By WhiteOut, Construct NewsAccurately
Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified: CNA Article on Acidflask’s Case
From a Singapore Angle - CNA picks up the AcidFlask Affair
Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002)
Gutnick v Dow Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guardian Unlimited | Online | News must adapt to web, says Murdoch
