An article in the ST yesterday by its editor Yap Koon Hong more or less says this is excusable given certain conditions when factual reporting is difficult. The article is in response to the criticism across the world, in the main media and social media, on Ching Cheong’s infamous report on the 120 hounds used to devour Jang Song Thaek, the uncle of Kim Jong Un and the second in Command.
What Ching Cheong set out to do, by quoting the report from a China source, Wen Weipo, to infer that China was showing its disapproval of the young Kim is understandable and acceptable. Many analysts adopt this methodology to understand the nuances in the news coming out from China to get a feel of the thinking in Zhongnanhai. What is unacceptable is to convey the false information as truth. Did Ching Cheong’s article did that or did he in some way conveyed that message or simply did not dispute or qualify the authenticity of the news?
The negative reactions to Ching Cheong’s article by so many sources, including reputable western media, say it all, that he did wrote in such a way that the misinformation could be construed as the truth by many readers and thus the rebuke.
But why is Yap Koon Hong trying to justify that a fifty fifty case is acceptable? His reasoning, it is difficult to get news or the truth out from North Korea. So half truth or misinformation can be published or else there will be no news to report. His second reason, unbelieveable, is that many truths would also be questioned or be reputed by the readers and not believed. Does this mean that since truth is not well received, what’s wrong with printing half truth, or to stretch the reasoning further, untruth?
There is a world of difference between printing half truths without qualification and can be read by the unsuspecting readers as truths, and printing them with qualifications that their authenticity is unclear or unsubstantiated. The readers demand a very exacting standard from the main media to print the truth and nothing but the truth. Half truths or rumours must be stated clearly as such.
Would the readers be willing to compromise the quality of news on the excuse that unverified news can be passed on as truth without qualifications? If this is the standard for news reporting in the main media, you can expect fictions to be all over the pages to sell papers for sure.
There cannot be compromise on truthful reporting. Even then, selective reporting is already the norm. When would the main media lower its credibility to report on questionable truths and facts and claim it is alright to do so? What is the meaning of integrity of news and professionalism of the reporters and agencies? Where is the point of morality if main media are allowed to report half truths as news and truths?
Shifting morality and integrity to fit the circumstances cannot be reasons to compromise on the responsibility of main media to report the truth for sure.
What do you think?
Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean
*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/