20 October 2007

Newspapers should beware of being shunned by the intelligent

Just looking at the stuff about 377A in the newspapers and the blogosphere, a trend becomes noticeable, and it's not an auspicious one for the mainstream print media. Full essay.

6 comments:

Grimberg said...

You cite the MSM's poor/biased analysis of local issues as a threat towards its survival, but how many people actually buy the ST for its analysis of local news?

Most people would buy it to read about local news, such as the latest scam circulating or the newest policy change. Businessmen and working professionals would buy it for its coverage of business news and world news. Some may buy it out of habit; to have some reading material over breakfast.

Furthermore, just because the MSM is biased in its local analysis, doesn't mean its analysis is completely worthless. Nowadays the ST does allow some (if limited) space for contrarian voices, and one could still read it for the pro-government point of view. Not everyone is anti-government you know, and pro-PAP people (a sizeable majority) would still buy the ST.

Thus, I think your article is too hasty in concluding that the MSM would be forsaken for digital media.

Anonymous said...

what LKY says is in itself correct: Associate Press normally has news items on its websites well before they are picked up by newspaper websites, often reproduced without change. NYTimes, on the other hand, would have long investigative pieces, columnits and weekend edition articles.

The failure of ST commentary to live up to the model is altogether a separate issue, in curious contrast to its generally adequate news coverage. The next time ST interviews LKY, the reporter ought to ask him how the situation can be improved.

sgsociety.com

Anonymous said...

>ST does allow some (if limited) space for contrarian voices

SPH and Mediacorp are the PR department of Singapore Inc; allowing contrarian voices occasionally can be good for the image, but the occasion and the speaker would be carefully chosen. Catherine Lim, for example, would be invited when the occasion requires an "established major critic" - there is no risk for her because her status was already set, and no risk for the person who invites her.

Amusingly, US press has something a bit similar; see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Packer

whose case could be compared with

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-XIIfDzQobqO5oCYM9UTvZzgKHH4Org--?cq=1&p=182

sgsociety.com

George said...

No doubt about it the ST is playing it safe, always.

If you read the ST forums -print and online regularly, a clear pattern emerges - the print ones are mostly pro-govt or the topics are the 'safe' ones whereas the online letters are definitely more interesting and thought provoking.

Also note after a couple of experiences that if you write something controversial or critical of a MAJOR ST advertiser, chances are you will not see it in published either in print or online.

Furthermore, the online letters are only transient, its all erased, except for a few 'safe' ones, after a couple of weeks. So no body, no crime.

Anonymous said...

Educated lessons from the best school systems
---------------
this article from Economist, mentioned by MM in his recent ST today, obviously this is highly relevant but why wasnt it used earlier?

another example of local press (and opposition) showing the foresight to anticipate issues and suggest ideas worthy of public discussion early; it is of course not simple to say whose "fault" this is

sgsociety.com

Anonymous said...

not sure why the posting came out wrong; should be:
------------
this article from Economist, mentioned by MM in his recent discussion, was reproduced in ST today, obviously this is highly relevant but why wasnt it used earlier?

another example of local press (and opposition) not showing the foresight to anticipate issues and suggest ideas worthy of public discussion early; it is of course not simple to say whose "fault" this is