<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d7591815903095472794\x26blogName\x3dMelboy...Give+me+Reason+++++++++++++%3D)\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://pg-thisisfor-gp.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://pg-thisisfor-gp.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-3047526768304760238', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Saturday, April 7, 2007 . 1:24 AM

Can the Media ever be relied upon to convey the truths?

Now, with regards to the article on Great Lies of the American Free Press, I personally feel that as much as the media can be relied upon to deliver to us news in general as truths, when it comes to sensitive issues, especially those of political origin, the media would probably been unreliable in providing us with the truth.

Now, as seen in the article, as much as under the Bill of Rights of the USA where the government promises no to interfere in anyway to the press organizations in the US, they are all supressed, as far as this is concerned politically.

Now then, why is this so?

Look at the different cases, the American Press in this situation, as well as the case of Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, which I'll refer to later. In the American case, by tracing down the cause for the American press in "distorting the truths" through ways like censorship and proclaiming innocence, we do find that the fundamental problem can be described in one sentence- Power CORRUPTS (in the American case)

For example, when we look at this extract in the article

" But such bribery does not have to be strictly on a cash basis. During the build-up to the Iraqi war, one of the primary disseminators of the Bush dictatorship’s "great lies" was then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. And during this time, in one of those remarkable "coincidences" that nepotism spawns, Powell’s son Michael was head of the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.)-the very agency that possessed the power to change F.C.C. rules so monopolistic media empires could acquire even a greater share of the marketplace. In return all these empires had to do was endorse, or at least not dispute, the warmongering lies of the Bush dictatorship, and accept, or at least not question, the fraudulent results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential "elections." "

So, when we read this, doesn't it show us that for the sake of even greater power and MONEY, the press are actuall willing to sacriface the right to report arcticles in TRUTH and for the PEOPLE, just to achieve a greater share and ratings in the media market

Let's look at this other extract

" Armstrong Williams, a "conservative" African-American pseudo-journalist, was recently paid two hundred and forty thousand dollars ($240,000) by the Bush dictatorship to promote an education reform law on his syndicated television show. Another pseudo-journalist, Maggie Gallagher, was paid twenty-one thousand, five hundred dollars ($21,500) by the federal government’s department of Health and Human Services to encourage marriage. This same department also paid columnist Mike McManus ten thousand ($10,000) dollars to "train marriage counselors." Yet, according to the Associated Press (Jan. 29), "all three columnists failed to disclose to their readers their relationship with the [Bush] administration." "

Once again in this extract, it shows that for money, for favour with the government, the press is willing to exaggerate or distort truths, and compromise the people's needs for truths and not lies

Let's now consider the case of LKY in Singapore

As we all know Lee Kuan Yew has been a critical leader responsible for the economic, political stability which Singapore is now in. And indeed he is must be commended for his achievements. However, when we look at this extract, which leads us to the question of media and the truth...

" Several members of Lee's family hold prominent positions in Singaporean society, and his sons and daughter hold high government and government-linked posts. His elder son Lee Hsien Loong, a former Brigadier-General, has been the Prime Minister since 2004, and Finance Minister of Singapore. He is also the Vice-Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Company (GIC) — Lee himself is the Chairman. Lee's younger son, Lee Hsien Yang, also a former Brigadier-General, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of SingTel — a post he will give up soon —, a pan-Asian telecommunications giant and Singapore's largest company by market capitalisation (listed on the Singapore Exchange, SGX). Fifty-six percent of SingTel is owned by Temasek Holdings, a prominent government holding company with controlling stakes in a variety of very large government-linked companies such as Singapore Airlines and DBS Bank. Temasek Holdings in turn is run by Executive Director and CEO Ho Ching, the wife of Lee's elder son, the Prime Minister. Lee's daughter, Lee Wei Ling, runs the National Neuroscience Institute, and remains unmarried. Lee's wife Kwa Geok Choo used to be a partner of the prominent legal firm Lee & Lee. His younger brothers, Dennis, Freddy, and Suan Yew were partners of the same firm. He also has a younger sister, Monica.
Lee has consistently denied charges of
nepotism, arguing that his family members' privileged positions are based on personal merit. However, these charges have persisted and international publications such as The Economist, International Herald Tribune and the Far Eastern Economic Review have been threatened, sued or banned in Singapore for implying the existence of nepostism. "

Now, the following press companies like The Economist have been banned or sued for implying the existence of nepotism as well as talking about a Lee Dynasty, given that so many Lees are in power. So, indeed in Singapore, the Lees have contributed to our country's development, and more prominiently, our now Minister Mentor, one of the 4 founding fathers of Singapore who's invaluable contribution is responsible for where we stand now.

But, now, when we refer to the Straits Times which has for years praised LKY for his contributions whereas outside Singpore, he's criticisied for being authorian or implied of nepotism. So the banning of press agencies like the Economist, wouldn't it serve as a example to other agencies like the Straits Times as a reminder to be careful of what they say, or for that matter, what we say? again in the context of politically sensitive issues. So, can we now trust the press to give the truth?

Still NO, I don't think so. What's your stand?