So I heard from someone who has insider knowledge that SPH has settled well into its role as a rumourmonger. Particularly if those rumours are hurtful to the Workers Party.
Most recently ST, SPH’s flagship publication, reported some scintillating insider news that the WP leaders were sending a signal about the importance of party discipline in response to the simmering discord amongst the WP Marine Parade GRC which displeased WP’s leaders. Did the report provide any other evidence supporting this insider news? Nope. Did they attempt to verify this with the WP Marine Parade GRC team? Nope. Did they interview them and report what they interviewed? Nope .
And Yee Jenn Jong has refuted what ST said in its report. As did He Ting Ru on her FB page:
Then, rushing to the defence of ST, were the online commentators. “Of course Yee Jenn Jong would deny that there were any discords. Of course He Ting Ru would deny any discords. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t any!” these defenders of SPH have said. And they said that they would rather choose to believe what ST said instead of what Yee Jenn Jong and He Ting Ru said.
Right. Ok. Because ST and SPH have the world’s best journalistic standards. Never mind that they rushed to publish allegations of Dr Daniel Goh’s non-existent affair with his student even before the time SPH gave Dr Goh to respond. And then it turns out that the allegations were completely unfounded. Never mind that in this day and age of social media, no one else has taken to social media to speak of any discord amongst the WP Marine Parade GRC team. Yet… people are willing to believe ST instead of Yee Jenn Jong and He Ting Ru.
It isn’t that I have an issue with using unnamed sources. It may well be necessary if a particular organisation is especially hostile to the media and is clamping down tightly on leaks of information, promising some horrible retribution to anyone who dares to tell the media the truth. But is that the case with WP? I highly doubt it. So why is it that SPH is so flagrant and flippant in their use of sources of information that are no better than mere rumours?
I think one can only draw the following conclusions: either SPH is a lackey of the PAP, or its journalists inherently are of terrible quality. Whichever the case may be, it seems that SPH has become quite comfortable in being a rumourmonger, rather than a reputable media company. That said, they do take nice photos.
[Featured image: Straits Times photo]