According to The Online Citizen (TOC), Amos Yee’s mother did not file a police report to have her son arrested, contrary to a report in the Straits Times (ST) which suggested that she did. Mrs Mary also did not have her son declared to be beyond her control, as the Straits Times suggests; she merely said that she was unable to get through to him on some issues (and she also said that he behaved normally in other areas). This is probably one of the worst examples of misrepresentation by the Straits Times and a sad case of its failure to uphold journalistic integrity.
There are three problems here.
1) The statement by the “reliable source” plainly contradicts Mrs Yee’s police report. She never declared that her son was beyond control. By suggesting that she did, ST gives the impression that Mrs Yee wanted the state to take custody of her child, or something to that effect. But that is not true. She had in fact said in the police report that Amos behaved normally at home, and she was only unable to get through to him on the issue of his video and his blog posts. ST’s report is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It attributes to Mrs Yee a declaration that she never made and gives readers a false impression of her attitude towards her own child.
2) Who is this “reliable source” that said Mrs Yee filed a police report declaring that her son was beyond control? Anonymous sources should only be used when absolutely necessary. In this case, ST journalists should have approached Mrs Yee directly or tried to get hold of the actual contents of the police report, rather than rely on an unnamed source. This is not the first time ST journalists have relied on “reliable sources” to make spurious allegations, allegations that could have been confirmed by speaking to the principal participants. If TOC can do it, why can’t ST with its vast resources? When asked to clarify the source, the ST reporter denied public accountability, coyly asking Mrs Yee to talk to him instead. As if she would after that distasteful misrepresentation. Full story...
Related posts:
There are three problems here.
1) The statement by the “reliable source” plainly contradicts Mrs Yee’s police report. She never declared that her son was beyond control. By suggesting that she did, ST gives the impression that Mrs Yee wanted the state to take custody of her child, or something to that effect. But that is not true. She had in fact said in the police report that Amos behaved normally at home, and she was only unable to get through to him on the issue of his video and his blog posts. ST’s report is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It attributes to Mrs Yee a declaration that she never made and gives readers a false impression of her attitude towards her own child.
2) Who is this “reliable source” that said Mrs Yee filed a police report declaring that her son was beyond control? Anonymous sources should only be used when absolutely necessary. In this case, ST journalists should have approached Mrs Yee directly or tried to get hold of the actual contents of the police report, rather than rely on an unnamed source. This is not the first time ST journalists have relied on “reliable sources” to make spurious allegations, allegations that could have been confirmed by speaking to the principal participants. If TOC can do it, why can’t ST with its vast resources? When asked to clarify the source, the ST reporter denied public accountability, coyly asking Mrs Yee to talk to him instead. As if she would after that distasteful misrepresentation. Full story...
Related posts:
- The Real Singapore’s owners charged with sedition...
- Singapore's arrest of a 16-year-old YouTuber is all you need to know about...
- The storm Amos Yee raised and why it is clouding our judgement...
- Amnesty International gives Singapore a low grade...
- Singapore: Blogger’s conviction violates free speech...
- Singapore: End ‘scandalizing the judiciary’ prosecutions...
- Singapore film ban creates free speech issue...
No comments:
Post a Comment