The Straits Times September 13 2008Headline : Bus and MRT fares to go up from Oct 1
Click on the picture for a bigger view!
To delve deeper into a side issue that I brought up last week with regard to the existence of biased reporting in the mass media, here's a report from The Straits Times announcing the fare hikes for public transport.
We have all learnt that one of the influences of selection is the mass media, and sure enough, the mass media (television, newspapers, radio talkshows et cetera) is all around us and play an important role in our daily lives.
Coming back to the article, (it is quite unfortunate that the online edition of The Straits Times requires a subscription and thus I do not have a link, but you can click on the picture for a bigger size to read though) there exists an interesting phenomenon. To quote a few lines from the article;
"It saves time, saves money. Sounds like a good plan," said Bill Yeo, an university undergraduate.
"Minimal negative impact, if any," said NUS transport researcher Lee Der-Horng.
"It is the first time that an adjustment exercise has resulted in fare reduction for many," said MP Seah Kian Peng.
What do you notice here? Well, they are all positive statements about this recent fare adjustment, whatever happened to the disgruntled voices? Why must those who take a direct route pay more than before while those who transfer buses pay less? There was no place for them on the article.
With such frequency of the mention of merits in this article, will readers be brainwashed into thinking that it is really that good? Keep in mind too that this is only one article, with the smorgasbord of reports that we read everyday, do you think that it is easy to be influenced and swayed by the mass media?
It is inevitable that a national newspaper tries to shed a good light on national policies and such, but do you think that they are overdoing it, especially when there are not even alternate newspapers to read from? My advice then, will be to read more widely from the other sources, gain more insight from different perspectives, and to of course, keep an open mind for all things. And most importantly of all, do not succumb to being brainwashed!
We have all learnt that one of the influences of selection is the mass media, and sure enough, the mass media (television, newspapers, radio talkshows et cetera) is all around us and play an important role in our daily lives.
Coming back to the article, (it is quite unfortunate that the online edition of The Straits Times requires a subscription and thus I do not have a link, but you can click on the picture for a bigger size to read though) there exists an interesting phenomenon. To quote a few lines from the article;
"It saves time, saves money. Sounds like a good plan," said Bill Yeo, an university undergraduate.
"Minimal negative impact, if any," said NUS transport researcher Lee Der-Horng.
"It is the first time that an adjustment exercise has resulted in fare reduction for many," said MP Seah Kian Peng.
What do you notice here? Well, they are all positive statements about this recent fare adjustment, whatever happened to the disgruntled voices? Why must those who take a direct route pay more than before while those who transfer buses pay less? There was no place for them on the article.
With such frequency of the mention of merits in this article, will readers be brainwashed into thinking that it is really that good? Keep in mind too that this is only one article, with the smorgasbord of reports that we read everyday, do you think that it is easy to be influenced and swayed by the mass media?
It is inevitable that a national newspaper tries to shed a good light on national policies and such, but do you think that they are overdoing it, especially when there are not even alternate newspapers to read from? My advice then, will be to read more widely from the other sources, gain more insight from different perspectives, and to of course, keep an open mind for all things. And most importantly of all, do not succumb to being brainwashed!
14 comments:
When there is an existence of a monopoly, especially in the media arena, it is almost certain to expect inaccuracy in reports as there will inevitably be concealment of certain critical information. In this scenario, we see that the voices of the direct-bus-service-commuters are being stifled. It is unlikely for them to not want to raise their objections (unless we are looking at the possible fact that Singaporeans are now so apathetic that they do not even wish to defend their wallets). Thus it would have been wiser on SPH's part to display a more balanced presentation of the issue instead of a land-slide win for the new policy.
Yet, if we are to access the agenda behind that report, it may also be possible that the report is to induce more positivity among the people so the change will be more welcomed or accepted by the minority since the majority is indeed enjoying benefits, albeit on the minority's cost.
The purpose of news is not only to disseminate accurate information to the public, the local news agency also has a duty of keeping the morales of the people high (in face of inflation and all) with a trade-off - the compromising of report accuracy.
It is indeed a pity that Singapore's minute market can only accommodate the existence of one major news publishing company. Thus there is definitely a need to reach for other sources to get a clearer picture of various issues. With the rise of the many online discussion platforms on The Internet, maybe we will get a more well-rounded view of the situation from those forums. (Although, regretfully, the language aspect may be highly compromised.)
well, i do believe that newspapers here and the media tend to lean to the government's side. i think this shows that readers and receivers of the media should be able to read articles and the messages with discernment and to think deeper and read in between the lines.
and this shows another thing about the media. it is VERY powerful...
Nice read!
Well yea I guess this is Singapore for you. The media's incredibly bias, the government is always right, or either 'justified wrong'.
Singapore has educated not thinkings, but drones, in the past many years of nation building. Crucial at first, but how things have changed.
Remember when you raised your hand in class in primary/secondary school to state your opinion, and all you got was angry glares from your classmates? And how in this day and age, we're very encouraged to speak up in lectures, the emphasis on your own opinion, in an US university based in Singapore?
This is important, and good. And the lecturers know this. And Singapore is starting to understand this.
Regards,
Shawn Lee Wei Bin
i have to agree with you on the biased part. because there are no negative feedback published in the report indeed. this is what is likely to happen to media text and is bound to happen again and again. that is why it is important to be critical to whatever materials we choose to read and not be led blindly by the writer's intentions.
by the way, i think it is outrageously stupid when people taking a direct route is going to have to pay more and vice versa.
SSSHHH!!! Don't comment too loudly, or you may disappear!
Welcome to Singapore, my dear folks! From how Singapore has been run from its independence until today, this should not come as a surprise.
Regardless, this is an issue of subtle brainwashing which should be looked into. To play the devil's advocate, I suppose there is a reason as to why the media puts the goverment in a favourable light.
I think the government is trying its very best to ensure the populace remain happy. (Whether genuinely happy or fake happiness I do not know)
Singapore thrives upon its political stability. If the government were unpopular, there would be alot of unrest and resentment within the population. This would drive away the investors in Singapore and yadaa yadaa yadaa......
Personally, I feel that the reason they do not provide a convincing counter argument is because they do not have a convincing pro-argument in the 1st place.
Their reasons justifying their fare hike really does not hold any water.
They are simply stealing from customer A to give to customer B. Is this really a good reason? I feel communication not only involves trying to convince others, but also to hide stuff which you do not want others to know.
Hence, they try to brainwash us so we do not have to think about it too deeply, in a sense, hiding the negative aspects of the price hike.
To round off, mass media has always been a powerful tool. Why else would President Bush be so concerned over Al-Jazeera?
Excellent observation on the part of "travellers who take direct routes paying more than those who transfer routes".
Yes when i read the this article(though i rarely take the bus), i thought "Hey this is reasonable!" there are many positive benefits. And you are spot on, we are being 'brainwashed'. Mass media especially the Strait Times has great power (due to the fact that it is a reputable newspaper publisher) to sway our thinking. But we have E-media on our side now, we get access to other opinions and even more accurate reporting. Lets not forget the power of E-media, for example in Malaysia, when the ruling party UMNO disregarded internet as a medium, and the opposition exploited the internet in sending their message to the public, for the Newspapers in Msia were biased against the Oppositions. And the end result? A much more informed public and a stronger Opposition.
:)
hey lucas. i personally think that the government has a little "hidden" propaganda in the straits times. like what a speaker of National Arts Council once said. if we look closely at the ST, we will notice that if there is a bad news somewhere in the papers, there will always be more good news. In short im trying to say that the government is trying to bring forth a message that singapore is a good place to be in.
maybe its their plan to retain EXPATS, or even prevent people from going overseas. What say you?
Well Well Well, Singapore and it's governement. A democratic soceity. Some say a democracy with a stick. Indeed, we are brought up in a way to understand that authority mean's something. And what other better opportunity to use a medium so strong to as you say "brainwash" our mindsets. We all know the credibilty of The Straits Times, but at times we wonder why the story sounds a whole lot different when compared to another newspaper? Who decides what appears on the papers? Who decides what should be revealed to the public and shouldn't? Wouldn't we want to know the whole truth? But does the government want the same? Answers are clear. Just shows the power of the mass media.
I agree with most of the comments above. The Straits Times is often biased, and henceforth might sometimes give an inaccurate account of what is actually happening.
But think back to a game that most of us would have probably played. 1 person starts with a sentence and whispers it to the next person. Let's say there are 10 people in a row. By the time it reaches the 10th person, the sentence would have probably changed. It's the same with all sorts of mass media. Everyone interprets things differently.
Being the local version of the US's NY times, I would agree that the papers tend to be biased towards the government like everyone else. However, it is up to the people to comment on such issues. That's where another handy part of the newspaper comes in, the opinion column.
Personally, for my own inspiration, I will read the opinion columns to see what others have to say about the particular topic. Although some opinions do not get published, a vast majority do, and some of them can be pretty scathing to the govt. at times. Thus, its not just the headlines that do justice for the newspaper, the opinions columns play a big part as well.
I conclude that it is INEVITABLE that every newspaper article has a certain BIAS around it, but the INFLUENCE of the newspaper on each different individual depends on how many sources has the individual been exposed to, and their perspective on the matter.
look on the bright side of all these "brainwashing", if arent for the "brainwashing" or perhaps "control", we wont be enjoying peace as what we have now. One of the reasons behind singapore's stability is because of its strict control. You wont want to be living in a chaotic country like Thailand right?
Jerome - Very true, to cast a good light on all things, people will definitely be attracted here and will think twice too before leaving since everything here looks so rosy. But then again, there are many who actually look deep into the issues and realise that there is actually the existence of bias as in this case.
Nic - Yes, indeed. We have to give up on some things in exchange of this stability. It all depends on our willingness.
The Straits Times is SOOOO biased, I get sick reading it sometimes. For example, when it recently changed its newspaper layout design-wise, it only featured positive feedback from readers commenting about how great the new paper looked. And when it ran a Saturday special on whether foreigners would like to live in Singapore, they only interviewed people who had nice things to say about our country.
Anywho... I wonder if people realise how biased this source can be, and whether reading the paper daily would have affected their perception of Singapore, glorifying it unnecessarily. I'm not influenced because of my perception that the Straits Times newspaper can't be totally trusted, but really, what DO other people think??
woah... we must not let 'Big Brother' know that we are aware of their subtle programming, will get 'blacklisted' one you know.
yes, i do agree that unlike the metropolises of USA and UK, we do not have the luxury of a wide variety of print news. this means that we only get to hear what 'Big Brother' wants us to hear.
the only thing we can do is to keep our eyes open, not be easily swayed by media, and make judgments based on our own experiences!
This is subtle government propaganda!!! But we can do nothing about it. Even if people write to the newspaper forum, they would still be filtered out. So what can we actually do ??
Post a Comment