YSunday, February 25, 2007

The Straits Times. Trash or Treasure?

Has anyone taken a look at Sunday's newspaper, The Straits Times?

It seems that SPH finds reporting real news to be beneath them these days, and that their true calling lies in pointless drivel. Indulge me, if you will, and let us take a look at the front page together. Above the title, on the far left corner, is everyone's favorite trio of sluts, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, and the porn star hotel heiress. It appears that the article that features those lovely ladies talks about how bad and naughty they are, which the general public should most definitely be aware of. Next on the right, there's a Singaporean fellow (I have absolutely no clue what his name is) who's supposed to be the BEST-PAID (I'm just quoting from the papers) footballer in all of Singapore. Next, on the right again, introduces an article, that apparently shows you that You CAN fool (quoting again)... something. I have no idea what the picture is showing, it's out of focus and over-exposed. On the top right corner, there's a list of awards that The Straits Times has won. One of them is, ironically, for excellence in feature photography.

I did not make that up.

Below the title, "A BLOODY, BAD-TEMPERED NEW YEAR HERE".

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Honestly. It's as if they gave a monkey a crayon. I didn't know that a good command of English was no longer mandatory for employees working for an English language newspaper. If you glance back up at the list of awards, you would notice that none of them are for the actual news, articles, or content, of the newspaper.

What is my point? I think that should be quite obvious by now. I feel that the quality of The Straits Times could do with some improving, and in several different areas. Perhaps the standard of this newspaper wasn't always so poor, maybe it fell only recently. I can't say for certain, because I can quite honestly admit, I didn't really start reading the newspaper until I was about 14. I did read the newspapers, but only the Life section, and for only one reason, the comics. Garfield was my idol. He was, that is, until he stopped being funny. The reason I didn't read the papers was, simply because I was still a kid, and a kid was supposed to do kid things. Play, be carefree, laugh, leave the worries and problems to the grown-ups. These days, I'm still a kid, albeit a more cynical and marginally more intelligent one.

It appears that The Straits Times is trying to get everyone to part with 80cents to buy their precious newspapers, meaning, they're attempting to appeal to everyone, meaning, the lowest denominator in society. What other possible explanation can be given, considering the state that it's in? Trivial matters can make headlines. Minor scandals take up an entire page. News is reported with sensationalized headlines, and sometimes, quite frankly, inconsequential content. The Straits Times shouldn't be forced to stoop to this level. There's already another newspaper for those who like to read about these sort of things, and it's called The New Paper. Might I add, it's also published by SPH. Wait, all our newspapers are published by SPH. Except Today, which people only read because it's given out for free.

Sometimes when I read The Straits Times, I can't tell whether I'm reading an article, an advertisement, or an advertisement for another article. One time, I read an informative article, only to discover halfway through that McDonald's Grilled Chicken Foldover was guaranteed to rock my socks off. I can safely say, that a quarter of The Straits Times is made of up advertisements. On Saturdays, I would say a third. Take today's paper, the back pages shows a picture of Singapore's favorite son, Jack Neo, our "One", smiling for Mitsubishi air-conditioners, not because they reduced his electricity bills, but because of the large pile of money he made for putting his pretty face and a thumbs-up on their ad. Every other day Olinda Cho, who is not at all Chio (haha) tells me that I could be well on the way to a slimmer waist, and more shapely legs and thighs. Mary Chia shows me that I could have a larger, firmer bust, which will make my husband love me more. BMW tries to convince me, a 17 year old penniless student, that I can afford their latest 3 series automobile, and that I can get substantials savings if I buy now. Starhub, M1, and Singtel, try in vain to convince me that the LG Chocolate is much cooler than my crappy 3 year old Sony Ericsson T630. (I must show it to you one day) And by the way, it's not. Too many advertisements. Enough, no more, tis not so sweet now, as it was before.

I know that the PAP has done many good things for Singapore in the past, but please, SPH, Straits Times, there's no need to praise them to high heaven or take their side every single time. Just read any article on local politics or the government's decisions. You'll see what I mean. For example, GST hike. 7%. Notice how our papers gave a very one sided view? All I read about was how it was for our good, that it was bitter medicine, how the government would help us get through it, and that we should just shut the hell up and stop being such whiny bitches. Little to none of the articles painted a bad picture of the GST hike. No downsides were given. All we heard was positive, positive, positive. Reporters Without Borders, RSF (No, I'm not a moron. It's RSF because its Reporters sans frontières, which is like French or something) has ranked Singapore 146th out of 166 countries in its annual World Press Freedom Ranking in 2006. We were 147th in 2004, but 140th in 2005, so I guess we improved.

Another thing that annoys me about The Straits Times is how they publish articles without thinking properly. Ever action has a consequence, and with great power comes great responsibility. Once again, in today's papers, on the third page, an article telling people that they can cheat the parking lots (So that was what the lousy picture was showing) helping them save about $20 a month. Now, what did they think the average Singaporean driver would react to this article?

"Hmm, how interesting! Oh, look below, there's an ad for a new condo! I must read that!"

No.

The Singaporean, being the cheap bastard that he is, would immediately go down to his nearest mall, enter the parking lot, and even though he doesn't need to buy anything or get anything done, he will try to cheat his way to the sweet joy known as free parking. Oh dear, Straits Times, what have you done?

The Straits Times is owned by SPH, which is pretty much owned by the government. It should have the official tone of a respectable and well-regarded publication. It should have a certain air and sense of formality. I think that it should be something that is a worthy representative of the Republic Of Singapore.

Majulah Singapura.

Labels: ,


Blogged @ 9:21 PM