Originally posted by Fatum:you're starting to sound like the kid up there ......
let's consider this question. Why should the newspaper have any agenda at all, whether to make the pastor look a little better, by censoring out what he said about his sikh father, or bad, by simply repeating the pastor's own words ?
The issue here is straightforward, to try to warp and stretch it by getting so philosophical about it is just silly, period. What is there about this particular incident to read so deeply into ? This is not the goverment trying to telling you foreigners are good for you, or that HDB resale are still affordable, mate ! *geez ...
here's a rephrase of the question I posed to the kid; what sort of hidden agenda do you think exist ? Was it to insidiously make the sikhs look bad by printing what the pastor said ? or to insidiously make the pastor look bad by by printing what the pastor said ??
you're chasing shadows here mate.
hur.....i think there are 2 seperate issues here.
there is this news article and there is the Strait times.
I am not saying this news article is censored. But i am saying because Sg has only 1 paper as such the process of getting news printed information are managed and intended to serve the community.
Readers read and it fudge between state message vs individual news.
Originally posted by Arapahoe:hur.....i think there are 2 seperate issues here.
there is this news article and there is the Strait times.
I am not saying this news article is censored. But i am saying because Sg has only 1 paper as such the process of getting news printed information are managed and intended to serve the community.
Readers read and it fudge between state message vs individual news.
*sigh ... of course there are two separate issues here, which was exactly my point too.
read what I wrote again .....
and I'll repackage the same questions, yet again.
since you said,
(sic)
" if the article is approved by the editor and whatever that they
go thru which representing control media than what gets
printed become a message. "
so what do you, a reader, think the "hidden state message" was, in this case ?
Was it to insidiously consipire with the pastor to make the sikhs look bad ?
Or was it to make the pastor look bad by printing out the pastor own words about his father, who happened to be a sikh ?
if more people harbor similar views then perhaps I've ascribed more intelligence to other readers of the news than I should have.
I think the Catholics should start taking offence with ST for writing articles about Catholic Priests sodomising little boys
Same line of reasoning with what the letter writer wrote then.