August 28, 2008

Reviewing the Straits Times Reviewers: wither Journalistic integrity

»

hanseltansw, from the online group Arts Community said:

On the 20th of August 2008, a certain film reviewer Mr John Lui from the Straits Times sat through the opening run of W!LD RICE's "Own Time Own Target", a triple bill of army plays written by Laremy Lee and Julian Wong. A few days later, a review appeared in the Life! section of the Straits Times in which he described Wong's "Botak Boys" as the "most throwaway script of the lot"... When the Straits Times was queried about these inconsistencies, it became clear that Mr Lui had left the show ten minutes into the musical. In other words, Mr Lui had watched no more than a fifth of the musical, of which he felt he had acquired the jornalistic pedestal to unleash such an unfair, inaccurate and misinformed judgment on Julian Wong's piece. The following day, the Straits Times offered a retraction NOT in the Life! section where the article was first published, but in a tiny column-paragraph (entitled "what it should have been") on page 4 of the main section stating that the review was "incomplete" because the reviewer had "left before the end of the show".

Recommended by Anonymous Coward: "Shit Times Shitty Standards. "

Link

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on August 26//9:03pm and published by mb, Mr Miyagi :: 2239 reads | trackback
Comments 5

once again.... the straits times sucks.

Posted by kukuchiao* on 28 August, 2008 - 12:29pm

This is the same John Lui who gave Money No Enough 2 a one and a half star rating out of 5 and another local movie, Kallang Roar, 2 out of 5 star despite most other reviewers giving 3 stars for both movies.

Looks like he don't like local stuff.

I would have given Money No Enough 2 0 stars. it's such a terrible movie anyway.

and heard kallang roar is terrible, so 2 star already generous liao. (read it and weep. nevermind lah the director rich kid son right?)

of course wonder if he stayed and watched them or left after ten minutes.

Posted by kukuchiao* on 28 August, 2008 - 2:38pm

I received this through an email forum and replied as such:

Good or bad, the reviewer has a moral obligation to report the FACTS properly first before giving his opinions. If his facts were wrong in the first place, then his opinions become null and void. However, being the only source of opinion for a large percentage of sheep, err... I mean the population, such callous reporting has a significant impact.

Let the play be the most stupidest production on the face of the planet, nay universe. Does it give any right for a reviewer, on official duty, to walk out of the performance? I believe the ethical answer is a big fat 'NO'. And that is the crux of the matter isn't it. How can the reviewer walk out on something he was obliged to watch fully (no matter how painful)? How could he allow himself to be prejudiced on the facts - which should never be in dispute? How can the publication simply dismiss this clear demonstration in the lack of integrity by saying, "Oh, sorry..."?

This is more - much more - than just about a poorly produced play. It smacks of high-handedness, lack of empathy, total disregard of integrity, and poor journalism, and displays the inherent flaw in the system for all to see. But as all things Singaporean, this matter is doomed to die an isolated incident eventually.

Oh well, ST isn't ranked 140+ on certain lists for nothing....

Shit Times Pathetic reply in today (Sat aug 30's) life section.
The whole editorial team including Suck-miko Tan should be fired.

Posted by Joe man* on 30 August, 2008 - 7:17am