Censored or Edited: LWL in The Straits Times

by Bertha Henson

IF IT wasn’t for the fact that she is Dr Lee Wei Ling, not much attention would have been paid to her complaints that she had been “censored” and deprived of her freedom of speech by ST. In my past life, I heard this complaint all the time. From the political opposition, who lament that their words have not been carried even though they said nothing fresh nor startling. From commercial groups, which think that every new product development or service enhancement is worthy of everybody’s attention. Even from the G, some members of which think any G word or action is news simply because it emanates from, well, the G.

Journalists seldom say their work have been censored; they use the word “edited”. That’s because they know it goes through professional, more experienced hands who look at the work through several prisms – which usually ignores the writer’s ego. It is a sad fact of life that whatever you think, say, or write isn’t necessarily always worth the space, bandwidth, or airtime in the media. Maybe, just some of it is. Maybe it needs greater clarity. Maybe it lacks focus. Good writing is damn hard work, especially for those who don’t do it every day.

Censorship is a big word to use, and implies some sort on non-professional bias at play. That bias could be personal (can’t stand the fellow, so not publishing!) or ideological (I don’t agree, so I won’t publish!). Then there is that big word that is in every editor’s mind – whether the topic is “sensitive”. I understand, for example, why suicides are not reported (because it encourages copycats) and why the media pulls its punches when running controversies about religion and race. Frankly, the “safest” stories to report on are happenings in open court or in Parliament. But even then, there would be accusations that parts which had not been reported had been “censored”.

So what’s Dr Lee’s beef with ST? It wouldn’t carry an article she wrote expressing her dismay at commemoration activities surrounding her late father’s death anniversary. Why wouldn’t it do so? She is a regular paid contributor who is well read and ST knows that there is a voyeuristic streak in many of us who wonder about life in the familee. What “pa” said or thought or what her siblings did…. that sort of thing. Even after Mr Lee Kuan Yew died, Dr Lee was still writing about coming to terms with her grief. She was her father’s doctor and chief caregiver; people wanted to know how she felt.

It’s not too far-fetched to say they would also have liked to know how she felt about those anniversary activities held a few weeks ago. Now, we know that she felt it was over the top, like some people, including me, did. It was a legitimate opinion, given greater weight by dint of who she is. Her opinion, though, might be contrarian to what has been published in the MSM. There was nary a word about reservations over the scale of the activities. Those opinions stayed online.

Maybe the article was rejected because it would have struck a discordant note. (There were some 100 ground-up events!) It would be raining on the parade or pouring cold water over the work of well-meaning people who revere the man. But considering who she is, I would have thought the balance would have tilted in favour of running the piece. But it could also be that ST wanted some edits made, and she wanted it published in its entirety. Maybe it was uncomfortable with references to Mao and the Cultural Revolution or thought she could be kinder to the people who went to the lengths they did to honour him?

(Actually, what should be surprising to ST’s detractors is that she, the daughter of LKY, is actually edited. It gives the lie to the perception that because of who she is, the newspaper would run anything and everything.)

Well, ST isn’t saying anything and now there’s a strange twist in the tale with an ex-editor, Mr Janadas Devan, who also happens to be the Chief Government Information Officer, weighing in. Somehow Dr Lee decided to bring in OB markers, written by ex-chief editor Cheong Yip Seng as an example of how her father did not suppress freedom of speech. She also maintained that he was not ruffled about his words being used in a foreword to the book, a semi tell-all about G relations with the media. Mr Janadas, who came across rather unfavourably in her post, disputed her “facts”.

You can read his comments here.

But Dr Lee also made a point about her main messages being edited out in ST sometimes. To quote her fully, spelling mistakes and all:

“It was a love-hate relationship between me and my three consequetive editors. there may already been a space for my article, then the editor does not like what i wrote, and i refuse to have the relevant points deleted and the entire article is then dropped.
when what each of the three editors objected to was so consistent, i decided they must have been commanded to edit certain issues out, and they are to timid to disobey, and too embarassed by their timidness to tell me the truth.”

Frankly, it’s good to know that editors are being consistent about what was being edited out. You know that no personal bias is at play. Dr Lee has just come up against a fact of journalism: not everything gets in even when you think they should or there would be no need for editors. This is strange because she has been writing for ST for some years and it was not as if this was the first article that it had rejected.

Just when I thought this would make an interesting case study for journalism students about the role of editors, Mr Janadas decides to reply to her points above. On his own Facebook! He happened to be the man who introduced Dr Lee, a friend, to column-writing in ST. And, boy, did he let it rip!

You can read it here.

I am sure people are wondering about this public spectacle that is being played out online and even taking bets on who would win the slanging match. What I get out of this is this: It sheds some light on editing, censorship, and freedom of speech. It also goes to show that if you can’t get into MSM, you can always ownself publish ownself online. Dr Lee is welcomed to offer her pieces to The Middle Ground – provided she recognises that editors must be allowed to edit.

 

Featured image Newspapers B&W (3) by Flickr user Jon S. CC BY 2.0.

If you like this article, Like the Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

The post Censored or Edited: LWL in The Straits Times appeared first on The Middle Ground.

- Bertha Henson