<![CDATA[Media ruins]]>Will like to share how media can makes and breaks one life.


I have a girlfriend who nearly lost her job due to a writeup by a journalist.

Few years ago, she was working as a sales exec in a renowned boutique well known for their writing instruments.

She happened to serve a couple who turned out to be a pair of siblings.

The man bought a belt and my gf had to snip off the belt to the desired length. She measured his waist and the belt he was wearing at that time.
She then proceeded to snip off the excess leather.

After that, the man tried the belt and left the shop.

An hour or so later, the siblings returned and confronted my gf accusing her of cutting the belt too short even though he had tried it on before he left.

He mentioned that the length is just right and what happens if he gains weight.
My gf just made a innocent remark :" Oh, then that helps you to stay in shape…" and smiled at him.
It was not meant to be offensive.

My gf’s colleague then searched for a new leather belt as the man insisted on an exchange.

And guess what happens???

His sister happen to be a journalist and she has the privilege of penning what she wants in the bitch about section of the new paper.

She wrote that my gf was very rude and made fun of his brother’s size which was certainly not the whole truth of the incident. SHe commented that it was certainly not the kind of service to expect in a renowned boutique.

She wrote selectively and irresponsibly. She did not write the full story.

My gf was interrogated by her superior and was let off with a stern warning when she pleaded with the management. She couldn’t afford to lose her job as she needed to support her family.

Although the management chose to believe her, but they had to give her a warning as the article was published in the papers and it directly affects the brand’s reputation.

No thanks to the journalist as her writeup got my gf a warning letter and my gf’s confirmation for her position was delayed.

I really wish the media and journalist will only report and write the article only when 100% of the article is true.
To those irresponsible journalists there, you could ruin someone’s life!!!

I believe in karma. Although your pen is a powerful weapon that has the ability to either destroy or save someone, what goes around comes around.
Search your consience next time when you write an article.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/topic/7930/media-ruinsRSS for NodeMon, 15 Jun 2026 05:16:47 GMTFri, 01 Jan 2010 10:04:20 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:08:17 GMT]]>

sashimi:
3Boys:

There is an important place for good, robust journalism. Try picking up a copy of the Economist and reading it front to back. I did it when I was 14 years old, and have not stopped for over 20 years. Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.


How many of the web-feeds can replicate the balance and quality of the analyses that the Economist can put forth? In my experience, very very few. Time is precious, I want quality, not quantity.

Ironically, the ability to be selective about what you read may actually narrow one's point of view. Given a choice, folk tend to only gravitate to the things they like, opinions that match their own. If you only choose to read what interests you, how on earth can that broaden your view of the world?

I don't trust the traditional media much, but I trust the new media far LESS!

Sorry but I completely disagree with you. You are saying that every piece of writing on the web is \"unfiltered\", \"unauthorized\" or \"unofficial.\" That's what traditional media has been trying to persuade people to believe.

I have come across more fine articles and perfectly reasoned, professionally written articles on all manner of subjects, published on professional websites, than I care to count. They are, as you say \"Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.\" Exactly that.

You only have to locate the right sources. Just as you personally pick The Economist as your choice of good writing, I pick my sources.

You misread me - this is not about selecting what fits my opinion, this is about selecting my choice of topics, interests and relevance. I never said anything about not reading widely and reading different opinions. If someone only reads what he agrees with, that is a problem in the person that nothing in journalism is going to help.

I'm talking about the MEDIUM by which you process and receive news. I'm not talking about whether you should be reading A or B or C publication.

In any case, the 2.0 paradigm IS EXACTLY about different people with different opinions. It is EXACTLY about throwing away 1.0 attitudes where you are forced to listen to ONE authority on information. It is EXACTLY about the fact that Web 2.0 allows you to even challenge, comment upon and question writers and journalists that makes it even MORE reliable.

Leveraging a medium where I can choose multiple sources has made a vast difference. my perspectives and horizons have been expanded by exposure to what people across the entire globe opine about. When the newspapers write about one piece of news, I have already read a dozen different takes on it on the web.

\"New Media\" is not new anymore - it is 8+ years in the net, mature and already moving on to the next step while traditionalists continue hiding in their caves.. I mention this because traditional media like to position \"new media\" as something unestablished = unreliable.

Good journalism exists plentifully on the web. Of course if I find that a certain source has poor writing, I ignore it. It's exactly the same as your own filtering of magazines. You and I are after the same thing: good journalism, all I am trying to say that if you leverage web 2.0 instead of paper, you gain even more possibilities, opinions and perspectives.

1.0 journalism is outdated journalism. On a printed paper, you can never discuss with the author. It is the same when a reader thinks the whole world can be encapsulated in one newspaper. And that's exactly the problem, because people start to believe that everything in that one newspaper must be the only truth.

And THAT is exactly the problem here. The salesgirl had NO way of challenging the journalist, or defending herself. People read the report and accept that ONE writer's biased reporting as the \"truth\".

Lastly, I was targeting the general media, as in broadsheets, not \"higher\" publications like The Economist. And btw, particiapte online and you can comment on your own favourite articles with people all over the web, See for yourself. http://www.economist.com/node/15108690/comments

Much clearer sashimi, and you are right that we are more similar than different in our thinking. I find good quality stuff very difficult to come by on the internet still, though.

Cheers

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/103619https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/103619Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:08:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:04:29 GMT]]>

3Boys:
There is an important place for good, robust journalism. Try picking up a copy of the Economist and reading it front to back. I did it when I was 14 years old, and have not stopped for over 20 years. Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.


How many of the web-feeds can replicate the balance and quality of the analyses that the Economist can put forth? In my experience, very very few. Time is precious, I want quality, not quantity.

Ironically, the ability to be selective about what you read may actually narrow one's point of view. Given a choice, folk tend to only gravitate to the things they like, opinions that match their own. If you only choose to read what interests you, how on earth can that broaden your view of the world?

I don't trust the traditional media much, but I trust the new media far LESS!
Sorry but I completely disagree with you. You are saying that every piece of writing on the web is \"unfiltered\", \"unauthorized\" or \"unofficial.\" That's what traditional media has been trying to persuade people to believe.

I have come across more fine articles and perfectly reasoned, professionally written articles on all manner of subjects, published on professional websites, than I care to count. They are, as you say \"Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.\" Exactly that.

You only have to locate the right sources. Just as you personally pick The Economist as your choice of good writing, I pick my sources.

You misread me - this is not about selecting what fits my opinion, this is about selecting my choice of topics, interests and relevance. I never said anything about not reading widely and reading different opinions. If someone only reads what he agrees with, that is a problem in the person that nothing in journalism is going to help.

I'm talking about the MEDIUM by which you process and receive news. I'm not talking about whether you should be reading A or B or C publication.

In any case, the 2.0 paradigm IS EXACTLY about different people with different opinions. It is EXACTLY about throwing away 1.0 attitudes where you are forced to listen to ONE authority on information. It is EXACTLY about the fact that Web 2.0 allows you to even challenge, comment upon and question writers and journalists that makes it even MORE reliable.

Leveraging a medium where I can choose multiple sources has made a vast difference. my perspectives and horizons have been expanded by exposure to what people across the entire globe opine about. When the newspapers write about one piece of news, I have already read a dozen different takes on it on the web.

\"New Media\" is not new anymore - it is 8+ years in the net, mature and already moving on to the next step while traditionalists continue hiding in their caves.. I mention this because traditional media like to position \"new media\" as something unestablished = unreliable.

Good journalism exists plentifully on the web. Of course if I find that a certain source has poor writing, I ignore it. It's exactly the same as your own filtering of magazines. You and I are after the same thing: good journalism, all I am trying to say that if you leverage web 2.0 instead of paper, you gain even more possibilities, opinions and perspectives.

1.0 journalism is outdated journalism. On a printed paper, you can never discuss with the author. It is the same when a reader thinks the whole world can be encapsulated in one newspaper. And that's exactly the problem, because people start to believe that everything in that one newspaper must be the only truth.

And THAT is exactly the problem here. The salesgirl had NO way of challenging the journalist, or defending herself. People read the report and accept that ONE writer's biased reporting as the \"truth\".

Lastly, I was targeting the general media, as in broadsheets, not \"higher\" publications like The Economist. And btw, particiapte online and you can comment on your own favourite articles with people all over the web, See for yourself. http://www.economist.com/node/15108690/comments

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/103036https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/103036Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:04:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:05:17 GMT]]>i feel that what's most important is how we react to each piece of news

we read. to remember that there are always two sides of a story.

in the case of kiasimom, a good company should write to a 'relatively'
more reputable paper, like the straits times, to present its side of the
story, ie. kiasimom's friend's account, in an objective way. it can take
some responsibility for the hooha, apologize but at the same time defend
itself and its employee's act.

a lot of companies do this, actually. i'm sure you've seen them before.
especially SBS Transit, for the obvious reasons that a lot of people
complain about its service :lol: poor SBS.

currently i'm especially concerned by the money page in the sunday
version of our 'relatively' reputable local paper. they would write about a
person who, in their mind, has 'made' it and how they spend their 'made'
money.

my husband is a cynic and he tends to scoff at some of these successful
people's investment and spending habits. of course, with his own
justification thrown in. prob subtly sending me a message that i should be
more mindful with my spending... haha!

but not everyone is like that. some people are more trusting, especially
when they haven't made it quite as big as these successful people. like
the young, the fresh grads, or the middle-mgt white-collar who work their
guts out trying to make half as much money as these so-called 'made'
men and women (pls delete this if it may cause some offence).

they prob think, hey, if this guy said it's good to trade in options, i prob
shd do that too. but how many ppl can really make money out of option
trading? and if they do make some in the beginning, do they realize that
they can also lose money from it?

recently, a guy got sued for falsely claiming he had a degree from a
recognized university. he was an options trader trainer. his students sued
him for 'misleading' them to trust him. after he was proven guilty,
the 'relatively' reputable local newspaper started to ostracize him. ok. so
he was definitely at fault.

but if you remember, not too long ago, the same person was featured in
one of the sunday's money page, complete with how he made it big
(which is of course, thru options trading), how he invested his money, and
proof of his success (property, cars, etc).

now, i'm sure a lot of his students were encouraged to sign up for his
training after reading the article. thanks to the great feature writing skill
of its journalists. these students have been misled, but in a way, they
allowed themselves to, so they are also at fault. and does the paper need
to be made accountable for it? they didn't ask you to sign up for his
training. but they are a newspaper, and with it comes a pre-conceived
nature of trust and credibility.

but the reality is, they are now the very ones who report on his 'crime' at
every possible opportunity and from the way they write it, it's as if they're
trying to make it sound worse than it actually is. i mean, come on. the
world is full of people like him. look at maddoff! don't you have anything
better to write?

so i do agree that the journalists are not saints. far from it. but it is up to
us to decide what to do with it.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/102837https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/102837Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:05:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:36:20 GMT]]>There is an important place for good, robust journalism. Try picking up a copy of the Economist and reading it front to back. I did it when I was 14 years old, and have not stopped for over 20 years. Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.


How many of the web-feeds can replicate the balance and quality of the analyses that the Economist can put forth? In my experience, very very few. Time is precious, I want quality, not quantity.

Ironically, the ability to be selective about what you read may actually narrow one’s point of view. Given a choice, folk tend to only gravitate to the things they like, opinions that match their own. If you only choose to read what interests you, how on earth can that broaden your view of the world?

I don’t trust the traditional media much, but I trust the new media far LESS!

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/102767https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/102767Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:36:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:16:54 GMT]]>Oh wow! :oops:


Let me share another important perspective on the media.

In the Old World, in Media 1.0, we are all consumers of content. The Media, the Authority, the Organization is the sole producer of content. We the consumer cannot influence the content in any way, we are expected to just consume.

The reason why there is a big hoohah about this in the last few years is that the traditional media is still trying to resist the 2.0 world - this \"new\" world, of which Web 2.0 is a major force, is a world where YOU the consumer get to choose what you want to read, you get to comment and vote on what is valuable, what is good, and what is trash.

The traditional media circles cannot stand this because it makes them lose power over you.

In a traditional newspaper, the journalists and editors choose for you what you read. They expect you to read what they choose to publish.

This doesn't have to be the case today. In a 2.0 world, YOU can choose what you want to read, by filtering the web through RSS. You can construct your own \"newspaper\" by using such tools as Google Reader, Netvibes, etc.

You choose what subjects, what sources interest you. I do this on a daily basis. I configure my netvibes homepage to feed me news from sources on technology, science, gadgets, social media, my favourite TV shows, books, music, etc. and every day I read it, I feel more knowledgeable and good about the world and myself. I kid you not.

(Eg of Netvibes: http://supergeekery.com/images/mylightbox/netvibesGeekery_open.jpg)

A traditional newspaper won't give you that privilege. And that is why I ignore them, even when they are free.

And anyway, whenever I see the newspaper report about something \"new\", like Google's Nexus One - all I can say is, \"I knew that THREE WEEKS AGO.\"

I feel that traditional media as is a great source of ILL WILL because they are so obsessed with their Daily Diet of Death, Disease, Destruction, Delusion and Debauchery. The media RUINS, as the this topic says.

Why allow yourself to be fed this everyday? Do all this bad news the media reports every day really matter to you and your family? Are you not concerned about the news reports on mass deaths, murderers, rapists, conmen, scams, etc - what kind of effect they have on our children's minds? Is this the kind of world you want them to learn about?

Can you remember the last air crash that the media made a big hoohah about? The one before that? The one in 2009? 2008? 2006? If you have forgotten it, it is proof that that was worthless to you.

Stop relying on traditional media - empower yourself with 2.0 media!

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/102759https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/102759Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:16:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:04:01 GMT]]>I pop over to stomp Singapore and I

was very shocked to read the comments
that were written!
They are obsene, crude and offensive.
A lot of vulgarity were used and yet
it seemed only normal!

There is no administrator there to control
what were written. Netizens can just
hurl abuse at anyone !

It is really scary! I definitely don’t want
to expose Smarty to that website.

There’s simply too many topics that were
not suitable for kids like him.

I am glad that at KSP, we do not have
people like that!

I am so put off by the postings.
There isn’t any censor of what is posted !

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/101558https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/101558Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:04:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:55:22 GMT]]>wow! I made 3 booboos a day. Yep, sashimi writes well indeed. :salute:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98796https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98796Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:55:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:41:42 GMT]]>

mathsparks:
kiasimom:

To quote what sashimi said in the other thread.

But yes, the news-related media is, imho,
the biggest stinking pile of BShting misinformants this world has ever known.
I have more respect for the fungus growing on the decaying spirulina pellet
in the dust-covered grime under my fridge. flame flame flame....

He couldn't be more right and I totally agree with him.

Wow! kiasimom, you write very well! :salute:

Nope nope nope.
The credit goes to Sashimi.
He's the one who wrote:

\"But yes, the news-related media is, imho,
the biggest stinking pile of BShting misinformants this world has ever known.
I have more respect for the fungus growing on the decaying spirulina pellet
in the dust-covered grime under my fridge. flame flame flame....\"

Not me :salute:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98792https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98792Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:41:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:40:07 GMT]]>

jedamum:
another note..commenting on other people's over/under size be it innocent or not is never going to go down well with the recipient. unless the person has gorgeous/super fit figure, best to keep all comments to yourself if you are a sales person.

I know she should just keep her mouth shut. Still that doesn't warrant a warning from the management just because of what that s***** journalist wrote.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98790https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98790Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:40:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:49:25 GMT]]>

kiasimom:
To quote what sashimi said in the other thread.

But yes, the news-related media is, imho,
the biggest stinking pile of BShting misinformants this world has ever known.
I have more respect for the fungus growing on the decaying spirulina pellet
in the dust-covered grime under my fridge. flame flame flame....

He couldn't be more right and I totally agree with him.
Wow! sashimi, you write very well! :salute:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98616https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98616Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:49:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:41:42 GMT]]>

FMz:
tats life, get someone to write negatively abt garment and see if even get published.

The media only know how to bully the weak and poor.
Ask them to write about the rich and powerful. See if they dare unless they are
Not afraid of being slapped with a writ of summon for slandering.

In order to hand in their article, they can do it at the expense of people's ricebowl.

We have a saying.
Breaking people's ricebowl is akin to killing one's parents.

I really hope that those people out there will accumulate good merit by
Being more compassionate and truthful about what they write.

To add on, my gf cried for many days and had depression after the journalist wrongfully accused
Her.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98611https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98611Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:41:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:34:13 GMT]]>To quote what sashimi said in the other thread.

But yes, the news-related media is, imho,
the biggest stinking pile of BShting misinformants this world has ever known.
I have more respect for the fungus growing on the decaying spirulina pellet
in the dust-covered grime under my fridge. flame flame flame…

He couldn’t be more right and I totally agree with him.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98603https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98603Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:34:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:17:32 GMT]]>tats life, get someone to write negatively abt garment and see if even get published.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98441https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98441Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:17:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:48:25 GMT]]>another note…commenting on other people’s over/under size be it innocent or not is never going to go down well with the recipient. unless the person has gorgeous/super fit figure, best to keep all comments to yourself if you are a sales person.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98432https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98432Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:48:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:28:12 GMT]]>think sashimi wrote something about media a while back...somewhere in the threads ba...


here it is...
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5308&highlight=media
albeit a different kind.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98428https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98428Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:28:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Media ruins on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:16:20 GMT]]>I believe in karma. Although your pen is a powerful weapon that has the ability to either destroy or save someone, what goes around comes around.

Search your consience next time when you write an article.

Yes the world is round.Everything would come to one on action & effect.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98419https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/98419Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:16:20 GMT