I was at the dialogue session yesterday where dolphin activist Ric O'Barry shared his thoughts with an audience of over 500 at the Grand Copthorne Hotel, in Singapore. He said a great many things and his thoughts on several related issues were sought by members of the audience. He was honest and passionate, and it was no secret that everyone in the ballroom was of the opinion that releasing the dolphins instead of including them as an item of Resorts World Sands Sentosa (RWS) is the way to go.
But Esther Ng of TODAY was at a different event apparently. She saw a crowd gathered because a celebrity "who starred in the Academy Award-winning documentary film The Cove" called Ric O'Barry was appearing. She saw only "teachers, students and young adult professionals and a few Caucasians" and declared that "the public debate was a one-sided affair with nary a soul speaking up in support of the captivity and display of dolphins". She also excitedly titled her atrocious piece 'Dolphin catcher-turned-activist nets audience of 500' - as if the point of the dialogue session was to see how big a crowd Ric O'Barry could attract.
The only way one can forgive this report for ever seeing the light of day is if Esther Ng is a secondary school student attached to TODAY. The 500 people were there to see Ric O'Barry in the context of how we can work together to get RWS to change their stubborn decision to keep wild-caught dolphins in captivity. Also, there were 1,000 people at the Save the Dolphins Concert a few weeks ago - where Ric O'Barry was not present - which makes the crowd-size an irrelevant observation altogether. And in a cosmopolitan country such as Singapore, where 1 in 4 persons is a foreigner, seeing a few - or many - Caucasians has nothing to do with anything at all.
As for the dialogue session being a "public debate", it could only have been a debate had the other party agreed to come - RWS had in fact been invited and had declined to attend and address the issues in person, and there was never an illusion that this would be anything other than a dialogues session. In fact, from the outset, it was framed that all of the people gathered at the session were there to find out how we could work together - and not to discuss, debate or deliberate on the merits of whether the dolphins about to be installed at RWS should be kept in captivity or released.
I have no idea what Esther Ng's agenda is (fast-track her career by pleasing corporate interests?) or how the TODAY editors saw fit to allow such shoddy reporting to be carried in print (incompetent, ignorant, disingenuous?), but her account is such a perverted version of a minute part of the 2-hour session that it is truly laughable.
But Esther Ng of TODAY was at a different event apparently. She saw a crowd gathered because a celebrity "who starred in the Academy Award-winning documentary film The Cove" called Ric O'Barry was appearing. She saw only "teachers, students and young adult professionals and a few Caucasians" and declared that "the public debate was a one-sided affair with nary a soul speaking up in support of the captivity and display of dolphins". She also excitedly titled her atrocious piece 'Dolphin catcher-turned-activist nets audience of 500' - as if the point of the dialogue session was to see how big a crowd Ric O'Barry could attract.The only way one can forgive this report for ever seeing the light of day is if Esther Ng is a secondary school student attached to TODAY. The 500 people were there to see Ric O'Barry in the context of how we can work together to get RWS to change their stubborn decision to keep wild-caught dolphins in captivity. Also, there were 1,000 people at the Save the Dolphins Concert a few weeks ago - where Ric O'Barry was not present - which makes the crowd-size an irrelevant observation altogether. And in a cosmopolitan country such as Singapore, where 1 in 4 persons is a foreigner, seeing a few - or many - Caucasians has nothing to do with anything at all.As for the dialogue session being a "public debate", it could only have been a debate had the other party agreed to come - RWS had in fact been invited and had declined to attend and address the issues in person, and there was never an illusion that this would be anything other than a dialogues session. In fact, from the outset, it was framed that all of the people gathered at the session were there to find out how we could work together - and not to discuss, debate or deliberate on the merits of whether the dolphins about to be installed at RWS should be kept in captivity or released.
I have no idea what Esther Ng's agenda is (fast-track her career by pleasing corporate interests?) or how the TODAY editors saw fit to allow such shoddy reporting to be carried in print (incompetent, ignorant, disingenuous?), but her account is such a perverted version of a minute part of the 2-hour session that it is truly laughable.
6 comments:
MSM has to report what is politically correct only.
NOT necessary the truth.
Often for those who speaks the truth, will be removed instantly.
There was a Energy expert interviewed on CNA, he mentioned there are safer and better clean energy than nuclear Energy. The next day, he is replaced by one other expert who claimed that nuclear is still safe and its the way to go. LOL, they were interviewed after Japan's 11 Mar disaster !
U know, what the propaganda is now, MIW has not given up on Nuclear energy yet.
Over the radio, one commentator mentioned that our political system is not normal and one day MIW will be replaced. Very soon, he is removed and the program canned.
So, don't blame Esther, she is just securing her rice bowl.
Resorts World Sands?? Get your names right first.
Judging from your anger at a piece of newspaper reporting and essentially a non story, I wonder why RWS didn't bother to show up. Hint: something to do with the temperament of people like u.
raymond, no RWS should grow a pair and stop avoiding the issue.
It's obvious that Esther Ng was either too dense to understand what's going on, or she was intent on trivialising the issue to divert away public attention. Either way, her reporting was shoddy, if not pure fabrication.
Thanks Anonymous @5 October 2011 19:20:00, corrected the error. Now that I have got the names right, can you focus on the point?
So, raymond, if it's essentially a non-story, does that mean facts can be misreported? And oh dear, do the children know that they need not listen to their parents who are angry with them for behaving badly?
Post a Comment