So the wife of an opposition party member cut up her brother in-law and his wife. The press caught on with the story. Wait!
The mention of ‘opposition party’ is the very crux of the matter! I do not suppose that the guy is just an opposition member, but a member of a registered political party in Singapore. The thing is, there is no mention of the party. He is just referred to as the “slipper man” and “opposition party member”. That’s rather derogatory, I must say.
Another thing I picked up was the mention of that particular “opposition party member”. He was referred to by just his surname. That’s rather odd, knowing that the local presses love to condemn criminals by just stating their surnames. When they quote or mention someone of respect or even of some social dignity, their title always begin with a Mr, or Ms or… you get what I mean.
My questions are…
1) Why is there a harping over the fact that it is the wife of an “opposition party member” and not the wife of an “ABC Party member”?
2) Why is the use of that “opposition party member’s” name and title and reference so crude, and derogatory.
It’s his wife who killed people. For goodness sake, when someone commits a crime, you do not implicate his/her spouse do you?
Politically motivated or conspiracy theory? You tell me.
Oh yes, CNA even has the audacity to post the party member’s photo on their article when it is his wife who committed the crime. Have they gone off tangent or what?
My ultimate questions are… Is that what professional journalism demands? Is this the proper angle to take?
FYI, here’s the link. See for yourself.
0 Responses to “Uneccessary Details”