1. "TR Emeritus apologises for report on Heng Swee Keat's medical bills being paid by taxpayers - The Straits Times 07 June 2016
SINGAPORE - Socio-political website TR Emeritus (TRE) has apologised for its online report alleging that Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's medical expenses are funded by the taxpayer, which the Government called out as a "blatant lie".
In the first of two Facebook posts on Tuesday (June 7) morning, TRE said it had republished a reader's comment in a June 6 article - which said the cost to the taxpayer of Mr Heng's medical bills to date would be almost $500,000 - "without checking the underlying facts".
"We therefore extend our apologies for this matter," it said.
But it added that according to its terms of service, it had the rights to republish any material submitted to the website in any format, and that it has been "doing so as a socio-political platform".
The content producer is "solely responsible for any liability arisen from the publication of (his) messages", it added.
"We had believed that the facts provided by the writer was true because there was indeed a scheme (in the past) when civil servants was fully covered by the states for injuries and sickness during working hours," it said, adding that since Mr Heng was in a Cabinet meeting when he collapsed, it was "natural to assume" that the State would cover his medical expenses."
TR Emeritus is a bit STUPID to say the least. Just admit that it has blundered and apologized. Period. The most basic PR recovery technique is: apologise without a BUT!!
I would have drafted the apologies as follow, being a non-professional PR person offering PR tips:
quote
"It is our right to publish readers' input as we had done in the past, even when some were critical of the government. However, it is our intention never to lie, as accused by the government on the recent posting on Minister Heng's hospitalization expenses.
It has been clarified that Minister Heng's medical expenses are covered by the 3M and the medical insurance will take care of the main bulk, or even 'as is' if his medical insurance is such.
We apologize unreservedly for the stupid mistake we had made. A discredit to wanting to the 'alternative news media of choice' that we strive to achieve.
We will do better next time.
Sincerely wishing Minister Heng a speedy recovery!" unquote
2. "Rape victim slams attacker in raw and powerful statement - The Straits Times 07 June 2016
Being drunk is never an excuse to rape someone.
In a raw and deeply personal statement addressed directly to her rapist, a 23-year-old victim detailed her ordeal and injustice in front of a full courtroom in Palo Alto, California on Thursday (June 2), right before the former Stanford University student was sentenced to six months jail and probation.
In the ensuing trial, the victim was shamed as Turner's lawyers tried to discredit her.
"I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name," she wrote in her victim impact statement.
The woman also lambasted the media coverage for highlighting Turner's athletic records. "In newspapers, my name was "unconscious intoxicated woman", ten syllables, and nothing more than that. For a while, I believed that that was all I was. I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity. To relearn that this is not all that I am. "That I am not just a drunk victim at a frat party found behind a dumpster, while you are the All American swimmer at a top university, innocent until proven guilty, with so much at stake."
The victim was also angry at Turner's light sentence."It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute rape with a suggestion of "promiscuity". By definition rape is not the absence of promiscuity, rape is the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he can't even see that distinction," she wrote.
To add insult to injury, Turner's father, Dan Turner, requested the judge in a pre-sentencing report to grant his son probation, saying that his son has paid "a steep price ... for 20 minutes of action"."
Freaking stupid and SAD situation. If it had not been a Stanford undergraduate doing that, I assumed to another Stanford student, or probably not since the victim was so trivialised and dismissed, this sad story would not have made headlines in this part of the world!
For me it is very simple: Stanford or not, a RAPE is a RAPE by any other name!!
The case raised a few questions, some are aged old and been asked each time similar crimes were reported!
a. is rape victim to blame for putting herself or himself in harms way by being drunk or drugged out; or just being skimpily dressed in some parts of the world like in India or somewhere?;
b. what kind of justice it is when a 20-year old future is considered more valuable and worthy of sympathy than that of a 23-year old future? how can the judge possible make that kind of comparison and be able to justify it to himself? should he be put on trial for being 'corrupt morally' and being unfair and unjust by the 23-year old victim?;
c. will this be the last of such unfortunate and stupid crime in universities around the world? should this be even reported if the rapist and the victim had not been given so much publicity? that each will take their mistakes and repent in their own way turning around their future positively individually?
A sad situation that should get people thinking deeper instead of making it into a circus.
em
SINGAPORE - Socio-political website TR Emeritus (TRE) has apologised for its online report alleging that Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's medical expenses are funded by the taxpayer, which the Government called out as a "blatant lie".
In the first of two Facebook posts on Tuesday (June 7) morning, TRE said it had republished a reader's comment in a June 6 article - which said the cost to the taxpayer of Mr Heng's medical bills to date would be almost $500,000 - "without checking the underlying facts".
"We therefore extend our apologies for this matter," it said.
But it added that according to its terms of service, it had the rights to republish any material submitted to the website in any format, and that it has been "doing so as a socio-political platform".
The content producer is "solely responsible for any liability arisen from the publication of (his) messages", it added.
In another Facebook post two hours later, its editors said "it was never our intention to misrepresent the facts".
"We had believed that the facts provided by the writer was true because there was indeed a scheme (in the past) when civil servants was fully covered by the states for injuries and sickness during working hours," it said, adding that since Mr Heng was in a Cabinet meeting when he collapsed, it was "natural to assume" that the State would cover his medical expenses."
TR Emeritus is a bit STUPID to say the least. Just admit that it has blundered and apologized. Period. The most basic PR recovery technique is: apologise without a BUT!!
I would have drafted the apologies as follow, being a non-professional PR person offering PR tips:
quote
"It is our right to publish readers' input as we had done in the past, even when some were critical of the government. However, it is our intention never to lie, as accused by the government on the recent posting on Minister Heng's hospitalization expenses.
It has been clarified that Minister Heng's medical expenses are covered by the 3M and the medical insurance will take care of the main bulk, or even 'as is' if his medical insurance is such.
We apologize unreservedly for the stupid mistake we had made. A discredit to wanting to the 'alternative news media of choice' that we strive to achieve.
We will do better next time.
Sincerely wishing Minister Heng a speedy recovery!" unquote
2. "Rape victim slams attacker in raw and powerful statement - The Straits Times 07 June 2016
Being drunk is never an excuse to rape someone.
In a raw and deeply personal statement addressed directly to her rapist, a 23-year-old victim detailed her ordeal and injustice in front of a full courtroom in Palo Alto, California on Thursday (June 2), right before the former Stanford University student was sentenced to six months jail and probation.
In the ensuing trial, the victim was shamed as Turner's lawyers tried to discredit her.
"I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name," she wrote in her victim impact statement.
The woman also lambasted the media coverage for highlighting Turner's athletic records. "In newspapers, my name was "unconscious intoxicated woman", ten syllables, and nothing more than that. For a while, I believed that that was all I was. I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity. To relearn that this is not all that I am. "That I am not just a drunk victim at a frat party found behind a dumpster, while you are the All American swimmer at a top university, innocent until proven guilty, with so much at stake."
The victim was also angry at Turner's light sentence."It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute rape with a suggestion of "promiscuity". By definition rape is not the absence of promiscuity, rape is the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he can't even see that distinction," she wrote.
To add insult to injury, Turner's father, Dan Turner, requested the judge in a pre-sentencing report to grant his son probation, saying that his son has paid "a steep price ... for 20 minutes of action"."
Freaking stupid and SAD situation. If it had not been a Stanford undergraduate doing that, I assumed to another Stanford student, or probably not since the victim was so trivialised and dismissed, this sad story would not have made headlines in this part of the world!
For me it is very simple: Stanford or not, a RAPE is a RAPE by any other name!!
The case raised a few questions, some are aged old and been asked each time similar crimes were reported!
a. is rape victim to blame for putting herself or himself in harms way by being drunk or drugged out; or just being skimpily dressed in some parts of the world like in India or somewhere?;
b. what kind of justice it is when a 20-year old future is considered more valuable and worthy of sympathy than that of a 23-year old future? how can the judge possible make that kind of comparison and be able to justify it to himself? should he be put on trial for being 'corrupt morally' and being unfair and unjust by the 23-year old victim?;
c. will this be the last of such unfortunate and stupid crime in universities around the world? should this be even reported if the rapist and the victim had not been given so much publicity? that each will take their mistakes and repent in their own way turning around their future positively individually?
A sad situation that should get people thinking deeper instead of making it into a circus.
em
No comments:
Post a Comment