What is the difference between the apology to Muslim readers published by the Star and the apology to the Prime Minister published by the online news portal, The Malaysian Insider ?
Are both apologies sincere?
The Star inadvertently published the offending piece due to an oversight in the steps taken before it appeared in their Ramadan Delights supplement. An experienced publishing entity would have all the checks and balances in place before any news item sees the light of day. In this instance, an anomaly occurred and the Star faced the consequences. We have to acknowledge that mistakes do happen and unfortunately it was an item that is sensitive to Muslims and a double whammy since it appeared during the fasting month.
The Star senior editor has been called by the Home Ministry to explain the debacle and as far as we can fathom, the case is clear cut, a mistake. Of course there are others who try to come out with conspiracy theories that the Star has always had an agenda undermining the Muslims in the country. Some comments highlight the fact that any negative news regarding Islam will always get special mention but the Star does try to balance its news content with contributions from Islamic authorities. Until concrete proofs are forthcoming, theories will remain theories.
Let us compare the previous scenario with the apology from the Malaysian Insider. An online news portal need only publish the apology on its website since it does not have an ink and paper edition, whereas the Star published its apology in both its printed copy and online site. The Malaysian Insider has done its part since the readers who had seen the news article would also be able to see the apology. Is that enough?
If anyone tries to look for the original article, they can only find the apology. The conclusion would be that the offending article has been taken off the site either thorugh Malaysian Insider's own initiative or after instructions from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). An intriguing side of this apology is the empty comments section with only these words appearing in its place “Commenting Disabled. Commenting on this page has been disabled by the blog admin.”
Aren't the editors of the Malaysian Insider the least bit curious to know the reaction of their readers? When we read the section on “about us” on its site, there is a paragraph which says “The Malaysian Insider values your thoughtful opinions on any reports or analyses contained here.” with the provision that it can edit or rewrite the comments for clarity. A bit of a letdown when readers are not even allowed to comment on the apology note.
The Star is still receiving a lot of flak over their mistake. Did the Malaysian Insider make a mistake too or was the meritocracy/mediocrity word already fixed in its place in the original article beforehand? The Prime Minister's speech on meritocracy and mediocrity is very important in view of the continuing debate on the impact it has on equal opportunities for all citizens of this country. If the online portal had already in mind that the PM prefers mediocrity, it is not too far fetched that unconciously the writer typed “mediocrity”, so as to add another evidence that mediocrity is the preferred action plan for the country.
What a shame, as more people turn to online news websites for their information of happenings around the world, a mistake such as this would put a damper on their reliability. Quite a few of the younger generation especially, have foregone the traditional news media and are now loyal to the new online news. There has always been sceptism on whether there is a balanced view in traditional media as they are seen to be linked to the ruling party.
On the other hand, if the new media only highlights the negatives of the ruling party, is that a balanced view too?
