I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the video of an RJ student being ticked of by a teacher making headines in the Straits Times. It seemed utterly below the standards of the Straits Times, which in my recollection, was about timely, responsible, accurate reporting. Frankly, students being ticked off by teachers happen all the time, everywhere around the world. And "secret" filming of a scolding? That's hardly a "private moment". Especially if it took place in a classroom, where all 26 students are present. This is no Chu Mei Feng incident. There is no sex. Only violence. And this violence takes place all the time, in schools all around the world. Where's the news?
The Straits Times reporting so far has been very hazy. Online polls by the Straits Times asked if the student was wrong to record the video secretly, or whether the teacher went overboard can only give meaningful results only if the facts of the case were reported. Which they were not. We hardly know more about the background of the affair except from what we can glean from the video. This is hardly a basis for making a reasonable decision, and further more, this is hardly a criminal case. There is no crime commited here.
So what is the Straits Times trying to tell us? That "secret" filming is wrong? That public posting of a blurred video that only people close to RJC could identify with is criminal? Or that RJC teachers are as a bunch harsh, criminal and violent? Bull. If a crime had been committed, if the teacher had taken violent physical action against the student, the filming of the incident would not be seen as a crime, but as evidence. And it may very well serve as evidence now. No one can dispute that the incident did not happen.
Sandra Davie quotes the teacher as saying "'outdated and irrelevant', 'sly, crafty, old rat', 'You are trying to cover up your insolence, your defiance, your laziness, your apathy, your lethargy and your bad attitude.' Choice phrases. But they do not tell us the whole story. The teacher goes on to tell the student after she has ripped the papers, what was wrong with the choice of articles. She has done her job, abeit in a rather harsh and impolite manner, to provide feedback to the student. She was overly harsh, but there was no crime. Those phrases may be insults, and they may or may not be true. But from the reporting, we hardly know if they are true or false, and thus, we are biased towards the student, believing that the teacher is an outright liar.
The Straits Times is acting here as both judge and jury, when there has been no foul committed. The Straits Times is selectively quoting choice phrases for the sake of sensationalism, reporting on an issue that has no real significance, and not even doing the basic investigative reporting that we so expect from a reliable source of news. What else do we know from the report that we could not have gleaned from the recording? And the readers could have gleaned more from a transcript of the recording itself. Facts were left out. The entire population of Singapore was misled. And even worse, they were invited to take online polls, to phone in and give their opinion on the matter, to take part as an online, invisible jury putting pressure on Raffles Junior College.
Let me frame the story for you Straits Times. If you wish to raise a discussion on hidden filming with modern technology, talk to your neighbourhood private eye. The issue here is not why the hidden filming is unacceptable, and whether it should be outlawed. The technology is there. Phones and digital cameras are smaller than ever before, and they are gaining in popularity, for a bunch of legitimate uses. The issue is why the student's work was so unacceptable as to warrant such an acidic reaction from a GP teacher. She comments that the student was writing about "anti-establishment, unhealty topics", and adds that "and why is teachers giving instructions? To help you, to get on with you work well." That is the real problem, that our education system only accepts establishment ideas, that to score well, the teacher has to promote establishment ideas amongst an intelligent JC populace that has a mind to decide what they are interested in. The students are being brainwashed here, forced to only research "up to date articles", that support the establishment.
The guilty party in this whole fiasco is the Straits Times. With its insensitive reporting, and poor investigative journalism at that, it has caused public humiliation in Singapore of a teacher, and a student. With its inaccurate writing, it has skewed the judgement of the population against these two people. And with its blatant flouting of copyright laws, by reproducing two screen shots from the video which the student holds copyright to, without his consent, and without compensation to the entire Singapore population. Is the sensationalism generated worth disrupting the lives of a teacher, two students and an entire college?
There is nothing to see here folks. Move on.
posted by Downhere. @ 9:23 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home