Media Article and Response of Reader

 

Recently the Straits Times published an article "Silvia Lim's Motion on Parti Liyani case not picked for Parliament Sitting". There were quite a few exchange of words between MPs and readers.

The article's choice of words are entirely the author's in the author's own understanding and expression. It may be carefully crafted to make the title striking or perhaps crafted to mislead people. However, in the context it was clearly stated that it was "decided by ballot".

The question on whether it is deliberately crafted to mislead or just simply stroking reader's reaction is best left to the author since it is worded by the author. The author may well be in the "you know" mindset that assumed reader understand the title by reading the context. Thus, the choice of word is entirely the author's "bias".

On the readers' side, it may be entirely misunderstanding of the title coupled with the lack of interest in the context or lack of knowledge in Parliament Process  or deliberately reading the title out of context before commenting. Other readers reading the content is thus lead in the comment to belief what was stated and thus MP responded by lashing out. This is typical readers mindset. They formulate the message entirely in their own understanding of the title. Again is is said to be readers' "bias".

Obviously, there will be others who jump in the wagon and make a scene out of it like the article published in "The Independent" showcasing MPs and readers comment thus making a case out of it.

There is no way in stopping the authors' choice of word in the title and no way to stopping readers to response in anyway they like. One must be aware of the subtle messages conveyed by the title yet understand that it could be just plain inadequate portraying an incident or a deliberate means of attracting readers' attention misfired. The author's article would have been vetted by the publisher before being published. Depending on the bias of the publisher, it is then shown to the public as an edited article. 

Since (according to some) the publisher is pro-government, it may well be a gimmick backfired rather than "bias" as stated by Tan CJ in his comment.