The right of reply

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Huh? There’s even people against neutrality and balance media.


Article like this pun dapat highlight? When PR takes a higher moral ground despite the practice being contrary it’s fine and not a word of condemnation. People are now more exposed lah Josh. People now see politicians always say its right if they do it but it’s wrong if the other does it. This is devoid of any right value. It’s a symptom of corrupting mind. So when people highlight that it’s wrong when one party condemns the other of a budget deficit but claim its a good budget when they propose a similar deficit budget, it’s not because of neutrality. It’s because they’re so “amazed” by the “stupidity” of partisanship to address the issue. In the end these partisan gets nowhere coz both PR and BN are for deficit budget. Similarly with merdeka issue. People see not only bn politicizing it but also PR too. And at the end we Malaysians lose it.
So don’t berate you’re against neutrality. You know partisanship is wrong but because you yourself are partisan and unable to argue and defend the partisan position you hold, you write condemning neutrality. What a dumb write.


2 thoughts on “Huh? There’s even people against neutrality and balance media.

  1. Ellese,

    I like to read Josh Hong, not his revere toward many thing West though. I think he is more honest and truer, and less hypocrite and pretense. Back to the topic, this is what Josh wrote (the main point) “However, what I cannot tolerate is the holier-than-thou attitude of this particular group of elites who claim to be neutral”, hence the titled “false neutrality”, I think he at least has more intellectual honesty if compare against many self claim non partisan fellow. Just my opinion.

    • Dear HY,
      I don’t know josh n you’re probably right about him. But this piece of writing just doesn’t make sense to me. As you already know I believe we should at least have one balance objective media. We need this so that we can have common ground. The media must adopt the US SPJ standard which I’ve written before. And I cannot see why he is against neutrality when we need one. Bersih also call for balance MSM (but strangely not AM). We need a platform for all where we can discern rhetorics and truth. Josh underlying message that any media which points weaknesses of pr rather than bn is a false neutrality, is not only shallow but a false argument. At this juncture of history, we need more balance / neutral media and to quote huffington is simply out of place for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s