A closer look at some articles will quickly reveal how SPH and Mediacorp enjoy taking potshots at one another. In fact, some of them are so cheap, it's almost childish.
Take this article Taxi-Ferrari crash: Strangers but they shared similar lives by a SPH reporter who interviewed the taxi driver who witnessed the Ferrari crash. In the article, published in the Straits Times on May 18 2012, the following paragraph made it to the news.
"Mr Yeo said that on the morning after the accident, he called MediaCorp to tell the TV station about his clip. But the woman on the phone was lukewarm to his offer, he said.
Later, he showed it to his nephew, who contacted Shin Min Daily News, and Mr Yeo was contacted by a reporter. After the newspaper put the clip online, a friend of his put up a copy on YouTube and it spread from there."
Whoa! Cheap shot there. SPH 1, Mediacorp ZERO. Way to put the foot in SPH.
Basically, this paragraph had little news value in relation to the actual story. It was probably put in at the whim of some editor who saw the golden opportunity to land a death blow to the credibility of Mediacorp as a news organisation. After all, if you do not realise that a video the whole nation is baying for over one of the most talked about accidents in years is nothing less than a coup de grace towards your bitter rival's claim as being the best news agency in Singapore, you really don't deserve to report the news. Or be anywhere near it at all.
If I were Mediacorp, I would witch hunt and sack that stupid woman. Really. They don't get any stupider than that. And I'm not saying this as a misogynist. The monetary and reputational loss she just cost Mediacorp, she would probably not be able to pay it back in years. But oh wait, Mediacorp can't sack people. It's something to do with their hiring policy. Bwahahaha.
But Mediacorp's TODAY hasn't left it lying down either, with this article that came out on May 30, 2012 Straits Times, Zaobao challenge Low's remarks.
Note how TODAY less than subtly tries to play the card that SPH is a mouthpiece for the government, which is another cheap shot at undermining the credibility of SPH as an independent and objective news source. We all know it isn't, but hey, what's a little more help in tearing it down. TODAY wasn't extremely objective during the by-elections as well, but well news readers in Singapore have short memories.
Check out this choice quote - "During the press conference, Mr Low had criticised, in particular, the Straits Times' use of photographs and its headlines."
Yes, I don't like the Straits Times. So sue me.
Well done TODAY, that was really a little too obvious wasn't it.
But can you really blame them for trying to paint SPH as government stooges. SPH started it first, striking a low blow back in March with seemingly no provocation at all, when they published this mother of a clunker - MediaCorp Channel 5's viewership on the decline.
It was literally meant to go for the jugular, and I wonder why they bothered because SPH doesn't even run a television channel. There was no need for this uncalled for slap in the face. Maybe some big honcho in Mediacorp pissed off some big honcho in SPH, so they called for an organisational assassination. They couldn't have done it much better.
It had some very nasty quotes indeed, like the following.
"The success of the show masks a deep problem on Channel 5: It is losing viewers by the lorryloads."
And this.
"If a foreigner who is new to Singapore were to watch MediaCorp's Channel 5 for a taste of the country, he would not get any good idea from its line-up. MediaCorp receives government funding."
Was that last sentence really necessary SPH?
Bitch please.