Tag Archive | "Yahoo!"

Give Seah Chiang Nee a break

Give Seah Chiang Nee a break

Tags: , , ,

And everybody just calm down!

By Belmont Lay

About a week ago, veteran Malaysia-based Singaporean journalist Seah Chiang Nee opined in an editorial piece published on Yahoo! that the mood within the PAP is turning sour after salary cuts were proposed.

As far as anyone is concerned, what was written is pretty much Chiang Nee’s personal opinions.

This, in my parlance, pretty much means that he pulled it out of his ass.

Yesterday, Singapore’s High Commissioner to Malaysia refuted Chiang Nee by saying he was being sloppy with his facts, what he claims are contradictions and he shouldn’t be quoting anonymous sources for his piece in the first place.

Erm… I don’t know why everybody is getting so heckled. But let’s just put it this way.

Nobody would ransack a trash can to look for a steak, some truffles and a bottle of 1985, right?

So why’d you insist on going onto the Internet expecting everything you read and watch to be top notch, fair, balanced and accurate?

I know you’d want all the articles, music and movies you get off the Web to be pristine, high quality, educational, entertaining, and up-to-date.

Yet seriously, you wouldn’t be willing so much as to pay a cent for much of the content because you’d rather prefer to download them for free from ether.

What I’m trying to say – don’t get me wrong – isn’t so much about getting what you paid for.

Rather, what I’m insisting is that you have a choice. A choice to tune out, or a choice to carry on consuming.

The movie you’re downloading is not high resolution enough? Simply close the window.

You’re dying of boredom reading a pointless or biased article? Go to the book shop and purchase some real literature then.

Since Chiang Nee’s opinions are free, and you weren’t coerced to read it, why feel so concerned jumping up and down getting all ape shit about it?

Because you want to warn other more gullible people not to fall for it?


Look, Chiang Nee writes for a wide audience. Really, really wide.

He has been in this journalism business for decades.

I will always assert that Chiang Nee writes for people who can only comprehend the literal meaning of his words and also for those who can read between the lines.

If you are of the disposition to latch on to every word he has to say because you are quite convinced he is authoritative like a God, good for you.

If you’re skeptical, exercise your critical faculties. Take it with a pinch of salt.

I’ve never met Chiang Nee before. But based on what others have told me about him and from reading his articles, it’s not hard to imagine a wrinkly old man with hair growing out of his ears gingerly pounding away on his word processor.

This means he is probably in his 70s now. And if you’re that age, going out onto the street to get quotes from people so you can finish your missive might be a bit of a chore, you know.

And if you’ve read his articles on Yahoo! that are adapted from his blog Littlespeck.com, you’d be familiar with the fact that he is wont to use anonymous sources for quotes.

That is basically breaking the one major rule no journalist should ever break. Yet he does it. He commits the cardinal sin. It is the equivalent of incest.

What does that tell you?

It wouldn’t be hard imagining him making stuff up and attributing them to people that don’t exist at all.

And I know well that he knows only too well about how to put a point across because that is what he wants to do with his writing: Convince you.

And for the last time, Chiang Nee is writing a column filled with his own opinions.

If you dig it, read. If not, go to sleep. Or fly a kite.

And the fact that he can’t spell “tumultuous” properly is a good indication that he can only be at best, a semi-skilled propagandist.

So why so serious, folks?

SPH claims it does not benefit directly from reposts on STOMP?

SPH claims it does not benefit directly from reposts on STOMP?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

What incessant rubbish.

Here’s the story so far: Singapore Press Holdings is planning on suing the bejesus out of Yahoo! for reproducing at least 23 of its articles without permission.

SPH also claims the infringing acts by Yahoo! were “committed for financial gain”, as reported in this Dec. 29, 2011 article by Marcus Lim, The Straits Times’ Assistant News Editor:



But Yahoo! is not taking things lying down.

In its counter suit, Yahoo! is claiming that SPH’s STOMP reproduced two of its articles and a picture without permission between Oct. 26 and 28 this year.

However, acting as if it’s all okay, SPH is going into denial mode, as they “stressed that it did not receive any financial benefit directly attributable to the alleged infringement”.



Basically, SPH is claiming that they are innocent simply because:
1. STOMP is dependent on third-party, user-generated content, so SPH cannot be blamed if third-party users want to steal stuff from elsewhere.
2. Ignorance of the origins of material published in STOMP makes a good defence.
3. It’s not really stealing if they’re supposedly not making money off it.



For everyone’s information and benefit, STOMP makes money from advertisements. This is their advertising rate card:



So, if the argument is that content found on STOMP does not belong to SPH, pray tell, then why is SPH still making all the money from advertisements found on STOMP?

Even if SPH does not “benefit directly” from the reproduction of individual copyrighted material uploaded by third-party users, don’t they at least make money off STOMP indirectly but collectively, partly because STOMP as a platform has lax standards of verifying the source of materials posted?

Ipso facto, for SPH to claim that it does not “benefit directly” even though they have a financial interest in seeing STOMP aggregate eyeballs to up page views and derive more ad dollars eventually:


In other news, SPH has a knack for stealing stuff online: SPH stole from Red Sports, an online sports news outfit.

Singapore Press Holdings draws first blood

Singapore Press Holdings draws first blood

Tags: , , , ,

Evidence of plagiarism claims gets airing in court of public opinion to swing tide against Yahoo!.

With the law suit yet to be fought in the court of law, guess what Singapore Press Holdings did?

They have taken the initiative by presenting its case against Yahoo! for copyright infringement to the court of public opinion.

Previously, a month ago, SPH had claimed that 23 articles from its newspapers were allegedly reproduced substantially on Yahoo! Southeast Asia’s websites over a 12-month period.

But no details regarding the exact articles were revealed, except that they included political and crime stories that were first published in the print editions of the Straits Times, The New Paper and My Paper.

However, on Wednesday, SPH up the ante by providing a side-by-side comparison of one such article it deemed Yahoo! had plagiarised.

Not only that, SPH also issued a statement saying Yahoo! had obtained a ‘free ride’ by reproducing its news content on its website without the company’s permission.

SPH also refuted counter-claims by Yahoo! that its full-of-shit, monkey-assed website Stomp had breached any copyright for reposting two Yahoo! articles between Oct. 26 and 28 this year.

SPH’s supposedly clever defence? They are claiming ignorance as they had no knowledge that Yahoo!’s articles were being posted in Stomp by third parties.

Stomp, you see, is primarily operated by faceless impotent voyeurs and relies on nincompoop-generated content.

Below is the side-by-side comparison of the report published in The Straits Times on Feb 1 this year, under the headline ‘Drink driving ‘obituary’ gets run down’, as well as the version published by Yahoo! Singapore the same day, with the headline ‘Drink driving ad receives flak for being ‘too obvious”.

Perhaps with Yahoo!’s counter-claims threatening to derail SPH’s case, the traditional media company is going on the offensive by getting the public to see things from their point-of-view – like how they got the public to gain a perspective of T.T. Durai and the National Kidney Foundation in July 2005 through their reporting.