Editorial Integrity?

Wendy Cheng and her "trophy"....

It was the Straits Times; it was on page four; it was supposed to be the next blogging controversy--this time involving a high-profile blogger.

In the end, what was published in the Sunday Times was a lame, one-sided affair seemingly written by a Xiaxue apologist.

No disrespect intended for the reporter Jeremy Au Yong, but having read his article on the "controversy", I really wonder what do they mean by objective journalism.

To add insult to injury, two local charitable organisations even gave their support for Wendy: "Blogger Wendy Cheng found support from two unlikely groups. The Society for the Physically Disabled as well as the Handicaps Welfare Aossciation see nothing wrong with sharing toilets meant for the handicapped, as long as the able-bodied give priority to the disabled."

I really like to know if Mr Au Yong faxed these two societies Wendy's blog entry in its entirety; if he did, whether they actually read it. For to lend their support to Wendy--after what she's written--is bad publicity for them. I for one am not going to donate to an organisation that can't tell the difference between right and wrong.


Jeremy wrote: "Her critics argued taht the toilets should not be dirtied by the abled-bodied who had many more cubicles from which to pick and use."

However, the only critic quoted in the article? Peter Tan, the 39-year-old Malaysian blogger (and a disabled himself), who wrote to Wendy's sponsors complaining about her article. Yes, a Malaysian, as noted by the Straits Times.

What about the local critics? There were more locals who spoke against Wendy than Malaysians, so why not ask at least one of them for their opinions? Also, Netizens turned against Wendy not because she thought it's fine to share disabled toilets.

It's the disdain and contempt she showed for the disabled when she wrote her blog entry that riled people. Why not quote excerpts from her blog entry and let readers decide who's right or wrong?

Not a single word Wendy wrote was published; and Peter Tan was the lone voice speaking out against Wendy in the article. In mitigation, Wendy not only had the two local societies offering their support, but also LocalBrand founder Turodrique Fuad, who told the Straits Times that the issue "has been blown out of proportion" and "there was noting intentionally malicious about her post". They also got Wendy for a her comment, who said: "I don't think I have projected something that is extreme and I will write exactly the way I've always done."

Even the facts that Mr Au Yong brought up in his article don't give the full picture. I'm not questionnig Mr Au Yong's professional integrity, but there are certain points in the article that needs to be addressed:

Mr Au Yong wrote: "Ms Cheng is known for speaking her mind. She has written about measuring penises and evangelising, and poked fun at the nude pictures posted by a blogger writing as Sarong Party Girl."

Wendy can ramble on about measuring penises, she can make fun of Sarong Party Girl and even Furong Jie; fact is, we don't care. But she has written expletive-laden entries on far more senstive issues than a toilet cubicle--and the Straits Times didn't even mention one of them.

What about Wendy's recent entry on students who blog about their teachers--she openly encouraged wayward behaviour in students by telling them to go against their educators, and even taught them how to do it under a cloak of anonymity. And what about her racist remarks about Arabs and Malays which she later edited despite all her talk of editorial integrity?

Did Mr Au Yong read these entries before he wrote his article? Did he speak to Wendy's critics, who would've pointed them out to him? And if he did, why didn't he mention them, when they can give a truer picture of the sort of person Wendy is, and why people are so upset over this whole incident.

"While none would reveal the amount paid, the two endorsements are worth a three-figure sum to Ms. Cheng," he wrote.

Yes, it's a small sum, but before people start questioning why her critics are trying to deny her even this amount, they NEED to know why she doesn't deserve anything in the first place.

Maybe it's me, but the Sunday Times article has done a great disservice to its readers by painting Wendy as a victim when she's not.

Hats off to the Straits Times for a job well done, and for giving us such an objective view (sarcasm intended).

I'm sure Wendy will thank you for that. We won't.