Reports telling of editorial standard
Take for example, The Sunday Times (April 21) where the frontpage headline read "Libya wants to learn from us Dr M 'grilled' by Gaddafi on Malaysia's economic and social successes". That mediocre report was penned by none other than NST's group editor, Ahmad A Talib.
The selection of that piece of cheap and narcissistic propaganda speaks volumes of the standard of journalism in the supposedly mainstream newspaper established 150 years ago.
First, given its propagandistic contents, it is not a piece of news at all, and it should not appear in a public newspaper. It should be published by Umno's party broadsheets as a morale booster for its own members.
Second, even given the reality in Malaysia where mainstream journalists have to cari makan, that piece of propaganda should only be published in page 12 or 13, not page 1.
Third, any senior editors with decent self-respect and a normal standard of honour and shame would not want to sign his or her name to that piece of propaganda. How can an unnewsworthy piece of propagandistic writing be given a byline.
Above all, the decision-making editors in the New Straits Times do not seem to be able to distinguish what is diplomatic language and objective assessments. All government leaders, whenever and for whatever purposes they meet, are certain to speak well publicly of another's country, even though they have private and confidential assessments that are negative and bad.
Moreover, what was purported to be the opinion of Libya's President Muammar Gaddafi on Malaysia was not quoted from Gaddafi himself, but from our own Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who unilaterally claimed to have been "praised" by Gaddafi. There is simply no independent verification that Gaddafi did really say what was 'reported' by the New Straits Times which only quoted Mahathir, who has self-interest motive.

