Don’t you think its very funny how when somebody implicated Anuwar, they put it in the front page and write everything, but when somebody else is implicated, they take all measures to avoid printing his name? I mean, you and I both know who is implicated? Yet the star doesn’t want to print his name, but if its not somebody in power, they will print it , shout it out the mountain tops and make it look as if he is 100% guilty.

[source]
Altantuya murder: PI implicates senior politician

PETALING JAYA: Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda’s private investigator P. Balasubramaniam says the police omitted information about the relationship between a senior politician and Mongolian murder victim Altantuya Shaariibuu in his statement.

In the high profile case, Unit Tindakan Khas (UTK) operatives C/Insp Azilah Hadri and Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar are charged with murdering the 28-year-old Mongolian translator between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 two years ago in Mukim Bukit Raja, Shah Alam.

Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda is accused of abetting them.

More to follow

Nick Tay (4437 Posts)

Click on my about page to learn more about me.


6 thoughts on “The biastness of the STAR

  1. hmm… i think there’s a difference between an official police report and a statutory declaration by a PI… don’t be too quick to jump the gun i say…

    K.Los last blog post..That was fast…

  2. Dissagree dude. A police report does not mean somebody is guilty, and publishing it on the front page of newspaper “pollutes” the persons reputation. Unless somebody is arrested for a crime, then its a different story. To publicize one thing and not another shows clear biasness in reporting.

  3. OK, we all know The Star is bias.
    But…

    1. He’s been implicated for the same crime before you see… so it isn’t able to tarnish his reputation further.

    2. If he cared, he would have sued for libel/defamation.

    3. He might have wanted, even orchestrated, the whole media saga.

    4. If the Star didn’t pick it up, they will lose circulation to blogs/alternative media.

    5. You talk about arrested for a crime but we are comparing a police report to a ‘statutory declaration’ by a PI. If you were the public/media, which basket would you put your eggs in? :D

    6. So if 1. is true, when The Star publishes the ‘senior politicians’ name; the ‘senior politician’ can sue for defamation (and probably win) because he hasn’t been trialed for/connected to it before.

    :D

    K.Los last blog post..That was fast…

  4. 1) The grand court of Malaysia acquitted him of those charges as they were found to be politically charged
    2) On the first charges, he did
    3) Who we talking about? Anwar? It was brought up by a person who interestingly enough met with other senior politicians days before he filed it.
    4) They choose which stories to pick up. No coverage whatsover on other items yet, when it comes to opposition members its front page.
    5) Its the same instrument used differently. If you attacked me, I make police report. If you attacked somebody, I cannot make a report as the crime does not include me. I make a declaration, the police are charged to investigate in both cases.
    6) Your logic is a little flawed. If somebody files an official document, and you report that A filed a suit against B, you are not libel. You didn’t make the charges, you are reporting what happend. If you print the story based on hearsay, then yes, you can be sued. Can u see the difference?

  5. 1) ermm… it doesn’t matter; in the public eye his image has already been tarnished… we are talking about public perception; not what the courts have decided… defamation/libel/slander has some defenses which include truth, in the public interest, etc…

    3) Anwar could have orchestrated all that. Think about it. Don’t you think its funny why Azizah has pictures of d ‘victim’ and ‘senior politicians’?

    4) ?

    6) Ah… Again, I don’t think you understand me; its about public perception again. In the public’s eye, he is OK you know what I mean but Anwar’s image has already been tarnished. So whatever you report on, Anwar’s image cannot get any lower. But for the DPM, if you report his name etc but he doesn’t get charged or found guilty, he can sue you for lowering his image = defamation.

    And of course all your comments assume the judges/police do everything right… But you and I both know, things are not black and white… Try reading chedet; but then again, that could be biased too… :)

    K.Los last blog post..That was fast…

Comments are closed.