“NGOs and online news portal twisted the aim of a proposal to awards reporters who wrote the “best” news and features on their Murum trip. It is true that the awards would be given to the reporters who produced the “best” news and features later. But it is NOT true that the awards must be the given to the reporters who wrote news and features favourable to SEB,meaning praising SEB for building the Murum dam. The “best” here means the news or features must be balanced, not lopsided. They must be comprehensive. There is no guarantee that the articles praising SEB highly will win the awards. At the same time, the awards will not be given if the reporters presented one side of the story”
So, Suluk Tawie has acknowledged that Sarawak Report’s “gutter journalism” was once more correct. An award has indeed been offered for the ‘best’ story written on Murum by the journalists invited by SEB to attend their PR trip to the dam. But, in all his waffle Tawie fails to mention who is presenting the award and who are the judges? He claims only ‘balanced’ and not ‘lopsided’ articles will win. Where are these rules laid out? And, if this is the case, why is it that nearly all the ‘entries’ to the competition (i.e. published articles in the Sarawak press) fail to give a single mention to the raging political, environmental and human rights issues surrounding the Murum Dam project and seek only to “praise” SEB’s performance?
If Sulok Tawie takes such issue with the reporting by Sarawak Report (which so far has proved factually correct, whereas his reports there was no evidence of a Penan blockade is proved factually wrong, given the weekend arrests) perhaps he should have responded to our attempts to contact him for his comments in advance of publishing our article? Instead he spurned our attempts to get in touch (see photo in SR Facebook).
In subsequent days Mr Tawie has accused SR of saying things we did not say, in his attempt to then deny and discredit our reports eg his statement to Bernama “never at any one time was anyone being dictated on what to write or not to write”. This was not an accusation that Sarawak Report ever made. Journalists like Tawie don’t need dictating to, they just make sure they please their boss.
Tawie has also contradicted himself in his various outpourings:
In his interview with Sun Daily (posted on Tawie’s Facebook page) he is quoted “If they met the Penans at the blockade sites, it was purely co-incidental. At Tegulang, the journalists talked freely to the Penans about whether they were happy to be resettled”.
Yet, in his own Facebook comments Tawie claims he saw no one at a blockade site and admits the Penan would not talk to the SEB accompanied journalists at Tegulang.
“Missed opportunity” he says on Facebook!
Overall, Tawie takes the stance that since he did not see a Penan blockade with his own eyes and in front of his nose (as pointed by SEB and armed police on his managed visit) then he has no evidence to report the existence of a blockade.
Journalists like Tawie, however, always seem very happy indeed to report anything if it has been ‘officially’ provided to him – e.g. if SEB said it in their three day brainwashing session, or of course if a ‘Government Authority’ pronounced it. Then journalists like Tawie immediately hold the matter to be true and report it confidently as if it was gospel.
We suggest that journalists like this go back to journalism training and start to learn about collecting information from other reliable sources and using the arts of discretion and objectivity and cross-referencing sources and checking evidence. Instead of just believing what SEB and the government say and refusing to accept what the rest of the world is saying…. unless they have witnessed it with their own eyes (which will always be looking the other way).