I read with great interest the ST report, "Much ado about hairdo remark?" (ST, Aug 19) by Wong Wei Fan.

True to a century-old tradition in ST, I found the report credible and balanced. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the headline, which is allusive of Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing".

I am sure that our editors in ST will agree that the newspaper appeals to a knowledgeable readership and, this reference, albeit indirect, would have been clearly discerned by its consumers. Simply put, the word "nothing" was replaced by "hairdo remark".

However, I am unsure about what ST was trying to achieve with such a headline. I put forward two possibilities about how the average reader could have read it (and there could very well be more or, alternatively, I could be wrong). First, by slightly sensationalising the headline, ST was trying to provoke readers' interest in the story. Second, ST was trying to reduce the importance of the "hairdo remark" from something to "nothing".

Therefore, although the headline may have been successful in getting average readers like me to read the report, it could also have been interpreted as being insensitive. As a result, one could have landed up reading an insensitive headline about the report of an insensitive remark.

I did some fact-finding and I learnt that ST first broadcasted this story on its website on 18 August 2001 at 9.51 pm. In that release, the report was neutrally headlined, "Women's groups reject minister's explanation for hairdo remark".

As such, I am confused about what prompted the change in the headlines especially since the change may have landed up making a mockery of the matter.

Effectively, ST may have aggravated the injury that women (and possibly men) may have sustained from the "hairdo remark". Similarly, the headlines could have discomforted Dr Lily Neo MP further.

I see our journalists as responsible, creative and intelligent individuals. Just as they expect their stories to be valued by their readers, I hope they will similarly value their readers. Such insensitive headlines can only strain the fragile relationship between reader and the press.

Thus, if ST believes in the constructive development of our media, I hope ST will explain its actions to its readers. As a gesture of its sincerity, I also encourage ST's Editors to issue an apology to women in Singapore but I leave this strictly to their discretion.

In the current competitive climate, such initiatives can only help the Singapore Press Holdings to sustain its full readership. After all, it is Shakespeare who has offered in Much Ado About Nothing (Act 1, Scene 1), "A victory is twice itself when the achiever brings home full numbers."

These steps, if taken, will also allow me, as a Singaporean, to be more proud of our media. Together, We Make The Difference.

Note to Editor:
1. I would appreciate if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter and please do let me know if you'll be publishing this.
2. I would also be grateful if you could provide me some suggestions (should you have any) that would improve this letter's suitability for publication.
3. This letter is provided in a personal capacity.
4. Have a nice day and a belated Happy National Day!

Yadav, Dharmendra

What follows is an e-discussion between Yadav and Leslie Fong, Editor of the Straits Times.

Dear Ms Yadav,

Thank you for your letter and your kind words about our balanced and credible report. I am sorry I could not reply sooner.

If I might misquote Shakespeare some more, you do protest too much! The Straits Times headline that you referred to was written with just one objective in mind -- to draw readers' attention to the story below it. It was not meant to suggest that the mini-controversy over the hairdo remark was nothing. Nor was it intended to be a subtle put-down of Dr Lily Neo and all those Singaporeans, men and women, who were none too thrilled by what the Health Minister said. I suspect most readers would have read the headline for what it was -- journalistic licence to play around with words. Inept? Perhaps. Insensitive? I don't think so but I do know now that there is at least one reader out there who feels this way even if no other, male or female, has written to us expressing similar sentiments.

You wondered whether we valued our readers. But of course! Why else am I replying to your letter even when I disagree with what you wrote and am puzzled you copied it to so many other parties? Would we publish your letter? No, I am afraid not. Why? Well, in my humble judgment, it is not likely to be of interest to most readers or add to public understanding of the real issue, which is whether the government should make breast cancer screening even more affordable.

You have a nice day too!

Sincerely,

Leslie Fong,
Editor, Straits Times.

Dear Mr Fong,

1. Please feel free to call me Dharmendra. I am an advocate of first names and, I hope you will permit me a similar liberty. (And, by the way, I am not a Miss. :)) )

2. I am very pleased that you replied to this letter and, it only enhances my confidence in your paper. Indeed, it is a reflection of the high levels of service that our Prime Minister encouraged some days back and, I am happy that ST has set the example so soon.

3. I am unsure about how the comments "you do protest too much" should be interpreted but, in my opinion, it does show your paper is highly effective in provoking responses from readers. And as I have been educated by Mr Balji (and I too agree with him) a year ago, a paper that gets such feedback can be assured that it is being read!

4. I am very happy that you clarified your paper's intentions in using such a headline. My intention in writing such a letter was to understand ST's point of view and, bring to ST's attention how its use of words may have been read. I respect and accept your decision not to publish my letter since it is my belief that an Editor knows his readers best and, I really appreciate your feedback. However, if I may add, I know of several other readers who interpreted the report differently and some of these interpretations I reproduce here.

5. One reader wrote in to me, "It make[s] me wonder why does the media shadow away such truth... Continue to make Singapore sparks amongst her neighbor - ST please be transparent in your news". Another said, "the ST headline [is] typical of male responses whenever the point about gender discrimination is being made. Perhaps it's a defence mechanism". A third provided, "Sure get rejected by ST!" (He went on to add that ST would do this to protect the Minister.) But in all fairness to your point of view, I know of one other reader who evaluated my response to the headline as such, "if you grant me, this letter is also "much ado about nothing" :-0)". I smiled too.

6. Sir, in my relationship with the media, I have found that the third is a typical response by persons who have genuine concerns about issues reported in the media. They simply don't write in because they think they will not get the platform. This is what prompted me to evaluate the media-reader role in a column that I wrote for Project Eyeball early this year. I am happy to reproduce that for you below. That column will perhaps help you better appreciate my intentions for copying this letter to so many other media (apart from the fact that I see this sexist remark as a very important issue). In that column, I provided some feedback on how our media should manage their readers. I know that Project Eyeball in its short life adopted this and, so have The New Paper. I hope your paper will do the same.

7. At the same time, I hope you will also permit me to reproduce your response on a number of forums where my letter has been made available. I think this will serve as valuable media awareness.

8. Additionally, I also copied the Chairman, Publications Advisory Committee, on this issue because he recently announced his group's intention to publish an annual report that would evaluate 'accuracy' and 'balance' in our press. He categorically stated he was not too worried about established papers like ST but I just wanted to provide him with an example that highlights why established papers deserve the same level of attention from his group.

9. Thank you, once again, and let's keep learning!

Happiness,
Dharmendra

Dear Dharmendra,

Thank you for your prompt response. I take note of the contents. Feel free to reproduce my reply to you as you see fit.

Regards,

Leslie