For those of you who don't actively follow the comments section, here's a transcript of what the sole responding "journalist" said of my comments on the local press ( I've decided to leave the grammatical errors intact :) ):

"reply to both, your sound so alike i thought you two the same person. anyway:

it's sad hw so many - in sheep-like fashion - trash the new paper when it's the only english paper willing to tackle the smut, willing to put real ppl on the cover, willing to be labelled trash for telling stories in a simple enough manner for real people, the man on the street.

and it's sad how so many straits times readers find st boring but as part of the establishment, would continue thinking it s'pore's best.

why? because you were told so.

you are criticising local papers' quality and yet you want more tabloids so "smut" can be published??

one of you wrote this: "Gritty, in your face, and quite possibly foolish... but you still have to admire them for being there and trying to get their story - and being aware of the consequences of their decisions, but nonetheless chasing down their "ideal"."

that's what every journalist does on every assignment. and you are belittling them for giving every assignment this due effort. or does a story has to be political for you to think it worthwhile?

sounds like your are the ones who believe in "the system".

another quote: "the climate seems very much to be 'hmm, maybe, but we're too scared, better safe than sorry'."

"seems" is an accurate term. if tt's what the situation seems like to you, well, you are entitled to your own perception.

again, you can explain why you did not accept the st interview but i wonder, why nt defend your opinion. the journos out there put their names to what they write, they are open to every abuse the public may feel like. they don't stay in the safety of the net or pseudonyms.

should a lawsuit occur over a TRUE story, we hv the responsibility to take the heat.

"if you're never going to practise journalism again, it wouldn't make a difference whether you reveal your source, no?"

i don't know if you specialise in anything but if you leave your job, are you going to tell on every patient's confidential detail/ embarassing secret?

if so, you are in the wrong job.

i hope you see the difference.

this is the last time i comment here.

btw, the new paper was the only local paper who sent their own team to iraq."
skye

Note that the inverted commas for the term journalist are used only because this person claims to be one, but didn't provide his/her real name. It isn't meant to belittle his/her views in any way.

Points to ponder about "skye":

1) If you are a real reporter, you are quite obviously from The New Paper. :)
2) You are also very proud of your job, and defend it with heart and soul, a quality I admire. ( And please don't accuse me of sarcasm here, because I'm sincere. )
3) However, you need to repeat an English course -- my mother is happy to oblige with that task. :D
4) It's interesting how you assume ( something you told me and re-minisce NOT to do ) that I declined the interview with the ST out of fear. That is completely off the mark. Writing this blog and putting my real name to every single post I make should be sufficient proof that I stand by what I say. If only YOU would reveal your true identity and join the club.
5) It's also mind-boggling how you managed to extrapolate the scenario of journalists revealing their sources to that of doctors divulging their patients' medical information. We're bound by patient-doctor confidentiality, which is a legal issue. I haven't heard of journalists being thrown in jail or dragged into court over naming their sources. If you have, please let me know.
6) You have sadly decided to give up the good fight and stop commenting on my blog. I'm sorry you feel this way, because some of your perspectives were good eye-openers into the local journalism scene. I only wish you'd take a cue from your fellow colleague, Mr. Helmi Yusof from Life!, who once received a less than friendly email from me regarding his review of the film "Signs", but took it very graciously, and defended his own opinions in an articulate and unaggressive manner. He has my unwavering respect because of that, and is also a very generous and helpful person. We need more people like him in the press.

So we're back to square one. My invitation to journalists to respond to my questions has met with a vacuum of silence, which means if some of us continue to complain, there's no-one left to stand up for their "integrity".