I’m gonna close this comment box now guys.

Thank you to those who have tried to defend on my behalf (like Shemah, Gallivanter, and Jewelle), appreciate it a lot. You guys rock! *hugz*

Seriously I think Jacq has the right to say what she said. This is her personal blog and that is her personal choice. Besides, I really don’t see what she said that is so wrong to make some of us very angry.

Relaxlah!

Anyone in their right mind would raise these discrepancies - wrong name spelling and misinterpretations on what 3 people said etc. And as to how these issues were raised (public posting instead of contacting the said reporter)…maybe we have forgotten that we are dealing with bloggers and this is how some bloggers vent their feelings Which is again, their personal choice.

Perhaps things get a bit more exciting when the reporter’s name was mentioned and his professionalism was questioned - but in all fairness, these were said by other commenters.

So it is out of line to bash the bloggers’ integrity - joining the interview to have her picture inside or ridiculing the bloggers when they are not familiar with standard Media Interview or worse, demanding that no one should blog if they can’t blog like “the well known ones”.

Or maybe the non-bloggers forgot that blogging is an expression of one’s freedom of speech, regardless of the “quality of the content” or the “news worthiness” or “sale-ability”

So let’s just put this behind us and continue to blog or read blog

Personally, I would have contacted *the reporter* of DE to clarify the matter as I know that reporters tend to sensationalize - fact. It is part of their job, to sensationalize news, otherwise we all might as well watch RTM to cure our insomnia. Cue Hasbullah Awang. Having said that, the clarification could also either go somewhere or nowhere.

I’m guessing that the word “association” here may be taken out of context. There is the “A formal organization of people or groups of people” or “A social relation resulting from interaction”. Hence, it depends on how one perceives it, and we, as humans, always prefer to look at the negative angle, from where we stand. Human nature bah.

While some of us feel that what Jacq posted is morally wrong and she should be banished to Timbuktu to join Michael Jackson, it is ultimately her prerogative. If she wants to criticize or offer constructive criticism or support Anwar (Ole!), that’s her choice. What is wrong in our eyes may not be wrong in hers. Sure, we can go on and on and on arguing this matter, but there’s never a RIGHT solution. We are all not righteous people else we’d be preaching the religion and be society’s moral police.

Reporters are entitled to their discretion, yes, I acknowledged that to an extent, hence the fine line of what makes tabloids and newspapers - however, there’s no smoke without fire (and I love English tabloids for their football news!). If this is Jacq’s take on it, that’s her discretion too, while some of us agree to disagree, it is ultimately her views, just like the reporter.

Anyway, I hope we all could move on from this, with a pinch of salt or sugar or guinness stout, to move forward together to support Anwar Ibrahim!

One love.