I worked at The Star as a trainee for about six weeks a few years ago. There were two incidents that I've always remembered from working there.

One was when I was assigned to cover the story on various companies that broadcasted information (mobile phone companies, television and radio stations) being asked to move into KL Tower. The reasons given for the move were that the ground-level broadcasting points might endanger people's health because of radiation, that they were unsightly, and that the high point would be ideal for companies to broadcast from.

Many of the companies had complained that the move was unnecessary. The mobile phone companies in particular said there was no need for one high broadcasting point, they needed many low-level stations instead. Having a broadcasting point in the tower would not improve their services.

The ground-level broadcasting points were mostly situated away from residential areas as well, they said. There was little chance of prolonged exposure to the radiation the stations produced, and anyway it was not harmful.

As for the stations being unsightly, one public relations officer asked: How many of them have you noticed anyway that have struck you with their ugliness? They are mostly innocuous structures along highways. Granted they are not works of art, but neither are they strikingly unsightly.

While not wanting to be quoted, the president of an engineering body tacitly agreed with my assertion there was no point to the move, although he kept repeating he was sure the government knew what it was doing.

Radiologists confirmed there was no proof that radiation from the broadcasting stations on the ground could harm people.

I was excited. The move was bogus, I thought! I was going to write a proper, slightly investigative story!

When I submitted my story to the news desk, however, I was told it was old news. Everyone knew the companies were being forced to move in because the tower was empty. Big deal.

So why not run the story anyway to confirm it? I said. One editor agreed. It was worthwhile pointing out the move was forced, he said.

The collective news editing desk, however, laughed and sighed, joked about his and my naivete. "Someday," they joked, "someday", as they spiked my story.

I was green and timid and lazy and did not think to argue further based on what I knew, so the story died there.

I learnt, however, that sometimes there need not be explicit orders or iron fists pushing a government agenda. Banal old comfort-seeking, laziness and a reluctance to take the effort to stand up for something somewhat worthwhile is enough.

The second incident involved former information minister Mohamad Rahmat. It happened during the question and answer session of a press conference. One journalist asked him a question and, I think, recognising the reporter's face, the minister rounded on him.

"Are you from The Sun ?" he bellowed

. I could not see or hear the reporter's response, but what I heard the minister ran along the lines of:

"That story that you ran yesterday - who gave you that information? Huh? Someone in my ministry is it? I want to speak to you afterwards. I want to know who told you that! You come and talk to me afterwards."

I do not remember what the story was about. But I do remember the quiet from the journalists during the minister's bellowing. The Sun reporter nodded dutifully and, after entertaining a few more questions, the minister and his entourage left the room.

The pack of journalists immediately rounded on The Sun reporter.

"Don't reveal your sources!" they cried.

"Make sure you keep quiet about it," they advised.

"I know, I know," The Sun reporter said.

We left the room together and I do not know whether he went to see Mohamad after that or what transpired later.

I learnt, however, that the information minister - of all people - obviously had no regard for the independence of the press. Or else he could never have asked that question: Who told you that?

Any reporter worth the ink on his fingers knows that the trust your sources place in you is all you have to rely on for a career. If they don't trust you, you won't get information worth printing. If your sources aren't reliable, your readers won't read you, much less trust you.

It's a pretty sacred sort of responsibility that is core to the privileged access you get to information as a reporter.

The reporters in the crowd recognised that. But no one dared oppose Mohamad Rahmat openly. They waited till he and he entourage left.

So some sense of sanctity is there, I suppose - it cannot all be watching too many American movies with strong girly reporters battling the odds. But the sanctity does not dare open its mouth.

And ministers seem to know that. They treat reporters that way as salaried mouthpieces, dogs circling round waiting for a scrap of information to be thrown their grateful way, rather than as equals in ideas and opinions, with questions worth listening to and thinking about - especially reporters with awkward questions.

You would think they could recognise here was a valuable pool of research and intelligence they could call on to see the weakest points in their schemes.

It was not just Mohamad Rahmat; I've seen other ministers and chairmen and chief executives of large companies behave the same way. They tick reporters off for what they believe are insolent questions, rather than answer the questions.

To be fair, I suppose there are one or two ministers I have also met, who are respectful and who listen, but they are a decided and sad minority.

I am happy I learnt what I did at The Star and - contrary to Zarisa Iryani Mahmud's assumptions ('Bekas pekerja tidak berpuas hati', 31 Mei), definitely have no agenda against the newspaper - it was an invaluable experience that thought me to challenge myself, always, and to challenge others, not be afraid when I know I am right and I have done my research.

It's not just reporters who need to do that more rigorously though, it's all of us.