YOURSAY | ‘I think this ceaseless prodding by WSJ is for Najib to sue them.’

'WSJ used safe headline because it can't back up allegations'

Pemerhati: Blogger Rocky’s Bru says, “It was sad when the former premier first quit in 2008 to protest against then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi…”

It is even sadder to see Rocky’s Bru trying to ‘cari makan’ by concocting some sort of brew to please a powerful man who is very strongly suspected to have taken several billions belonging to Malaysians.

Many Malaysians are aware of this but the man is able to stay in power by either buying the loyalty of the unprincipled top politicians and public servants, or by using threats of dismissal, or some other action on the frightened employees.

Odin Tajué: In journalism writing, a headline carries the essence of the particular story. This is so that anyone who doesn't have much time to read the whole paper only need to scan the headlines.

The first paragraph expands on the headline. It essentially contains the what, who, where, when and why. Each subsequent paragraph contains more and more but less and less important detail.

This is so that if a particular story is too long to fit the space allocated, all the sub-editor has to do is to start cutting from the last paragraph. He need not have to rewrite the whole story; there is no time for that.

Some of this and a few other rules pertaining to news report writing apply to news reports and not to feature articles.

A headline has to be arresting to attract readers to read the story, if they have the time to do so. The Wall Street Journal's headline has met that requirement.

The information contained in the body copy is sufficiently incriminating that were it fabricated, the person on whom aspersions had been cast could sue the paper for defamation.

If the person concerned takes no such action, then it means that the information is veracious.

Rojak: This sounds like the most desperate clutching at straws: 'Okay, we know we cannot really sue WSJ because they have (unfortunately for us) upheld international journalistic standards in exposing stories that Malaysians might otherwise never have known about.

“But err just look lah, because of our vague threat to kind of sue them, maybe, they are somehow perhaps modifying their headlines - a bit. So we win!”

The day when mainstream print journalism in Malaysia starts to become serious again is the day that I will start to take mainstream Malaysian print journalists seriously.

Anonymous 2358311441466692: The words ‘to top’ meant that they have made an estimation of the total figure. Since they also used ‘top’, it meant that the amount is more than US$1 billion.

The important consideration is that they did not refrain from stating that the money went into Najib's personal account and they didn't say that the money is a donation or the bulk of it is a donation.

Patriot1: The WSJ news report is not about fighting English technicalities in court. Their statement is very clear and any reader with proper understanding of English would interpret in the same manner.

Former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad sued WSJ but why isn't the PM doing the same? After all, he sued ex-MCA chief Ling Liong Sik.

Instead of issuing denial after denial causing our country's reputation to go down the drain, he should just sue WSJ and see if they can come up with valid evidence.

The fact that he's not taking action against WSJ would be interpreted by the public that WSJ is telling the truth.

Justice Pao: The deposit whether 'said' or 'not said' of money was in Najib's account but it could be more than the already known US$681 million and WSJ implied that the money indirectly came from 1MDB

That is very different from Anwar or WSJ calling Mahathir a thief or calling Ahiruddin a liar because this does not specify exactly what Mahathir stole or what Ahiruddin has lied about.

There is nothing specific in these cases, unlike what WSJ said about Najib.

Anonymous 2299391436500295: Here's a little lesson for everyone: Hours before President Richard Nixon resigned in 1975 to avoid impeachment for corruption, the International Herald Tribune's headline was: ‘Nixon said to resign’.

Hello, is that so difficult to understand? They used ‘said to’ because the resignation was not yet official at press time.

Fairnsquare: Ahiruddin, being a veteran newsman, go challenge WSJ, if you dare.

If they cannot prove their point with evidence, Najib will be off the hook and the world will laugh at WSJ and not at our beloved country.

If you and the PM love the nation, prove them wrong in a court of law. Sue them to kingdom come.

Ib: Say what you want but unfortunately the Umno president already stumbled and admitted having RM2.6 billion in his bank account.

So all the spin about The Edge and jailed whistleblower Xavier Andre Justo giving false information on 1MDB came to nothing when WSJ reported the RM2.6 billion.

And thanks to WSJ, we also know about SRC International. The PM has not denied this but declared he does not know the money came from SRC and the man who was involved in the SRC scandal has since left the country.

Why run away from the country if there is no crime?

Dr Suresh Kumar: I think this ceaseless prodding by WSJ is for Najib to sue them.

On technicality, the word 'said' can be used as a defence, however WSJ can still be sued for publishing articles based on hearsay, if indeed it is hearsay.

So, go sue them in their own country or anywhere else. What are you waiting for?

Lame denials over latest WSJ allegation fail to convince

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.