I skipped lunch today and instead ate two bowls of beancurd at these two shops at Rochor. It wasn’t just a simple snacking session. I was eating with a mission in mind. And it was to refute the verdict concluded in our local newspaper.
The Sunday Times had recently run two stories on the Rochor beancurd war saga over two separate Sundays. The focal point was about the bitter rivalry between the famous Rochor Original Beancurd owned by William, and the new Beancurd City set up by his younger brother David. Both brothers used to work together at Rochor Original but had splitted up in 2002 over disagreements. David initially set up his stall at Jalan Besar but moved right next to Rochor Original at Short Street last month.
In the article, Beancurd City’s beancurd was rated better as the texture was smoother. I wasn’t very convinced with that judgement and was very curious as to how much smoother Beancurd City’s beancurd could get compared to Rochor Original’s. I felt that the writer was being sympathetic to David and hence, the verdict. Rochor Original’s beancurd are already very smooth. How much better can another get? Will it melt in my mouth? I decided to give it a try and draw my own conclusions instead.
And my assessment?
There was no noticeable difference in the quality of the beancurd. Both were as smooth to me but I felt Rochor Original’s was firmer in texture. The difference was in the amount of syrup used and the customer service. Beancurd City’s was sweeter with more syrup and their staff were more service-oriented.
Of course it came as no surprise that after the story was ran, the business at Beancurd City picked up tremendously at the expense of Rochor Original. But I wonder if the writer realises that the conflict between the brothers is now being aggravated as a result of what she reported. As a food correspondent, she did more than rated the beancurd. She had crushed some of them in the process. Because of how the first story was written, some customers even went to Rochor Original to berate William and his wife. That was why there was a second story to give their side of the story because his wife, who is suffering from an advanced stage of lung cancer, felt a need to clear her reputation which was tarnished in the first story.
I have no doubt that the pen here is definitely mightier than a sword. But I have no respect for the pen here. There are many ways to make a piece of news interesting. Riding on family conflicts and adding salt to wound really isn’t the way.
======
* Edit: I found the links to the original two articles.
Wow.. such a simple dessert could create such rivalry.
The other brother is too much too, opening right next to the original shop.. *sigh*
Comment by zara's mama — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 @ 9:31 pm
oh my. the bean curd wars have begun. what a stupid article to run in the paper.
Comment by ally bean — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 @ 10:06 pm
That is crazy. I agree completely. The writer should have left such a volatile subject alone!
Comment by Black Belt Mama — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 1:37 am
I wonder if the writer took any “under table” payment. Hehe …
Comment by Loong — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 8:06 am
Don’t the writer has any conscious?? What she wrote is like adding fuel to the fire…:x
Comment by Eileen — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 9:22 am
Oh dear! I read the article some time back but never thought the matter would blow up to this magnitude. The writer, whoever he/she is, I hope, is feeling apologetic.
Comment by domestic rat — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 10:06 am
hmmm…interesting on how the perspective of one individual writer can do to the public mind…
what’s the purpose of bringing up family rivalry (already said family and it should be kept there right?) wonder what he gains by siding either side…he must know them personally….or else, but I personally feel he is not being very fair and level headed!!!
my 2 cents worth
Comment by Jan (My lovely Rays) — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Additional thoughts:
This is a fine example of how the pple who write news these days are becoming “nosey journalists.” When I read the reports, I couldn’t help but felt it was an instance of intrusive journalism.
What was the real point of the story? What’s the value of it to readers? To let us know that there are other or better beancurd shops? If so, was reporting about the family conflict in such details all that necessary? The way I read it, it wasn’t even just reporting. It was slanted in favour of one party. In the 2nd story, the picture used of William’s wife was unflattering even though it was meant to clear the air.
I had expected a more healthy dosage of reporting for a food column from The Sunday Times. The food correspondent and the editor seem to think that we readers liked to be entertained with superfluous garbage and instead of objectively rating the food, throws in these details on an emotional conflict to sensationalize their story. The fact that they ran 2 huge stories on this is good enough to prove the point.
Did they stop to think about the consequences? Definitely not. Are they apologetic? I doubt. And did they act with compassion and respect? Well, I didn’t see any.
Comment by sesame — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 12:24 pm
Well, I’m sure the media would jump at any chance for a so-called #1 story, with a twist or different angle.
Well, if two stores serve exactly the same quality and stuff, then people would rely on other criteria (such as customer service, decor, packaging) to decide which place is better. Perhaps, the writer was influenced by the better service and higher sugar content.
Comment by earthember — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 1:29 pm
That looks just like some cheap American-trashy-thrill journalism. And oh my, the stench of bias is just so obvious
when you put the two articles side by side. And to think that they have time for a lovely picture of David but not a decent one for William and wife.
Comment by bohemianlisa — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 @ 10:02 pm
Such a kapoh food journalist.
清官难判家务事, and this fellow thinks he/she is God?
Comment by kwai yoke — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 @ 9:51 am
i tasted the beancurd in the original beancurd. It is much better then the beancurd city.what he did was not good he should fight the original without any publish in the newspaper.The beancurd in beancurd city have a strange taste i like the original better as it is smoother and the service is very friendly
Comment by blood blaze — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 @ 3:18 pm