Mainstream media, blogs and other matters
Three ST articles today caught my eye. First, "THINKING ALOUD--More finesse in handling blogging a better option?" by Chua Mui Hoong. The writer argues that even though A*Star acted well within it's (legal) rights in threatening to sue AcidFlask, and even though "firm action" must be taken against "libellous remarks" at the risk of one's reputation can be chipped away, "I would argue that more sophisticated, finessed methods to handle Singapore's reputation are in order" in light of the nature of the internet.
Now I am not sanguine with the point about AcidFlask's "attacks" being "unfair" (not that I think that the converse is true--I just don't have the legal training or information to judge). But the notion that "Organisations or individuals which want to protect their reputation online need a new paradigm" strikes a real chord. The fact is, the method of a lawsuit results in a PR nightmare:
In the second article, "Is news dying with the aged?", Janadas Devan talks about the shrinking readership of many veteran newspapers in the US. The most worrying signs concerns the youth: according to some research, "the young are simply not interested in the news. They are otherwise engaged. They have switched off." Actually, the truth may be that they are getting their news from other sources than newsprint.
In fact, that is part of the point argued by Richard Tomkins in his "News: the new-era amateur sport--News no longer gospel but a stream of trivial chatter delivered by amateurs" (originally from the Financial Times). His diagnosis, however, is just so way wrong. He thinks that old style "news" is falling out of favor among the young because they have become skeptical of objective truth, and consequently, people don't want to hear objective news anymore, and instead, what to create their own subjective news.
Actually, there are also other mundane possibilities--perhaps people are also interested in other things that they are passionate about but also things that are not usually considered "newsworthy"? I'm just pursuing the more interesting possibility here (without denying the more mundane one).
Tomkins ends with the cheapshot--a cheapshot because it presupposes his thesis that grassroots journalists (think "bloggers") are relativists about truth:
Before I respond further, let me mention something from the movie Legally Blonde. If you recall that final courtroom scene in which our blonde heroine Elle Woods exposed the lies of the witness because even though she may not be a super-duper-legal-eagle, she knows a thing or two about...perming; and it just so happens that the thing she happens to know so well turned out to be so totally crucial.
Ok, back to Tomkins: the grassroots journalists, people who blog, say, are usually real people with real jobs. There are law professors, philosophy professors, economists, a political science grad student who knows more statistics than the entire CBS crew, bona fide ex-USMC and JAG, and so on. And there are local examples too. Put it this way: there are real pole-lathe turners, investment bankers, dentists, and jumbo jet pilots--lawyers, naturalists--out there who can finally now expose the bull---- of merejournalists pretending to talk about pole-lathe turning, investment banking, dentistry and flying jumbo jets, and that's precisely the beauty of grassroots journalism. Ordinary citizens such as myself no longer have to take the assumed authority of the news media on trust; thanks to the new technology, the real experts, people who might know only one or two things but those things very well are now online.
But I want to come back to the second article I mentioned (the one by Janadas Devan). This other bit near the end is important:
Now I am not sanguine with the point about AcidFlask's "attacks" being "unfair" (not that I think that the converse is true--I just don't have the legal training or information to judge). But the notion that "Organisations or individuals which want to protect their reputation online need a new paradigm" strikes a real chord. The fact is, the method of a lawsuit results in a PR nightmare:
Consider the A*Star case. The agency and staff may have protected their reputation from unfair attacks. In the meantime, Singapore has received worldwide attention for this action. Articles appeared in the Associated Press and other news wires which were then picked up across the world. Reports also appeared in the London Financial Times and Asian Wall Street Journal, among others. A Google search of keywords A*Star, Singapore, blog and sue yesterday afternoon yielded 25,800 results.I hope the PR and legal departments at A*Star would pay attention to things like this. The reputation of our country is on the line, you know. (I know this will probably not be my last entry on the AcidFlask affair, but until then...)
In faraway Warwick University in England, one blogger had posted the FT article. Another reader penned the comment underneath it: 'Definitely something to bear in mind considering that the university wants to open a campus in Singapore.'
Of course I'm not suggesting that public agencies let others impugn them at will in order to prevent negative publicity about Singapore. I'm just pointing out that traditional methods to regulate online content may not be the most effective and may even prove counter-productive.
In the second article, "Is news dying with the aged?", Janadas Devan talks about the shrinking readership of many veteran newspapers in the US. The most worrying signs concerns the youth: according to some research, "the young are simply not interested in the news. They are otherwise engaged. They have switched off." Actually, the truth may be that they are getting their news from other sources than newsprint.
In fact, that is part of the point argued by Richard Tomkins in his "News: the new-era amateur sport--News no longer gospel but a stream of trivial chatter delivered by amateurs" (originally from the Financial Times). His diagnosis, however, is just so way wrong. He thinks that old style "news" is falling out of favor among the young because they have become skeptical of objective truth, and consequently, people don't want to hear objective news anymore, and instead, what to create their own subjective news.
Like most journalists, I have always had a somewhat romantic notion of the role of the press and its mission to reveal vital, or at least engaging, truths about what is happening in the world. I admit right away this mission is often unsuccessfully accomplished. But at least it acknowledges the possibility that such a thing as objective truth exists and that professional journalists with sufficient skills are capable of conveying an accurate and fair account of it to the newspaper-reading public. This idea, however, is so last century. (emphasis mine)Then, citing Harry Frankfurt's book, he goes on to connect the increasing trend of "grassroots journalism" to the prevalence of...say, humbug:
Why is there so much bullshit? Well, it tends to occur whenever a person's opportunities to speak out about some topic exceed his knowledge of the relevant facts. As communications of all kinds proliferate, those opportunities arise more often. And these days, anyone who wants to be thought of as intelligent is expected to have an opinion about everything.Has Tomkins perhaps consider the possibility that people who are no longer interested in old style journalism become so not because they lost faith in objective truth, but because--gasp--because they thought the old style journalists were precisely not being objective enough, that they are the ones who have lost touch with objective truth? That the ones who are being increasing derided as the bull----ers are precisely the old style journalist? Think: "Spin alley", think "Rathergate", or more locally, think "TODAY misquotes both Brown and Miyagi AND gets the blogosphere wrong."
A deeper-seated reason is that, according to the postmodern doctrines of our times, there is no such thing as objective reality. Truth is in the eye of the beholder - shifting, relative and indeterminate. So, having retreated from the notion that it is possible to tell the truth about the world, we have turned inwards and pursued the alternative ideal of telling the truth about ourselves. Sincerity is the new honesty. What matters now is no longer what is true but how I feel.
Actually, there are also other mundane possibilities--perhaps people are also interested in other things that they are passionate about but also things that are not usually considered "newsworthy"? I'm just pursuing the more interesting possibility here (without denying the more mundane one).
Tomkins ends with the cheapshot--a cheapshot because it presupposes his thesis that grassroots journalists (think "bloggers") are relativists about truth:
Yes, let's all be journalists! And while we are at it, let us all be pole-lathe turners, investment bankers and dentists. Now new technology has made flying so easy, I am seriously considering becoming a jumbo jet pilot. After all, I believe I can fly and, as an objective reality, there is no such thing as an air crash. Unless, of course, I am bullshitting you.Sure you are; nice of you to point that out.
Before I respond further, let me mention something from the movie Legally Blonde. If you recall that final courtroom scene in which our blonde heroine Elle Woods exposed the lies of the witness because even though she may not be a super-duper-legal-eagle, she knows a thing or two about...perming; and it just so happens that the thing she happens to know so well turned out to be so totally crucial.
Ok, back to Tomkins: the grassroots journalists, people who blog, say, are usually real people with real jobs. There are law professors, philosophy professors, economists, a political science grad student who knows more statistics than the entire CBS crew, bona fide ex-USMC and JAG, and so on. And there are local examples too. Put it this way: there are real pole-lathe turners, investment bankers, dentists, and jumbo jet pilots--lawyers, naturalists--out there who can finally now expose the bull---- of merejournalists pretending to talk about pole-lathe turning, investment banking, dentistry and flying jumbo jets, and that's precisely the beauty of grassroots journalism. Ordinary citizens such as myself no longer have to take the assumed authority of the news media on trust; thanks to the new technology, the real experts, people who might know only one or two things but those things very well are now online.
But I want to come back to the second article I mentioned (the one by Janadas Devan). This other bit near the end is important:
This is a long-term problem [the youth loosing interest in news] that can be met only with a long-term effort to engage the young. What is at stake? Well, a great deal, actually. It is not possible to have a vibrant society with a disengaged people. It is not possible to have a civic society with an uninformed public. It may not be even possible to have much of a society of any kind without the common space the mass media provides. People can't have a conversation with each other, let alone argue, unless they meet on the same page.This is a gem of a passage because it, I believe, speaks the plain truth. A vibrant civic society is only possible if the public is informed, and only if there is a common space of discourse. And this common space of discourse can be--could have been--provided by the traditional mass media. Now: someone run by me again the reasons for ST charging online access, AND keeping archives for only 7 days even for subscribers, AND its draconian terms and conditions...and how exactly do these reasons square with this intended function of the mass media again?
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home