QotW9: STOMP the Big Media!

In the 20th century, publishing and broadcasting were territories of the Big Media - "large, arrogant instituitions" made up of journalists, public relations and marketing people. (Gillmor, 2004) These were the people who decided what was the news, and what was not. They spoke, and others listen. Now, however, with their audience getting techno-savvy, they can no longer claim to be The Newsmakers. Armed with camera phones and blog accounts, we have invaded the province of news making. Now is no longer a time where some speak and others listen. Now, we all speak, and we all listen. We converse. (Gillmor, 2004)

This conversationalistic way of news reporting and production is done through citizen journalism (Gillmor, 2004), which Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis described as the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information." (Citizen Journalism, 2007) The emergence of the Internet has enabled people with no professional training to "create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others." (Citizen Journalism, 2007) Through weblogs, online forums, photo and video hosting websites, anyone can be empowered with a voice to speak to not just one person, nor two, but to the entire world.

In response to the global uprising of citizen journalism, our local paper - The Straits Times - created an online paper named STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print), which "integrates content and activities in the three platforms of print, online and mobile... (and seeks) to interact and engage with Singaporeans in exciting new ways." (STOMP, 2006) Through this online paper, The Straits Times hope to "provide readers with new avenues to express themselves, to enable them to interact with us, and among themselves." (STOMP, 2006)

A quick browse around the webpage is enough to show that STOMP centainly lives up to these promises. The Singapore Seen section allows everybody, as long as they sign up for an account, to publish whatever they deem as news worthy online and post pictures and videos along with the report. Others are allowed to comment on these reports and from there, participate in lively conversations regarding the reported news. Another section of the website named Talk Back provides topical online forums where people with the same interests can gather and discuss about their passion regarding a particular place or activity. Input is possible on almost every section of STOMP. The aim of this online paper to "connect, engage and interact" (STOMP, 2006) with readers is definitely achieved.

Yet, is STOMP really a tool that empowers us with a strong voice to speak up? As much as STOMP seems to be an ideal form of citizen journalism, with its "you're the reporter" slogans and "speak your mind" invites, I think there is more than meets the eye. While the news covered on STOMP, like inconsiderate drivers for example, are certainly matters worth discussing, these reports would appear trivial, at least to me, as compared to what that is covered in Singapore's main paper, The Straits Times. Between a report on bad driving etiquette and one on parliament decisions, it would not exactly be hard to determine which one is of greater importance. With STOMP always covering issues which seems to have less significance, this platform for citizen journalists may backfire and serve, instead, to boost the credibility and the importance of Big Media in Singapore.

Another question i would ask is that, is The Straits Times really interested in listening to us "speak (our) minds" (STOMP, 2006) when it comes to controversial issues? Take politics for example. STOMP has hardly ever, if not never, published news regarding politics. With the amount of input on STOMP by average people like you and I, I would have thought that at least one or two would have reported on touchy political news. Bloggers like Mr.Wang and the Kway Teow Man make it obvious that there are Singaporeans out there who want to discuss political issues. Yet, politics is so rarely discused on STOMP. Are we really the reporters? Can we really speak our minds? Or are the controversial news that we contribute being filtered out by people of the Big Media? Behind the "you're the reporter" claims, we know that STOMP is ultimately an online paper run by The Straits Times, the Big Media of Singapore. It may seemingly be an ideal form of citizen journalism for Singaporeans, but just to be on the safe side, I suggest we stick to blogs.

Having said that, the way to improve STOMP as a form of citizen journalism is of course to encourage newsmakers to contribute news beyond petty complaints for traffic offenders. Illegal parking of vehicals are undoubtedly important social issues but there are more of other important issues which demands attention besides these. Politics is definitely one subject which lacks coverage on STOMP. To earn the title of the ideal form of citizen journalism in Singapore, STOMP has got to encourage and allow citizens to expand their news coverage.

With all things considered, STOMP is definitely a platform for citizen journalists to voice their opinions. However, there are still areas for this online paper to improve in before it can truly be called the ideal form of citizen journalism.

---

References:

Citizen Journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism/

Gillmor, D. (2004, July). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html

STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 28, 2007 fromhttp://www.stomp.com.sg/

QotW7: Twittery-Twittery-Talk~!

Would you consider Twitter as an online community?

An online community is “a group of people that may or may not primarily or initially communicate or interact via the Internet.” (Virtual community, 2007) Regardless of whether or not these people communicate solely through the Internet, and whether they first started communicating online or offline, just so as long as they communicate online, they belong to an online community. In essence, an online community is a group of people who communicate through the internet.

Indeed, communication is the root of communities, including virtual ones. “Without communication, there can be no action to organize social relations.” (Fernback & Thompson, 1995) Though it has been argued that computer-mediated communication cannot provide “meaningful contact,” for it inhibits face-to-face communication (Wellman & Guila, 1996), Howard Rheingold noted in his book, The Virtual Community, that “people in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk,” which is basically “just about everything people do in real life.” (Rheingold, 2000) Online communities allow people to communicate just as they would in offline settings.

With these discussed, the answer to the question “is Twitter an online community?” is a resounding yes. Wikipedia calls Twitter a “social networking service that allows members to inform each other about what they are doing and what they think.” (Twitter, 2007) Twitter is an online community because it focuses on nothing but communication.
Many social networking websites give their users many to do, which may distract users from actually interacting with one another. Take Friendster for example. It allows users to update their self profiles, upload pictures, post bulletins and many more. I myself, as a Friendster user, spend more time maintaining my own profile page than viewing the profiles of others. Twitter.com, however, are free of all such distractions that undermine interaction, for users can only do one thing, that is, to answer the question “What are you doing now?”

This may make Twitter sound like a bore; A social networking website that allows users to do only one thing cannot be much fun, right? Wrong! The interaction among my fellow classmates on Twitter which I observed was vibrant, active and dynamic – anything but boring! By asking that one simple question, Twitter encourages users to participate in online social networking in an active, conversational manner, unlike Friendster. In addition, Twitter supports real time conversations, as it updates on “what you and your friends are doing… live every two minutes.” Enabling real time conversations allows users to engage in lively conversations with immediate, instead of delayed, response. Twitter does not bore; its focus on interaction is, in fact, what that makes it attractive.

Twitter is undeniably an online community, and a vibrant one at that, because it encourages lively interaction and allows users to share real time conversations, just as we can in offline communities.

References:

Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995). "Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?" Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/3.html

Twitter. (2007, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:08, March 16, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter&oldid=115504050

Virtual community. (2007, March 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:56, March 16, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=115277136

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1996). "Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities." Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.acm.org/~ccp/references/wellman/wellman.html

QotW6: Happily Ever Exposed.

It is funny how we can scream at our mothers for taking a peek out of our dairies, and yet, relish giving the world – meaning family, friends, foes, strangers, basically everybody – a blow-by-blow account of our everyday lives through our weblogs. While few would hesitate to articulate their strong desire for privacy, we see Blogger.com, Friendster, Facebook and many other social networking websites gathering more sign-ups each day. (Sullivan, 2006) Our insistence on privacy yells “Leave me alone!” but our indulgence in online self-revelation screams “Listen to me!” So what is it that we really want?

According to Jeffrey Rosen, the answer is contradictorily both. While we would love to maintain our rights to privacy, the nature of “intimate relationships of trust” has undergone drastic changes that pressure us to “expose details of our personal lives to strangers in order to win their trust.” (Rosen, 2004) In the past, such relationships were based on shared experiences. (Rosen, 2004) Friends became friends because they went through certain encounters together. Relationships based on shared experiences fall into “rigidly controlled status hierarchies, which brought with them codes of expected behavior” (Rosen, 2004) - meaning every relationship can be distinctly identified as a distant or an intimate relationship, and such clear boundaries allowed people to know who they can and cannot share personal matters with.

But the emergence of the Internet changed the process of relationship formation. People no longer have to physically go through the same happenings in order to know one another. Through weblogs, instant messaging and other social networking websites like Friendster, one can be familiar with another even without meeting him/her in person. Such online relationships are hard to define. What do you call two individuals who chat everyday online but have never ever met each other in person? What relationship does a blogger and his/her reader share? The blogger may not know the reader but the reader knows every single detail of the blogger’s life. So are they friends? Acquaintances? Strangers? These are tough questions to answer. Today, with relationships resisting clear definitions, “intimacy and trust are increasingly obtained not by shared experiences or fixed social status but by self-revelation.” (Rosen, 2004) We try to prove our trustworthiness by revealing details of our personal lives, so as to show that we have nothing to hide. (Rosen, 2004)

Four years of blogging and the idea that I have been exposing myself voluntarily in exchange for a favorable reputation had never crossed my mind, not until I came across Rosen’s The Naked Crowd. Armed with skepticism and confidence, I went through several of my archived blog entries dated a couple of years back, determined to prove that I have not been unknowingly allowing others to infringe upon my privacy. But of course, as you would have guessed, what I read on those blog entries proved that I have. I told my blog, or rather my blog readers, more than what I have ever told anyone in a face-to-face conversation. Besides accounts of my daily life, my blog also contains photographs and videos of not just me but my friends as well. What I have revealed about myself on my weblog is enough for anyone to know me in depth; I can literally be read like a book. All bloggers in fact, not just I alone, can be easily read through and through.

There is nothing wrong with this of course, except for the fact that we have been raving about our lost of privacy when we are the ones who allowed it to happen in the first place. What I have divulged about myself on my weblog makes me such an easy target for sousveillance. Practicing this “art, science, and technology of personal experience capture, processing, storage, retrieval, and transmission” (Sousveillance, 2007) on me will be a breeze through my blog alone, where anyone can have easy access to my daily happenings, thoughts, photographs and videos. I have been cautious, however, not to disclose online any blatantly important information which I know can be easily manipulated by others. Information such as my home address, telephone number and even my email address, have never appeared on my blog. Yet even so, my privacy goes further and further out the window every time I publish a post on my blog.

We ourselves set the stage for our own online privacy to be infringed upon. We need to be aware of and control how much we reveal of ourselves online if we want to grasp on tight to the little privacy that we still hold in our hands. Whether or not you have privacy – you decide for yourself.

---

References:
Sousveillance. (2007, February 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:33, March 10, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sousveillance&oldid=106389703

Rosen, J. (19th July, 2004). "The Naked Crowd". Retrieved on 8th March, 2007 from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm

Sullivan, B. (17th October, 2006). "Privacy Lost: Does Anyone Care?". Retrieved on 8th March, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/