Screenshots

there is no glory in demonising or *iblising* bloggers gunasegaram ...

first it was over shooting and now gangserism ... and what next ? terrorism ?

whilst it is okay for guna to indirectly refer to bloggers/commentators are gangsters, it is sad to say that guna did not display the humbleness to take a step back and keep on harping onto the attack mode to vilify the owner of this blog ...

who is the bigger gangster now ?

Frankly, Guna has lost credibility on this. It just show he is not a gentleman. Whatever now he tries to do or write any editorials or articles I cannot trust it anymore. I do not know whether it is the truth or he is also spinning. It's a cheap trick to try to fool the public. I was almost done in. But reading further it was his last shooting! Knowing Tong Kooi Ong he will eventually remove him.

The Sun has a lot of credibility but with such thing now it will affect it's reputation.

Sorry. It should be Ho Kay Tat not Guna. The article was published in the The Sun.

Concern, before naming names, find out their background, esp relationships between them, before publicising your opinions, eh? (If it was Guna as writ originally, I can accept, but you corrected it as ref to HKT, you don't know what you're tokking about!

Back to subject, Jeff, I echo this challenge to Gunasegaram -- Get to the bottom of the Bowman Papers; maybe mkini can extend him a helping hand? Arms and Legs up too! Show some 4th Estate camaraderie, yes?

This commentary should be relevent to mainstream media journalist and bloggers in Malaysia too. We (mainstream media and bloggers) should collaborate to question and exposed govt policies/projects/bills/etc. that is detrimental to public interest. In the long term, this will bring about more transparency, accountability of our government.

Blurring lines for a clearer picture

Mainstream media, online citizen journalists need not lock horns; collaborate to show fuller diversity of views

Monday • August 28, 2006

Wayne Soon

ONE school of thought argues that alternative media — citizen journalism and online commentary — will grow to become an important competitor to traditional mainstream media. Another school, however, argues that alternative media will continue to be perceived as idle Internet chatter.

But why should it be necessary to see the relationship between the two mediums and other stakeholders in society as a zero-sum game?

There is much potential for mutually advantageous growth.

In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong discussed the challenges of the local mainstream and alternative media in this digital age.

The alternative media has seen the growth of blogs and websites dedicated to informed commentary and reportage on Singapore society, philosophy, economics and politics. To name a few, there are Yawning Bread, Singapore Angle, The Intelligent Singaporean, Commentary Singapore and A Singapore Economist.

As our populace becomes more educated, informed and technologically enabled, more citizens will take to the Internet and possibly foster the growth of such sites.

Unlike in countries such as the United States — where, interestingly, studies show that the existence of a plurality of mainstream media actually limits the appeal of alternative media — Singapore's alternative media by default possesses a certain niche appeal that could fuel its growth. This is because the licensing laws here for newspapers and broadcasters pose high entry barriers for new participants.

In the June 2004 Pew Internet Survey of adult Americans, 78 per cent and 38 per cent respectively considered mainstream television and newspapers as their main source of election campaign news. Only about 15 per cent relied primarily on the Internet — and of these, just 30 per cent visited alternative news websites.

Singaporeans, for now, do not seem all that different. An Institute of Policy Studies survey indicated that 75 per cent of voters felt the mainstream media was important in shaping their decision in the last General Election, while 33 per cent cited the alternative Internet-based media.

As long as the mainstream media remains professional, credible and willing to engage a spectrum of voices in its reports and letters pages, it is likely readership will continue to grow even as Singapore becomes more diverse and open to other forms of media. Its enormous resources — of manpower, news sources and finances — makes it the agenda setter in much discourse.

Even so, both alternative and mainstream media face challenges. Will the mainstream media lose more of its audience to alternative media because it cannot fully reflect the growing diversity of views, some of them beyond traditionally-accepted boundary markers?

Or will the alternative media lose its passionate "rational" voice and cease to be relevant to an increasingly sceptical audience?

To meet these challenges, the mainstream and alternative media should engage each other. Cooperation need not entail compromising each side's inherent strengths — it can leverage on their distinct appeals.

The mainstream media, for example, could invite more writers from the alternative media to contribute articles and collaborate on reporting opportunities in event-specific projects — such as a National Day Special or a Singapore Theatre Festival Special.

Features on "What it means to be a Singaporean", for instance, could appear simultaneously in newspapers and on blogs, providing a multi-platform for serious reflection to bring the nation forward.

Members of the alternative media, in turn, could invite mainstream journalists to contribute articles or commentary, in their personal capacities, to their websites.

This will give the alternative media and the Internet public other views they may not glean without a professional journalist's experiences.

For such cooperation to occur, would the different out-of-bounds (OB) markers for the mainstream and alternative media be a hindrance?

The tighter OB markers for the mainstream media are underlined by the licensing laws and the Government's insistence that it serve a "nation-building" role, first and foremost.

Yes, there are potential pitfalls for any writer — especially the amateur one — trying to straddle the two. Still, is it not better for both forms of media to engage than for each to try to forge its own destiny — leading to a lose-lose situation for the media and society?

Cooperation might even foster much-needed understanding of the other's strengths and help to reshape the OB markers as our society matures.

The state stands to benefit from such cooperation between mainstream and alternative media. As Singapore society grows even more diverse, it might be difficult for either media to give a wide-enough platform for the reflection of views.

A combined platform will help residents to clarify their thoughts and questions and encourage an active, informed citizenry. It will also give the state more avenues and opportunities to engage with a wider spectrum of Singaporeans.

And with more than 100,000 Singaporeans overseas today — a number set to grow — a stronger online mainstream-cum-alternative media could be a powerful connection to keep them rooted to Singapore.

To facilitate cooperation, is there room for the state to take a "lighter touch" with both forms of media, or even to encourage the collaboration?

It will be challenging for all parties to engage constructively in news reporting and commentaries.

But will it be so difficult if the underlying aim is to take Singapore forward and foster a mature citizenry that can grapple effectively with the diversity of information in the digital age?

The writer is a Singaporean at Carleton College in Minnesota, United States.

Both Guna and Ho have lost their credibility. The Sun has lost my confidence.

It's time we tell them that they can't force the internet community into their thinking, when obviously nothing wrong has been done.

It's time we boycott the Sun!!

I have stopped reading The Sun since all these began.

Hahaha..Much ADUH over nothing, Guna. Sitting on a can of worms are you?

The Edge and The Sun also slowly losing credibility.

Edge used to reports juicy transactions, now no more except for parroting the deals involving the power to be.

I used to read Guna article with interest, now no more because its articles are full of spin-steroids.

Even in the lighter section "Talking Edge" in the Edge by Karim Raslan has seen significant deterioration. I am not sure Patrick Teoh still contribute in that section.

Only articles I like to read now are those by Nades in the Sun.

With all the main stream media spin-driven, it is sad as we are suppose to be Merdeka 49 years ago.

Sad because we are stiffled, helpless, and most blinded. How can we as a nation be competitive in facing the globalisation? Where is the nation building spirit and infrastructure to enable us to move forward. Most initiatives done are more of rhetorics.

Pray hard the Government awakes fast enough to stop the decay.

Merdeka-lah

Alamak. Long-time Netizen like RPK not knowing the difference between blogger and blog commenters? Simple mistake or...?

And writing that "Jeff Ooi has apologised to P. Gunasegaram" - another simple error?

I don't know. In my eyes, RPK's credibility has long been suspect.

Why? Two incidents.

1. His personal racist ketuanan melayu comments which by chance made it to the public domain. Far different from his public stance before that. (Go search at the artisproactiv list for details)

2. The two poles-apart accounts from him about the treatment he went through after he was picked up by the authorities while he was still FAC director. First, on release, he told of how he cried (if I recall correctly) from the terrible treatment, then a day or two later, his story changed to something like how macho he was, and they could not break him.

So how am I to treat articles written by RPK now? There is no doubt many of them are eye-opening, with lots of juicy details, possibly insider information which the public may not otherwise have access to.

But accuracy, completeness and credibility? I personally use tons of salt.

Hi Jeff

The Sun online paper misleads the public with the heading : “Writer of offensive post apologises”

Reading it gives an impression that the owner of the blog apologises.

You must demand an apology from The Sun. For a mainstream paper, this kind of error is a slap on the face for the K-economy people.

Next, advise the editor to go back to school to learn the correct meaning of “post” in blogosphere.

The correct heading should read : “Writer of offensive comment apologises”

I agree with dignity2u... jeff should sue them for misleading the masses... sue them for all they are worth... then we ll see who-ke-tat and tara-guna...

Jeff,

This is a classic case of establishment flexing their power on the seemingly ordinary people who want to create a community to share information. They obviously felt threatened by online news and would like to land a precidence to curb its freedom which mainstream news doesn't enjoy.

This is a case of selfish interest by the News Establishment and seemingly cheap publicity that backfired and nothing to do with the threat as claimed.

sue them for what's worth..and see if they will retract

Agree with those above..Sue them to show that you will not tolerate false statements..Don't do nothing Jeff..This is the opportunity to comeback and set things right. We Malaysians are not easily fooled by the media...If u win the case, maybe u can belanja us shoot some paintballs eii..

Looks like some blogs are on the offensive against The Sun and The Edge....

SelangorDaily, RockyBru's, CuitSikit, ..., Screenshots, ...., ..., ...

Wow...

Let it go Jeff,don't be a sore loser. Jeff is just piss off because RPK and Machai expose Jeff's true color,where he gets the funding and worst of all his political affliation. So much for being just. Jeff,like the others are just 'puppets' with strings...and guess who's pulling Jeff's strings.