It is probably a passé idea that writing good pieces of news or information is only limited professional journalists. Today, everyone wants a piece of the cake. People want their voices heard. They want their opinions known. As such, this gives rise to what we term, “Citizen Journalism”.
As defined by wikipedia, Citizen Journalism is an act of citizens playing an active role of collecting, reporting and sharing information. (Wiki "Citizen Journalism", 2007). From my understanding, citizen journalism has been in practice for a rather long period of time. The most apparent example will be that of the Straits Times, whereby people write in to contribute their opinions, either regarding issues brought up by professional journalists, or through things that they observe or experience. However, with rapid advancement in technology, Blogging is perhaps one of the most common channel through which people practise citizen journalism now, in lieu of the conventional print medium.
In my opinion, citizen journalism has its advantage in the sense that it does not matter if the writer is educated or not, and it does not matter even if he has no flair in writing. Citizen journalism has provided an equal chance for everyone to voice out their thoughts. Furthermore, citizen journalism can sometimes serve as a watchdog, giving special notice to news or information that may have been left out by the mainstream media, knowingly and unknowingly.
In conjunction with citizen journalism, our local media has also set up our very own website, STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print). Basically, STOMP aims to "provide readers with new avenues to express themselves, to enable them to interact with us and among themselves" (About Us, 2006). As explained clearly in the name itself, news and information can basically be shared via the Internet, mobile phone, or the print media. Anyone is free to contribute whatever news that they thought is interesting, by sending it over to STOMP over these media.
After a quick browse through the STOMP website, it did not take long for me to realize that the issues discussed are generally entertaining and close to us Singaporeans. People with similar views or interests are bonded together under the same topics, and our local Singlish is widely used to inject some local flavor as well as a homely feel to the website. People can also link to celebrity bloggers such as Xiaxue or Mia to have a browse on their views on local issues.
In sum, I feel that while STOMP is indeed a great way for us Young Singaporeans to catch up and stay relevant with the local scene in a more lighthearted manner, it still in its infancy. As seen in the website itself, the genres of the topics discussed are less relevant to serious issues such as politics, but are instead rather focused on juicy news or gossips. This may partially be due to the fact that STOMP is actually an official website with close monitoring involved. Hence, people are less willing to participate in highly sensitive topics. Gillmor (2004) urges the government to listen to the people, just as journalists need to listen to their audience. While censorship has its benefit in protecting the minds of the more vulnerable, it certainly does restrict the freedom of speech and ideas to a great extent. Perhaps with greater freedom and transparency, STOMP will be a more exciting place to visit.
References
Gillmor, D. (2004, July). We the Media, Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap3
STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 28, 2007 fromhttp://www.stomp.com.sg/
Wikipedia: Citizen Journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
QoTW7: Online Communities - Twitter
Twiddle dee.. twiddle dum.. twit twit… twit what? Twitter.com?
Well apparently this is the current hot social networking site as introduced by Mr Kevin Lim. Cute as the name sounds, my first initial thought about this website was, is it some kind of games website? Hell no, it is actually an online area where people come together to make friends. Bringing on to our topic of the week, can twitter be considered an online community?
As defined by Rheingold, virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Internet when enough people sustain public discussions long enough to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995). Based on this definition, twitter is considered an online community, as users of twitter actually respond and leave comments on public discussion boards and, eventually form personal relationships. Twitter.com has further defined its purpose as a tool “for staying in touch and keeping up with friends no matter where you are or what you’re doing”. (“Twitter”, 2007, Para. 1).
Just like real-time chats such as the Internet Relay Chat (IRC), twitter also allows multiple users to chat simultaneously, and the public display page is being refreshed each time a person leaves a message. Furthermore, with the ability to use pseudonyms in lieu of real names, twitter users are allowed to generate profiles that will suit whichever groups they wish to get involved in, without giving away too much information. Signing up for an account is as easy as just giving a name (supposedly your full name), email address, as well as a password. Pictures are optional, depending on how well the user wish to complete his profile. In retrospect, twitter has definitely met the criteria in being an online community; whereby communication is tuned to the way the user want it to be – how he appears to other users (profile), which groups to join, what topics to discuss, how he wants to go about interacting with others. “Community within cyberspace emphasizes a community of interests, usually bounded by the topic under discussion that can lead to a communal spirit and apparent social bonding. These communities can be purely instrumental in nature that is, they may never extend beyond talking to one another; or, they may promote action that is, virtual communities may manifest themselves in real political action, such as educational reform or political caucuses” (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995)
Unlike other social networking sites such as friendster, twitter is unique in such a way that it allows users to let others know what they are doing at the very moment. There is not much emphasis on pictures or photographs, but instead, people simple communicate via the public display boards. Twitter users “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” (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995). This somehow makes twitter seem more “real” as a virtual community, as almost everything can be ambiguous, even when communication is going on.
Of course, critics may argue that twitter can never be considered as a form of online community, as it is just one of the tools whereby people leave comments, and relationships may not even develop at all. Some may even argue about the existence of online communities, as they are intangible and unreal. “The Net is only one of many ways in which the same people may interact. It is not a separate reality.” (Wellman & Gulia, 1996)
Well apparently this is the current hot social networking site as introduced by Mr Kevin Lim. Cute as the name sounds, my first initial thought about this website was, is it some kind of games website? Hell no, it is actually an online area where people come together to make friends. Bringing on to our topic of the week, can twitter be considered an online community?
As defined by Rheingold, virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Internet when enough people sustain public discussions long enough to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995). Based on this definition, twitter is considered an online community, as users of twitter actually respond and leave comments on public discussion boards and, eventually form personal relationships. Twitter.com has further defined its purpose as a tool “for staying in touch and keeping up with friends no matter where you are or what you’re doing”. (“Twitter”, 2007, Para. 1).
Just like real-time chats such as the Internet Relay Chat (IRC), twitter also allows multiple users to chat simultaneously, and the public display page is being refreshed each time a person leaves a message. Furthermore, with the ability to use pseudonyms in lieu of real names, twitter users are allowed to generate profiles that will suit whichever groups they wish to get involved in, without giving away too much information. Signing up for an account is as easy as just giving a name (supposedly your full name), email address, as well as a password. Pictures are optional, depending on how well the user wish to complete his profile. In retrospect, twitter has definitely met the criteria in being an online community; whereby communication is tuned to the way the user want it to be – how he appears to other users (profile), which groups to join, what topics to discuss, how he wants to go about interacting with others. “Community within cyberspace emphasizes a community of interests, usually bounded by the topic under discussion that can lead to a communal spirit and apparent social bonding. These communities can be purely instrumental in nature that is, they may never extend beyond talking to one another; or, they may promote action that is, virtual communities may manifest themselves in real political action, such as educational reform or political caucuses” (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995)
Unlike other social networking sites such as friendster, twitter is unique in such a way that it allows users to let others know what they are doing at the very moment. There is not much emphasis on pictures or photographs, but instead, people simple communicate via the public display boards. Twitter users “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” (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995). This somehow makes twitter seem more “real” as a virtual community, as almost everything can be ambiguous, even when communication is going on.
Of course, critics may argue that twitter can never be considered as a form of online community, as it is just one of the tools whereby people leave comments, and relationships may not even develop at all. Some may even argue about the existence of online communities, as they are intangible and unreal. “The Net is only one of many ways in which the same people may interact. It is not a separate reality.” (Wellman & Gulia, 1996)
In my opinion, I feel that twitter can be considered as an online community. It is a channel by which people come together to make friends and socialize, just like any other social networking sites. With its special features such as allowing Instant Messaging (IM) and mobile services to keep track of what is going on in the community, there will be constant communication going on, and most importantly, personal relationships can thus occur.
References
1. Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
2. Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1996). Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.acm.org/%7Eccp/references/wellman/wellman.html
3. Twitter. (2007). What is Twitter?. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://twitter.com/faq
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Qotw6: Privacy, Surveillance, Sousveillance
Perhaps it is high time for us to come to terms with the fact that privacy is no longer possible in the realm of virtual reality. Or is it?
From credit cards to phone bills, from personal blogs to social networking sites such as friendster and facebook, our personal information is, in one way or another, being constantly revealed to people whom we do not even know exist. We are naked and vulnerable, or so to speak.
In the age of the internet, we are experiencing something that might be called the 'Omnipticon' in which the many are watching the many, even though no one knows precisely who is watching or being watched at any given time. (Rosen, 2004).
Such is the vulnerability of self disclosure online, and it is even more amazing at how relationships can be forged in this manner.
Just like how Jeffrey Rosen has aptly described, the basis for intimate relationships of trust is no longer the same as before. Today, intimacy and trust are increasingly obtained not by shared experiences or fixed social status but by self-revelation: people try to prove their trustworthiness by revealing details of their personal lives to prove that they have nothing to hide before a crowd whose gaze is turned increasingly on all the individuals that compose it. (Rosen, 2004)
Having to live in this internet era, the Internet is now the commonplace for people to communicate and exchange whatever information is desired. However, just like any other form of communication, there has to be this level of acceptance before anyone is even willing to interact with you. People have to like you first.
As a result, people tend to come up with profiles that may or may not be who they truly are, so long as they get people interested in knowing them. This spells trouble, as people may eventually forget and lose their own identity, and behave according to how society wants them to behave.
The key question here is: Does that matter? (Sullivan, 2007)
In retrospect, people do not really seem to mind even if they have changed and lost their own identity. It is, in my opinion, actually a way to protect oneself. Given the fact that there is still no foolproof way to ensure absolute security in this digital world, it is more prudent to protect oneself, either by assuming a pseudonym or simply just alter one’s particulars.
The digital bread crumbs you leave everywhere make it easy for strangers to reconstruct who you are, where you are and what you like. In some cases, a simple Google search can reveal what you think. Like it or not, increasingly we live in a world where you simply cannot keep a secret. (Sullivan. 2006)
There you go. Neither is there any privacy nor any sense of security. We are that vulnerable in this digital age. In a bid to allay the fears in people, the ICTW has actually come up with a guideline to help people protect themselves better. Advising people from giving out their social security numbers, and advising them to use private phone numbers when doing online dealings are few such examples.
Just like how Bob Sullivan has described, privacy is like health: when you have it, you do not notice it. Only when it’s gone do you wish you’d done more to protect it. (Sullivan, 2006).
It is indeed up to each individual to make efforts in protecting themselves and their privacy, be it in the online or offline settings. Laws and advices just ain't enough.
References
1. Rosen, Jeffery (2004). "The Naked Crowd" Retrieved March 9, 2007 from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm
2. Sullivan, B. (2006). Privacy Lost: Does Anyone Care?. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/
3. "ICWT: In Corruption We Trust - 13 Easy Ways to Safeguard you Privacy in 2007". Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.icwt.us/index.php/2007/01/23/13-easy-ways-to-safeguard-your-privacy-in-2007-update/
From credit cards to phone bills, from personal blogs to social networking sites such as friendster and facebook, our personal information is, in one way or another, being constantly revealed to people whom we do not even know exist. We are naked and vulnerable, or so to speak.
In the age of the internet, we are experiencing something that might be called the 'Omnipticon' in which the many are watching the many, even though no one knows precisely who is watching or being watched at any given time. (Rosen, 2004).
Such is the vulnerability of self disclosure online, and it is even more amazing at how relationships can be forged in this manner.
Just like how Jeffrey Rosen has aptly described, the basis for intimate relationships of trust is no longer the same as before. Today, intimacy and trust are increasingly obtained not by shared experiences or fixed social status but by self-revelation: people try to prove their trustworthiness by revealing details of their personal lives to prove that they have nothing to hide before a crowd whose gaze is turned increasingly on all the individuals that compose it. (Rosen, 2004)
Having to live in this internet era, the Internet is now the commonplace for people to communicate and exchange whatever information is desired. However, just like any other form of communication, there has to be this level of acceptance before anyone is even willing to interact with you. People have to like you first.
As a result, people tend to come up with profiles that may or may not be who they truly are, so long as they get people interested in knowing them. This spells trouble, as people may eventually forget and lose their own identity, and behave according to how society wants them to behave.
The key question here is: Does that matter? (Sullivan, 2007)
In retrospect, people do not really seem to mind even if they have changed and lost their own identity. It is, in my opinion, actually a way to protect oneself. Given the fact that there is still no foolproof way to ensure absolute security in this digital world, it is more prudent to protect oneself, either by assuming a pseudonym or simply just alter one’s particulars.
The digital bread crumbs you leave everywhere make it easy for strangers to reconstruct who you are, where you are and what you like. In some cases, a simple Google search can reveal what you think. Like it or not, increasingly we live in a world where you simply cannot keep a secret. (Sullivan. 2006)
There you go. Neither is there any privacy nor any sense of security. We are that vulnerable in this digital age. In a bid to allay the fears in people, the ICTW has actually come up with a guideline to help people protect themselves better. Advising people from giving out their social security numbers, and advising them to use private phone numbers when doing online dealings are few such examples.
Just like how Bob Sullivan has described, privacy is like health: when you have it, you do not notice it. Only when it’s gone do you wish you’d done more to protect it. (Sullivan, 2006).
It is indeed up to each individual to make efforts in protecting themselves and their privacy, be it in the online or offline settings. Laws and advices just ain't enough.
References
1. Rosen, Jeffery (2004). "The Naked Crowd" Retrieved March 9, 2007 from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm
2. Sullivan, B. (2006). Privacy Lost: Does Anyone Care?. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/
3. "ICWT: In Corruption We Trust - 13 Easy Ways to Safeguard you Privacy in 2007". Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.icwt.us/index.php/2007/01/23/13-easy-ways-to-safeguard-your-privacy-in-2007-update/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)