As a child, I remember journalism being an exclusive thing. It was something that only a few could do, and becoming a journalist was not an easy goal for many. During the rare occasions when I actually the news, I remember wondering how these reporters were fortunate to be journalists. At that time, it was almost impossible to be recognized as a worthy journalist. Now, fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, things have changed tremendously. It is hard to imagine we commonfolk as journalists.
Citizen journalism is now fast invading our lives. Citizen journalism involves citizens actively reporting, analyzing and sharing news and information. (Citizen Journalism, 2007) This means that you don’t have to be a professional journalist to report the latest on-goings. You can share your views with the world from the comfort of your own home. The more common versions of citizen journalism are in the form of weblog and posting videos online. Through theses two mediums, people report their perspective of what is going on, and share their opinions in the situation. This is different from traditional journalist as citizens are not required to remain objective.
STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print) is a venture of Singapore Press Holdings. It’s main aim is for Singaporeans to actively be a part of Singapore’s current affairs through the mediums of print, online and mobile. (Stomp, 2006) Through these mediums, Singaporeans can send their thoughts and ideas to the Straits Times directly, and hopefully allow them to be more involved in the news media.
However, can STOMP be considered as an ideal form of citizen journalism? There are many features that STOMP provides. It allows citizens to rate and review movies and games, and even has sections catered to various groups of interest. However the idea behind citizen journalism is not about controlling what the citizens have to say.
Instead as Dan Gillmor pointed out “I like the idea that people are watching what I say and correcting me if I get things wrong—or challenging my conclusions, based on the same facts (or facts I hadn’t known about when I wrote the piece.) This is a piece of tomorrow’s journalism, and we in the business should welcome the feedback and assistance that, if we do it right, becomes part of a larger conversation.”(2004)
STOMP certainly encourages citizens to start being active in the local news situation. This is a start for Singaporeans to be more open and less restrictive about their opinions. The world is changing, and Singaporeans should adapt to the changes. There is no point in being left behind. What is more important is that there is Singaporeans need to understand their rights as citizen journalists, and not abuse those rights.
STOMP is a fairly new venture. So we’ll just have to wait and see if there STOMP can meet its purpose. The best way is for STOMP to reach out to more citizens and prove that they do not restrict the citizen’s right to express themselves. This is just the beginning.
References
“Citizen journalism” (March 28, 2006) From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved 14:59, March 28, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
Gillmor, D. “We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People” (July, 2004). Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?hile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap9
STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 28, 2007 fromhttp://www.stomp.com.sg/
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
QotW: What are you doing now?
What are you doing?
This is a common question that we utter more than once a day. We might be chatting online or on the telephone, and we almost never fail to ask this question to the person who we are communicating with. Now, there is a community that is created based on this question. Innovative.
Twitter certainly has an interesting concept. We tend to be curious about what our friends are doing at a particular time, and by getting them to share their current activities, we learn more about them. Although it is strange to randomly share what you are doing, after a while answering the exact same question seems to come almost naturally. Twitter allows people to immediately send out what they are thinking.
Is Twitter really an online community? According to Twitter’s own home page, it considers itself as a community. An online community is a group of people that may or may not mainly communicate or interact via the Internet. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, it is not easy to completely describe how an online community works and what it represents. It is not necessary that participants of an online community feel a strong bond towards each other. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, a relationship is formed through their continuous interactions. Twitter allows people to interact with one another online, and therefore allow people to form bonds, whether strong or not, with one another. In that sense, Twitter is an online community.
One of the most significant things in any community, whether online or offline, is communication. (Fernback & Thompson, 1995) It is practically impossible to maintain a relationship without any form of communication. This is because there is no effort taking place to organize the social relationships that form the community. Fernback and Thompson also feel that communities can be limited by boundaries, and these communities can be created based on common interests and people.
At the same time, sociologists also realize that distance does not put a hamper on forming communities. Transport and technology provide people the means for expanding their communities beyond just their neighborhood. In online communities, people are not restricted by their physical boundaries. But at the same time, online communities have a “home” where all users can meet and interact.
However, Twitter may not be for everyone. It can be annoying after awhile to answer the same question over and over and over again. Although it may be interesting to read what others are doing, it might be taxing to let others know what you are doing. In a way, it seems like Twitter is just another MSN. You are chatting with your friends and adding new ones.
Twitter may be a unique experience initially. As an online community, it is similar to Friendster and MSN, but the features are limited. It would not be surprising however, if it upgrades features to be more like a combination of both Friendster and MSN.
Resources:
Fernback.J & Thompson.B (May 1995) Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved on March 15, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
Virtual community. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:52, March 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=113387826
This is a common question that we utter more than once a day. We might be chatting online or on the telephone, and we almost never fail to ask this question to the person who we are communicating with. Now, there is a community that is created based on this question. Innovative.
Twitter certainly has an interesting concept. We tend to be curious about what our friends are doing at a particular time, and by getting them to share their current activities, we learn more about them. Although it is strange to randomly share what you are doing, after a while answering the exact same question seems to come almost naturally. Twitter allows people to immediately send out what they are thinking.
Is Twitter really an online community? According to Twitter’s own home page, it considers itself as a community. An online community is a group of people that may or may not mainly communicate or interact via the Internet. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, it is not easy to completely describe how an online community works and what it represents. It is not necessary that participants of an online community feel a strong bond towards each other. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, a relationship is formed through their continuous interactions. Twitter allows people to interact with one another online, and therefore allow people to form bonds, whether strong or not, with one another. In that sense, Twitter is an online community.
One of the most significant things in any community, whether online or offline, is communication. (Fernback & Thompson, 1995) It is practically impossible to maintain a relationship without any form of communication. This is because there is no effort taking place to organize the social relationships that form the community. Fernback and Thompson also feel that communities can be limited by boundaries, and these communities can be created based on common interests and people.
At the same time, sociologists also realize that distance does not put a hamper on forming communities. Transport and technology provide people the means for expanding their communities beyond just their neighborhood. In online communities, people are not restricted by their physical boundaries. But at the same time, online communities have a “home” where all users can meet and interact.
However, Twitter may not be for everyone. It can be annoying after awhile to answer the same question over and over and over again. Although it may be interesting to read what others are doing, it might be taxing to let others know what you are doing. In a way, it seems like Twitter is just another MSN. You are chatting with your friends and adding new ones.
Twitter may be a unique experience initially. As an online community, it is similar to Friendster and MSN, but the features are limited. It would not be surprising however, if it upgrades features to be more like a combination of both Friendster and MSN.
Resources:
Fernback.J & Thompson.B (May 1995) Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved on March 15, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
Virtual community. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:52, March 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=113387826
Thursday, March 8, 2007
QotW6: Privacy or Paranoia?
If anyone had asked me in secondary school whether I intended to share my private self with the world, I would have certainly said no. Tell strangers about myself? No way!
Now, I have to eat my own words. I have to say that my opinion has not completely changed since then. However, I know and accept that complete privacy from people, even strangers, is entirely impossible. Being affiliated with services that permit us to divulge personal information about oneself puts privacy out of the picture. However, each and every one of us has the ability to control exactly how much information we expose to the public. It is our own ability to decide what level of privacy we are willing to give up.
So what exactly is privacy?
Privacy refers to the capacity for an individual (or a group) to remain out public scrutiny. Their personal information and lives are not kept in the limelight. (Privacy, 2007) Is it always easy to remain private? The truth is that it is not easy. Every single signal that we send out, whether it is in online or offline situations, reveals something about us. There is an extremely thin line between public and private circumstances.
Trust and Privacy
When do we let down our guard and reveal personal tidbits about ourselves? In today’s society, it has become a necessity to prove one’s trustworthiness constantly. (Rosen, 2004) We are constantly emitting signals that ensure others that we are being truthful, and the best way to do that would be to divulge personal information. It is similar to tit-for-tat situation.
But are we really telling the truth?
I wouldn’t say that I am a completely private person. There are a select few who know me inside out, and then there are others who know general common things about me. So I guess I can safely say that I have a control over the amount personal information I reveal. The issue of trust is significant to me. Like anybody else, I wouldn’t want to share personal things about myself to people who I find hard to trust.
To prove to myself that I really do not reveal anything personal about myself, I went to check my FRIENDSTER profile. I realized that I hadn’t exactly updated my personal profile in a year, and the previous time I had logged on to update my profile, it was actually to remove some information from my profile. As I tried to recall the exact reason as to why I had done such a thing, I realized that my main motivation was because that I shared too much information about myself. Looking at what was left on my profile, I realized the information that I had chosen to share were general things that people will discover about me within the first few days that they have met me. So does this truly mean that I am a private person? Or do I reveal too much?
Is anything private?
When I thought about my profile more, I realized that I never really bothered with my privacy as much as I thought I had. Although I do remain anonymous when I choose to view my friends’ profiles, I never actually selected the option that allows us to set our personnel profiles for private use only. In that sense, aren’t I actually putting myself in the limelight?
The act of giving your telephone number to the store clerk may seem insignificant, but you will never know when information that you had just given out might be used against you. (Sullivan, 2007) Similarly, I may have thought that the information I have placed on my FRIENDSTER profile might be unimportant, but I will never know for certain if this information will come back to haunt me in the future. So maybe I should just leave my profile empty.
Privacy or Paranoia? Now that’s another issue altogether.
References
Privacy. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy&oldid=113354124
Rosen, J. (2004, 19 July). The Naked Crowd. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from the http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm
Sullivan, B. (2007, 17 October). Privacy Lost: Does anybody care? Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Now, I have to eat my own words. I have to say that my opinion has not completely changed since then. However, I know and accept that complete privacy from people, even strangers, is entirely impossible. Being affiliated with services that permit us to divulge personal information about oneself puts privacy out of the picture. However, each and every one of us has the ability to control exactly how much information we expose to the public. It is our own ability to decide what level of privacy we are willing to give up.
So what exactly is privacy?
Privacy refers to the capacity for an individual (or a group) to remain out public scrutiny. Their personal information and lives are not kept in the limelight. (Privacy, 2007) Is it always easy to remain private? The truth is that it is not easy. Every single signal that we send out, whether it is in online or offline situations, reveals something about us. There is an extremely thin line between public and private circumstances.
Trust and Privacy
When do we let down our guard and reveal personal tidbits about ourselves? In today’s society, it has become a necessity to prove one’s trustworthiness constantly. (Rosen, 2004) We are constantly emitting signals that ensure others that we are being truthful, and the best way to do that would be to divulge personal information. It is similar to tit-for-tat situation.
But are we really telling the truth?
I wouldn’t say that I am a completely private person. There are a select few who know me inside out, and then there are others who know general common things about me. So I guess I can safely say that I have a control over the amount personal information I reveal. The issue of trust is significant to me. Like anybody else, I wouldn’t want to share personal things about myself to people who I find hard to trust.
To prove to myself that I really do not reveal anything personal about myself, I went to check my FRIENDSTER profile. I realized that I hadn’t exactly updated my personal profile in a year, and the previous time I had logged on to update my profile, it was actually to remove some information from my profile. As I tried to recall the exact reason as to why I had done such a thing, I realized that my main motivation was because that I shared too much information about myself. Looking at what was left on my profile, I realized the information that I had chosen to share were general things that people will discover about me within the first few days that they have met me. So does this truly mean that I am a private person? Or do I reveal too much?
Is anything private?
When I thought about my profile more, I realized that I never really bothered with my privacy as much as I thought I had. Although I do remain anonymous when I choose to view my friends’ profiles, I never actually selected the option that allows us to set our personnel profiles for private use only. In that sense, aren’t I actually putting myself in the limelight?
The act of giving your telephone number to the store clerk may seem insignificant, but you will never know when information that you had just given out might be used against you. (Sullivan, 2007) Similarly, I may have thought that the information I have placed on my FRIENDSTER profile might be unimportant, but I will never know for certain if this information will come back to haunt me in the future. So maybe I should just leave my profile empty.
Privacy or Paranoia? Now that’s another issue altogether.
References
Privacy. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy&oldid=113354124
Rosen, J. (2004, 19 July). The Naked Crowd. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from the http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm
Sullivan, B. (2007, 17 October). Privacy Lost: Does anybody care? Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)