My Response to Mr Udders

In response to this.

Blogs are the personal sphere/domain of bloggers. If journalists were to engage bloggers on the web in their professional capacity, their actions might be construed as harrassment/bullying. At the same time, print newspapers are the spheres/domains of journalists. Surely their decision to comment on issues in their own domains/spheres cannot be faulted?

I don’t see how leaving some comments in a blog on a personal capacity can be construed as harassment/bullying. She herself wrote of how you and Joel amicably addressed the issue. It would in fact be a sign of humility rather than maintaining the status quo power relations between press and citizen.

Joel could have made his thoughts known at the neutral platform of the talk, but perhaps they were afterthoughts. Would writing to the papers be a reasonable avenue for him to share these afterthoughts? Lynn on the other hand could have easily left a comment on his blog to correct his ‘misconceptions’.

In any other circumstance it would have been more than ok for a journalist to use the print media to express him/herself while an ordinary citizen uses what is accessible to them. But the context is of a journalist writing about how proponents of MSM and NM can actually come together can happily co-exist. By doing what she did, she only maintained the distance between the two.

I hope the ideal for you isn't one where bloggers are quoted all the time in the mainstream media? I'd be even more ashamed to read The Straits Times if Xiaxue/Dawn Yang became the authoritative voices on all and sundry.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I am not calling for more referencing of blogs. I am merely stating that the recognition that something exists is not the same as being inclusive.

Your blog post ("online chatter") is in response to the journalist's column("mainstream media stories"), no? So I don't think it's a question of resource gathering per se but one of discussion - which medium provides the most reaction/responses for debate: online or offline? My guess is the latter.

No it is not. She mentioned somewhere in the article that: “self-professed media pundits…. seem to be forgetting two things: one that a large chunk of what they write about comes from initial reporting done by the daily mainstream media….”. This was her retort for those that claim alternative media trumps the mainstream media. If this is not a defensive statement I don’t know what is.

I think the journalist's point was that MSN and NM can be happy bedfellows and share the process of information dissemination. BTW, "to offer alternative readings of news" IS to be an "alternative news source", if you take the definition of news in its broader sense.

Yes, I agree with you.

Actually, the journalist did. But you... misread, I'm afraid. Read the article again and this time, read it with the mindset that the journalist is not slamming NM... The journalist is very supportive of NM that is rational, not rash.

I did not say she was slamming or belittling NM. Neither did I call for her to defend/ champion NM. The essence of my post was that her actions (medium) run counter to her calls (message) for inclusion, co-operation, mutual respect and maturity.

Appreciate your remarks though :)

The Reason Why Old and New Media Remain Strange Bedfellows

There was an interesting ST article today titled “Old and new media don’t have to be strange bedfellows” by journalist Lynn Lee. I do not subscribe to the online version of the paper and therefore am unable to republish the article in full.

The reason I found it so interesting was that the article, not so much the contents of it but rather the article as an object, was symptomatic of the estranged relationship between the old and new media as is experienced in Singapore. To borrow Marshall Mcluhan’s “the medium is the message”, the decision by the ST journalist to ‘engage’ a blogger through the national press demonstrated why there remains a divide between the old and new media advocates.

Before I confuse everyone further, let me briefly provide the context.

The incident that triggered the article was a talk conducted by two ST journalists on “Journalistic Integrity” at a JC. The invited journalists took issue with a blog entry of the event by an attendee of the talk, one Joel Tan. I wont get into the details of his blog entry as it can be read here.

The journalists were upset with the blogger for unfairly dismissing them without asking where they stood on specific issues and accused him of misquoting them and taking their comments out of context.

The journalist was critical of the blogger for not directly engaging them during the Q&A portion of the talk. A fair enough point if you ask me. But what proved to be puzzling was that instead of engaging the blogger on his blog, the journalists chose to instead write an article on the national broadsheet.

This decision surely runs counter to her self-righteous claim that the mainstream media is being more “more inclusive of alternative media” and seeks to “coexist and work” with alternative media. Admitting that there are alternative voices and haphazardly citing them from time to time is NOT being inclusive.

And as for her assertion that much of online chatter is reactive to mainstream media stories, its nothing much to boast about considering the resources they have at their disposal, not to mention that its their job. It would be like a nationally-funded professional bodybuilder scoffing at the attempts of ordinary folks working out in a gym. And lets not forget that they readily admitted that they thrawl through online forums to gather scoops.

When will journalists realize that it is not our intention to rival them in news gathering? We cite mainstream media articles not to claim ownership of news stories but to offer alternative readings of news. It is NOT an attempt to be alternative news sources.

But let us put aside this childish bickering over who is more credible, objective and what not and go back to my point about the “medium being the message”. The reason old and new media advocates are strange bedfellows is due to the fact that both parties do not wish or are unable to engage each other in their respective platforms. Lynn Lee had a chance to cross that bridge but she chose not to; making her article an insincere monologue.

One Nation Under Lee

A very concise alternate reading of Singapore history presented by local activist Seelan Palay.

Although the film lacks the production values of PAP-sanctioned national education documentaries, it is a sincere attempt to capture a darker reality of Singapore we dare not acknowledge; at least not openly.

Critics will probably argue that it is heavily skewed towards promoting the SDP's campaign of civil disobedience. And that certain images or quotations were taken out of context and misrepresented.

What i would say to such people is that that is exactly what freedom of speech is all about. When we have access to the products of freedom of speech, we will naturely be presented with information from opposing poles. But there can be no true objectively without full-blown subjectively.

More Govt Lapses

This latest revelation of public fund mismanagement is strangely reminiscent of the MSK debacle.

This Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reminds me of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) set up by the MHA to investigate into MSK’s escape. The PAC comprises a group of Members of Parliament that acts like the "Audit Committee" of the Government.

“Acts” is the operative word as it really has no real authority or expertise to conduct audit checks. In fact, they merely consider the Auditor-General's Report, and examine the Government Financial Statements and other accounts which are presented to the Parliament.

This is of course not the first time we are hearing of this committee.

It is really uniquely Singapore for government watchdog groups comprising of ruling party members.

In the first revelation of public fund mismanagement, it was positively constructed as lapses caught in time and corrected. For MSK, it is lucky that his escape uncovered lapses due to Singaporean’s complacency, and this is duly corrected as well.

End of the day, we are still left wondering if there were more alarming lapses that have not been revealed. We all remember how some golden taps unmasked sordid misappropriation of charitable contributions at the NKF.

Will glass panels be the downfall of the supreme court?

$1.5m of govt fund mismanagement uncovered by public accounts
panel
By Valarie Tan, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 08 May 2008 2354 hrs

SINGAPORE: The Health Ministry overpaid nearly S$180,000 of financial
aid to people without realising they had died.

This was one of public fund lapses uncovered, according to a six-page
report by the Public Accounts Committee, a parliamentary watchdog which
scrutinises the annual financial statements of government bodies.

The report highlighted the various lapses of three government ministries, a
statutory board and the Supreme Court.

The Health Ministry was particularly cited for overpaying S$178,150 of financial aid to beneficiaries who had died. After being informed of the lapse, the ministry said it had since recovered S$85,200.

However, the rest remains unclaimed since the policy is not to recover payouts made up to 3 months of a person's death.

The ministry said it will review its policy of allowing a grace period, and
has since agreed to work with the Ministry of Home Affairs to obtain death
records of beneficiaries on a monthly basis.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also found to have S$1.56m of unclaimed medical bills. These were incurred since 2003, during three overseas missions. The Ministry says it is currently filing the claims to its insurance company.

The report also uncovered unnecessary expenditure of S$30,789 by the Supreme Court for replacing glass panels. Administrators have since recovered the amount from the contractors.

The Manpower Ministry was also found to have made excessive advances to a building management agent. The ministry said the law does not allow it to claim interest on the excessive advances paid.

However, a new contract, effective 2006, states that payments can only be
made after works are carried out by contractors. Other safeguards, such as a
banker's guarantee, are also in place to make sure advances to contractors can
be recovered.

The InfoComm Development Authority was found to have mismanaged cash surpluses.

Under the current legal system, not all government bodies are required to be inspected by the Auditor-General.

But the latest report recommends an expansion. So the Auditor-General will
look into 18 statutory boards in the coming financial year, an increase from the
previous 13. - CNA/ir