Recently, Kitana, Ben and Zyberzitizen have left the blogosphere.
Kitana had been blogging since september, so that's about 8 months. Ben had been blogging for... dunno... apparently he's been popping in and out in different blogs for quite a while now. And zyberzitizen leaves after blogging for 5 months, since december. The last significant departure was Gayle Goh earlier this january, she had been writing for a much longer 21 months.
should bloggers be too concerned about these departures? Gayle and Kitana were both heavyweights and their writings commanded readership far beyond the average Singaporean blogger. Both were extremely idealistic figures and this in large part contributed to the attraction of their writing.
The rise and fall of the blogs were extremely rapid. Both shot to blogging stardom almost overnight, but both vanished from the scene almost as rapidly. And I think there are a couple of issues related to this.
a. it's difficult for an individual to keep churning out exceptional material on a consistent basis, without burning out. I think this is a major challenge that Gayle and Kitana faced. Indeed, their greatest strength has turned out to be their greatest weakness. When your readers find you coming up with great material, they tend to expect more and more and more... and it's difficult to keep on meeting these expectations. In comparison, less prolific bloggers may write less frequently and less well but they are not under the same pressures that superstar writers have.
b. unbridled idealism is often disappointed - but given time, when tempered with realism, it grows into a healthy, mature 'realistic idealism'. Sure, it sounds like an oxymoron, but having grand dreams and hopes about the future without regards to realistic outcomes is a recipe for rapid disappointment and disillusionment. Things will change, but we can't expect them to change overnight, nor should we have unrealistic expectations of our work.
With this in mind, I do not think that the departure of these exceptionally talented writers is a bad sign. Instead, I see it as part and parcel of the maturity of the blogosphere. In time, these young talents will grow and mature, and learn to bring their energies to bear in a healthy, sustainable way. With ample rest and reflection, I think they will be back in the future to have an impact on society, armed with wisdom gained from their previous experiences.
Also, as for the issue of individual bloggers burning out, as the blogosphere matures we should see more group blogs surface and team efforts which are much more sustainable, because the different writers can cover each other backs. Indeed, very few individual writers can keep going and going and going (those who can will be very successful, bloggers like Mr Wang and Aaron). Those who depend on bursts of creativity should probably team up to prevent individual exhaustion.
I'm not to concerned about the blogosphere departures. I think they just need a holiday. I'm sure they'll be back in the future as bigger forces to be reckoned with, and I look forward to when that happens.
"So we have to write, it is hardly a matter of choice, though we dress it up as one ..."
- The Reason Why You Write...
Showing posts with label political blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political blogging. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
A Small Victory for Bloggers: Why the Counter Insurgency is an Admission of the Power of New Media
Recently, there has been a big hooha over a recent article in the Straits Times that said that the government was going to launch a "counter-insurgency" by sending anonymous pro-PAP cyber commandos into the internet to counter critics of the government.
Since many have said their piece, I will not give my opinion on whether I think their plan will work. Rather, I wish to declare this a small victory for bloggers, and explain why I think the balance of media power is shifting, slowly but surely, from the hands of a dominant PAP towards a landscape where there is freedom of speech and equal opportunity for all.
1. The PAP now has to play on the internet on fair and equal terms. They no longer exert the monopoly of publishing on the web that they do in print media. On the internet, the PAP, WP, SDP and any other tom, dick or harry who wants to make a political comment has an equal opportunity to be heard.
2. In fact, the PAP is now at a distinct disadvantage. Because they cannot depend on their control of the medium, they now have to depend on the quality of the message. In the press, the lack of a competitive voice means that the PAP can skew and manipulate their messages in any way they like, without fear of reprisal and behing criticised on the spot. The internet, however is different:
- Any blog post that is put up by a PAP member can be instantly replied to on another blog by another blogger.
- Any comment left on a blog by a PAP member can be instantly replied to by other commenters.
- The internet is dominated by independent bloggers who are far ahead in experience, skill and prominence compared to PAP 'counter-insurgents'.
- Opposition parties have already been using this medium for many years, and will at least have an equal opportunity of expression. This is a far cry from broadcast TV and newspapers where the opposition has little say, if any.
And because the PAP is playing catch-up, as highlighted in point 2, it stands to lose out in the race to claim ground on the new battlefield that is the world wide web. Instead, this is a great opportunity for bloggers and 'insurgents' to race ahead and to further cement their lead.
Conclusion
For too long already, the media have been dominated by the political machine that is the PAP. It is time for media in Singapore to be a much fairer playing field where different political voices, both partisan and independent, can have their say.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Gayle Goh, Mr Wang, and George Yeo
Lately, there has been a bit of a debate around whether those who blog over political issues should step forth into the mainstream media to exchange views with politicians in public.
The debate was sparked over a difference of opinion between Mr Wang and Gayle Goh about whether they should appear on BlogTV.sg's latest episode, "Big Boys Blogging." In particular, Gayle was rather critical of what Mr Wang said in his rejection of the invitation to appear on the show. Here's my take on the debate:
Gayle seems to have a soft spot for the mainstream media. She has participated multiple times on television shows and has written for local broadsheets. She also blogs with her real name, so, she really has little to lose by appearing on TV. In fact, it heightens her profile and helps her in her quest to promote 'engagement' between bloggers and the msm/incumbent politicians. She is also comparatively young, does not yet have a career and/or mouths to feed, and is waiting to enter college. Her life circumstances are very different from Mr Wang and other bloggers whom she critiques.
Mr Wang, in contrast, is a social commentator who prefers to preserve his anonymity. He has a career and a family to take care of. Being several years older than Gayle, he is conscious of the approach that the PAP has taken towards its critics and is cognisant of the risks he might be taking by stepping out into the open and revealing his identity. Given the approach that Lee Kuan Yew and family have taken towards outspoken critics of his regime, Mr Wang probably feels that it is more prudent for him to remain anonymous, rather than step out into the playing ground of the PAP.
As we can see, the two bloggers are in rather different stages in life and have rather different experiences with regards to politics. Gayle comes from a younger generation that is idealistic, optimistic, and has not felt the full force of the authoritarian rule of LKY, and probably does not fully understand the risks a salaried family man takes when becoming a government critic. Mr Wang, meanwhile, has observed the political scene in Singapore somewhat longer and is much more cynical that appearing on TV is worth his time.
Clearly, the two have vastly different experiences and points of view, which probably explains the great difference in opinion and response to the BlogTV invitation.
Interestingly, Gayle says that "[she] entirely disagree[s] with [Mr Wang's] take on this issue." Mr Wang himself has yet to respond to Gayle's post (as of this writing).
Gayle says,
Gayle also says,
And implies that by criticising the establishment from the comfort of his blog and refusing to engage them face to face, Mr Wang is denying them the right of reply. Yet in making her argument Gayle has failed to consider how the PAP have used their monopoly of the mainstream media in Singapore to shape public opinion and debate towards their agenda, without giving the opposition a genuine 'right of reply.' She has also failed to consider that George Yeo and PAP MPs have every opportunity to engage Mr Wang's posts on their own blogs or by leaving comments on Mr Wang's blog - on the internet they have a perfect opportunity to claim their 'right of reply,' an opportunity that they have yet to take advantage of. At the same time, the mainstream media is clearly a skewed playing field without the same opportunity for equal exchange that Gayle asks bloggers to give politicians. Time and again the local daily and its media cousins have not only censored but misrepresented opinions irrelevant to their agenda - critics are well justified if they decide that engaging on an uneven playing field is not worth their time.
Gayle does make several good points, though, one of which is:
But perhaps if she paused to consider why so many bloggers turned down the opportunity to converse with George Yeo (at least four or five did so, to my knowledge; even Bernard Leong nearly declined the invitation - which would have made Gayle the only participant), Gayle might find cause to temper her criticisms of these bloggers with as much criticism of the media machinery in Singapore.
However, this post may have too much Gayle bashing. Perhaps she is right, and the other "notoriously uncontactable bloggers" are all wrong. Perhaps her youthful idealism and optimism will pay dividends when she "ask[ed George] about opposition politicians and new media like podcasts and (tongue-in-cheek) sound amplification devices in public." If, and when, "these things... ..survive the cuts and edits," I will be more than pleased to have my arguments proven wrong, and for Gayle's efforts to herald a new era in political engagement between ordinary citizens and ministers in the mainstream media.
-----
Bibliography:
Your Danse Macabre
Talk of the Town
Teaser to "Big Boys Blogging"
The debate was sparked over a difference of opinion between Mr Wang and Gayle Goh about whether they should appear on BlogTV.sg's latest episode, "Big Boys Blogging." In particular, Gayle was rather critical of what Mr Wang said in his rejection of the invitation to appear on the show. Here's my take on the debate:
Gayle seems to have a soft spot for the mainstream media. She has participated multiple times on television shows and has written for local broadsheets. She also blogs with her real name, so, she really has little to lose by appearing on TV. In fact, it heightens her profile and helps her in her quest to promote 'engagement' between bloggers and the msm/incumbent politicians. She is also comparatively young, does not yet have a career and/or mouths to feed, and is waiting to enter college. Her life circumstances are very different from Mr Wang and other bloggers whom she critiques.
Mr Wang, in contrast, is a social commentator who prefers to preserve his anonymity. He has a career and a family to take care of. Being several years older than Gayle, he is conscious of the approach that the PAP has taken towards its critics and is cognisant of the risks he might be taking by stepping out into the open and revealing his identity. Given the approach that Lee Kuan Yew and family have taken towards outspoken critics of his regime, Mr Wang probably feels that it is more prudent for him to remain anonymous, rather than step out into the playing ground of the PAP.
As we can see, the two bloggers are in rather different stages in life and have rather different experiences with regards to politics. Gayle comes from a younger generation that is idealistic, optimistic, and has not felt the full force of the authoritarian rule of LKY, and probably does not fully understand the risks a salaried family man takes when becoming a government critic. Mr Wang, meanwhile, has observed the political scene in Singapore somewhat longer and is much more cynical that appearing on TV is worth his time.
Clearly, the two have vastly different experiences and points of view, which probably explains the great difference in opinion and response to the BlogTV invitation.
Interestingly, Gayle says that "[she] entirely disagree[s] with [Mr Wang's] take on this issue." Mr Wang himself has yet to respond to Gayle's post (as of this writing).
Gayle says,
However, she has not factored into her argument that CNA is a government owned media network that is heavily censored in favour of the PAP. While it may be all nice to engage in a conversation, that is only so if the exchange takes place on a fair playing field where both sides have the equal opportunity to make their points and where their statements are not skewed, censored, or misrepresented. The mainstream media in Singapore, however, has a reputation and track record of heavy censorship of anything that portrays the ruling party in a negative light. And because of this, Mr Wang probably has a very strong reason to turn down the invitation to appear on state-controlled television because of the ways he has been misrepresented and/or censored in the past.
"If we become blase and disinterested, distancing ourselves, then is it really the government's fault when we complain of an affective divide?"
Gayle also says,
"The right of reply is a wondrous thing."
And implies that by criticising the establishment from the comfort of his blog and refusing to engage them face to face, Mr Wang is denying them the right of reply. Yet in making her argument Gayle has failed to consider how the PAP have used their monopoly of the mainstream media in Singapore to shape public opinion and debate towards their agenda, without giving the opposition a genuine 'right of reply.' She has also failed to consider that George Yeo and PAP MPs have every opportunity to engage Mr Wang's posts on their own blogs or by leaving comments on Mr Wang's blog - on the internet they have a perfect opportunity to claim their 'right of reply,' an opportunity that they have yet to take advantage of. At the same time, the mainstream media is clearly a skewed playing field without the same opportunity for equal exchange that Gayle asks bloggers to give politicians. Time and again the local daily and its media cousins have not only censored but misrepresented opinions irrelevant to their agenda - critics are well justified if they decide that engaging on an uneven playing field is not worth their time.
Gayle does make several good points, though, one of which is:
Indeed, few would deny that being able to converse directly with those in power is an exciting and valuable opportunity. Even Mr Wang acknowledged that he "was somewhat tempted." I doubt any would contest that genuine engagement with a minister would enhance political dialogue and citizen participation in politics.
"...the opportunity to quiz ministers directly on the issue helps the debate to evolve."
But perhaps if she paused to consider why so many bloggers turned down the opportunity to converse with George Yeo (at least four or five did so, to my knowledge; even Bernard Leong nearly declined the invitation - which would have made Gayle the only participant), Gayle might find cause to temper her criticisms of these bloggers with as much criticism of the media machinery in Singapore.
However, this post may have too much Gayle bashing. Perhaps she is right, and the other "notoriously uncontactable bloggers" are all wrong. Perhaps her youthful idealism and optimism will pay dividends when she "ask[ed George] about opposition politicians and new media like podcasts and (tongue-in-cheek) sound amplification devices in public." If, and when, "these things... ..survive the cuts and edits," I will be more than pleased to have my arguments proven wrong, and for Gayle's efforts to herald a new era in political engagement between ordinary citizens and ministers in the mainstream media.
-----
Bibliography:
Your Danse Macabre
Talk of the Town
Teaser to "Big Boys Blogging"
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Entering Treacherous Waters
For its reputation as a group of technocrats, the People's Action Party has been rather slow to embrace the internet.
These last couple of weeks, BG George Yeo made his first foray into the internet by making a few posts at ephraim loy's blog. These posts have drawn much attention, yet the response from the internet has been largely disappointing, since Yeo's posts have little to do with substantive issues facing Singapore, but are rather just an account of various events in his life.
Other attempts by PAP MPs to engage the internet community are now either defunct or benign. MP Penny Low set up a blog to cover the NDP 2005, but that blog is now devoid of activity. Dr Teo Ho Pin also set up a blog, but most of the posts seem to be short replies on relatively mundane issues.
On the other hand, other political parties have long since jumped on the internet bandwagon and have been vocal and explicit on politics. Goh Meng Seng's blog is about his 'political struggle', James Gomez has written extensively on his thoughts, and Chee Soon Juan relentlessly publishes fiercely political content.
Indeed, the rise of the internet as a major media platform for the future points towards serious challenges to the PAP's political hegemony. The free-for-all, democratic nature of the world wide web means that censorship of criticism on this medium is virtually impossible, and the kind of power that the ruling party is able to exert on the main stream media evaporates into insignificance on the internet.
Strong critics of the establishment not only abound in cyberspace, they also dominate the digital discourse. Bloggers and blogs such as Mr Wang, Gayle Goh, Yawning Bread and Singabloodypore all command a high readership and are unabashedly critical of policies and the press. Yet all three PAP bloggers have yet to engage any of the criticisms of the government in any meaningful way.
The recent acknowledgement of the impact of 'The Digital Age' by PM Lee Hsien Loong during his latest rally speech is a tacit admission that the playing field of the future will not be newspapers or television, which the incumbents currently have a stranglehold over. Rather, it will be the internet, where opinions can be published in an instant, at no cost, to everybody and anybody in cyberspace. And with the 'Intelligent Nation 2015' goal of getting 90% of all households on broadband, that means virtually the whole nation will be exposed not only to the opinions of detractors, but also to audio podcasts and videos which may portray the government in a less than favourable light.
But perhaps the PAP's lack of significant presence on the internet foreshadows the beginning of its decline. For years the state has dominated the press and broadcast media, disseminating messages favourable to its regime and censoring all that would threaten its power. And yet, as the Prime Minister calls for more engagement of Singaporeans, particularly in New Media, the PAP seems to lack bite and is clumsy, at best.
Without the ability to censor or control the internet, the PAP will be forced to engage its critics to remain credible in the eyes of Singaporean netizens. Meanwhile, a continued avoidance of substantive issues does no favour to improve its image. The internet is a new, levelling playing field, where authoritarian censorship no longer works.
As the Digital Age unfolds, it will be interesting to watch how the incumbents behave, as the tools for maintaining their dominance slowly slip from their hands, and as they enter the new treacherous waters of the internet.
These last couple of weeks, BG George Yeo made his first foray into the internet by making a few posts at ephraim loy's blog. These posts have drawn much attention, yet the response from the internet has been largely disappointing, since Yeo's posts have little to do with substantive issues facing Singapore, but are rather just an account of various events in his life.
Other attempts by PAP MPs to engage the internet community are now either defunct or benign. MP Penny Low set up a blog to cover the NDP 2005, but that blog is now devoid of activity. Dr Teo Ho Pin also set up a blog, but most of the posts seem to be short replies on relatively mundane issues.
On the other hand, other political parties have long since jumped on the internet bandwagon and have been vocal and explicit on politics. Goh Meng Seng's blog is about his 'political struggle', James Gomez has written extensively on his thoughts, and Chee Soon Juan relentlessly publishes fiercely political content.
Indeed, the rise of the internet as a major media platform for the future points towards serious challenges to the PAP's political hegemony. The free-for-all, democratic nature of the world wide web means that censorship of criticism on this medium is virtually impossible, and the kind of power that the ruling party is able to exert on the main stream media evaporates into insignificance on the internet.
Strong critics of the establishment not only abound in cyberspace, they also dominate the digital discourse. Bloggers and blogs such as Mr Wang, Gayle Goh, Yawning Bread and Singabloodypore all command a high readership and are unabashedly critical of policies and the press. Yet all three PAP bloggers have yet to engage any of the criticisms of the government in any meaningful way.
The recent acknowledgement of the impact of 'The Digital Age' by PM Lee Hsien Loong during his latest rally speech is a tacit admission that the playing field of the future will not be newspapers or television, which the incumbents currently have a stranglehold over. Rather, it will be the internet, where opinions can be published in an instant, at no cost, to everybody and anybody in cyberspace. And with the 'Intelligent Nation 2015' goal of getting 90% of all households on broadband, that means virtually the whole nation will be exposed not only to the opinions of detractors, but also to audio podcasts and videos which may portray the government in a less than favourable light.
But perhaps the PAP's lack of significant presence on the internet foreshadows the beginning of its decline. For years the state has dominated the press and broadcast media, disseminating messages favourable to its regime and censoring all that would threaten its power. And yet, as the Prime Minister calls for more engagement of Singaporeans, particularly in New Media, the PAP seems to lack bite and is clumsy, at best.
Without the ability to censor or control the internet, the PAP will be forced to engage its critics to remain credible in the eyes of Singaporean netizens. Meanwhile, a continued avoidance of substantive issues does no favour to improve its image. The internet is a new, levelling playing field, where authoritarian censorship no longer works.
As the Digital Age unfolds, it will be interesting to watch how the incumbents behave, as the tools for maintaining their dominance slowly slip from their hands, and as they enter the new treacherous waters of the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)