COMMENT: Smarter citizen journalism without STOMP?
<cite class="byline vcard">By Shah Salimat
By Shah Salimat – <abbr title="2014-04-20T03:13:11Z">3 hours ago</abbr></cite>
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->
Singapore voyeurism site STOMP faces public backlash as citizens call for its shutdown. (Photo courtesy of SGA …
Shah Salimat is the editor-in-chief of Popspoken, an entertainment and lifestyle newsblog with a pulse on the issues that matter. He Tweets at @shahsalimat. The views herein are his own.Here's why citizen journalism in Singapore has worked so well: it combines two of our favourite past-times.
One is the art of complaining, perfected to a science of passive-aggressive mutterings under one's breath and disapproving glances with folded arms. Another is our love of taking photos, even at the expense of social space and privacy.
A cursory glance through STOMP's user-generated Singapore Seen column reveals the sort of tantrum-throwing, voyeuristic "journalism" that will make UK's The Daily Mail blush: uncle watches porn on his mobile phone in a bus, couple dances on the train as irate passengers look on, China nationals let their son run around Changi Food Centre naked.
It is a far cry from the citizen journalism around the world that is making user-generated content a big asset to newsrooms. If it were not for the various to-the-minute citizen reports coming out from Tahrir Square, the Arab Spring would certainly not have been as revolutionary as it was.
But if Singapore truly has had enough by putting more than 20,000 signatures to a petition to close down STOMP, why did the site draw 1.68 million unique visitors in March alone?
Popularity and the ethical dilemma
A look at STOMP's records on website statistic site Alexa reveals that more than 85 per cent of its readership visit the Singapore Seen column, where contributors (or "Stompers") place their feet and mononyms (such as "Forceofgood") firmly on the ground with observations of the things around them.
Most of these are accompanied with the sort of tactic a nine-year-old would employ when he sees someone doing something wrong: tell mummy about it and announce to the whole world. The website earned the Gold standard for original content at the 2014 Mob-Ex awards; that has to speak for something.
The petition to close down STOMP states that the website has not set "simple, sensible guidelines" for story submissions. The process is simple: enter your name and contact details, upload photos and videos and write a report with a 2,000-character limit. (That is a bit more than 14 tweets.)
There is no precursor on ethical guidelines while submitting stories. Is it in the Terms and Conditions page? I do not know, because that page is wiped off from the sitemap. A shame indeed, for a site that picked up a gold for Best in Online Media at last year's Asian Digital Media Awards.
Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) hit back at petition organiser Robin Li for his medium's loophole of allowing users with fake emails to act as signatories. Astroturfing aside, SPH digital media editor Felix Soh called netizens -- his audience, mind you -- "sad" for championing Internet freedom as well as the closure of a website "they don't like".
How can there be responsible Internet freedom when STOMP's latest campaign is to expose the idiocy of Singaporeans' photo and status updates online? When there is little intention to educate citizen journalists over ethics or fact-check stories (remember Samantha Ann Francis?), does that not tarnish the duty of responsibility a free Internet must carry?
Cropping NSmen out of the picture
The back-and-forth over the petition's tipping point brings a seemingly trivial but key point up front. A photo of a National Serviceman not giving up his seat for the elderly is the latest in a string of posts targeting Singaporean sons for their sweat, stench and heavy bags even as they defend their country and are reminded by their superiors not to sit in the train for fear of Stompers.
While Felix Soh defended STOMP by saying that a photo in the gallery after the article's text did show that the reserved seat was empty and the old lady did not take it up, the unfortunate crop on the post's lead-in image is irresponsible, untruthful reporting unto itself.
It also brings another point into question: if this had been an erroneous report by a website reader, then why did STOMP's editors publish the story? Publishing is not an objective move: it is a subjective choice by an information controller who decides when to press the red button.
While The Straits Times responded by assuring its worth in awards and statistics, the wisest approach was taken by REACH by kickstarting a discussion in a bid to question what constitutes "responsible online behaviour". But that is too simplistic a topic.
We need to question the ethics of journalism in Singapore and what it means when a story is angled a certain way, is led by a particular photo and is not factual or representative. The quality of citizen reports will increase once STOMP lays down an ethos to meaningful, accurate reporting.
If the statistics ring true, SPH will clearly not close a cash cow like STOMP. But a tainted impression will definitely need a fix-up.
Already, in the redesigned Straits Times homepage, STOMP's grid of stories is given a much smaller space than before. The new STOMP page relegates complaints to a new Etc column while adding wacky world stories to the Singapore Seen column.
STOMP, however, is in a good position to signal its demographic towards more responsible journalism that has more perspective than the flash-in-the-pan, sensationalist laziness that permeates Singapore journalism.
Think of the fact-digging that bloggers such as Yawning Bread's Alex Au and The Heart Truths' Roy Ngerng does. Think of the many accident reports that can help remind motorists to be careful on the roads. Think of the admirable attempts to weave in courtroom reporting (not of the Serina Wee kind) for STOMP's audience.
Once STOMP can focus on what matters the most, maybe it will decide that a report lambasting onlookers for not helping is better than a video of a man lying down on the train floor.
<cite class="byline vcard">By Shah Salimat
By Shah Salimat – <abbr title="2014-04-20T03:13:11Z">3 hours ago</abbr></cite>
- Share75
- <iframe title="Twitter For Websites: Tweet Button" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" id="yui_3_9_1_1_1397975938428_883" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.html#_=1397976111692&count=horizontal&counturl=https%3A%2F%2Fsg.news.yahoo.com%2Fblogs%2Fsingaporescene%2Fcomment--smarter-citizen-journalism-without-stomp-031312260.html&id=twitter_tweet_button_2&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fsg.news.yahoo.com%2Fblogs%2Fsingaporescene%2Fcomment--smarter-citizen-journalism-without-stomp-031312260.html&text=COMMENT%3A%20Smarter%20citizen%20journalism%20without%20STOMP%3F%20%7C%20SingaporeScene%20-%20Yahoo%20News%20Singapore&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsg.news.yahoo.com%2Fblogs%2Fsingaporescene%2Fcomment--smarter-citizen-journalism-without-stomp-031312260.html&via=yahoosg" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width: 110px; height: 20px;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
- Share
- <iframe name="I0_1397976111717" width="100%" tabindex="0" title="+1" id="I0_1397976111717" src="https://apis.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&annotation=bubble&size=medium&hl=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fsg.news.yahoo.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsg.news.yahoo.com%2Fblogs%2Fsingaporescene%2Fcomment--smarter-citizen-journalism-without-stomp-031312260.html&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_GB.8O1WrXuEkyI.O%2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DAQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Fz%3Dzcms%2Frs%3DAItRSTMVB260D6johMi4ZBtCmKCv7rHv-g#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1397976111717&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fsg.news.yahoo.com&pfname=&rpctoken=910128" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="margin: 0px; left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 90px; height: 20px; visibility: visible; position: static;" data-gapiattached="true"></iframe>
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->
Shah Salimat is the editor-in-chief of Popspoken, an entertainment and lifestyle newsblog with a pulse on the issues that matter. He Tweets at @shahsalimat. The views herein are his own.Here's why citizen journalism in Singapore has worked so well: it combines two of our favourite past-times.
One is the art of complaining, perfected to a science of passive-aggressive mutterings under one's breath and disapproving glances with folded arms. Another is our love of taking photos, even at the expense of social space and privacy.
A cursory glance through STOMP's user-generated Singapore Seen column reveals the sort of tantrum-throwing, voyeuristic "journalism" that will make UK's The Daily Mail blush: uncle watches porn on his mobile phone in a bus, couple dances on the train as irate passengers look on, China nationals let their son run around Changi Food Centre naked.
It is a far cry from the citizen journalism around the world that is making user-generated content a big asset to newsrooms. If it were not for the various to-the-minute citizen reports coming out from Tahrir Square, the Arab Spring would certainly not have been as revolutionary as it was.
But if Singapore truly has had enough by putting more than 20,000 signatures to a petition to close down STOMP, why did the site draw 1.68 million unique visitors in March alone?
Popularity and the ethical dilemma
A look at STOMP's records on website statistic site Alexa reveals that more than 85 per cent of its readership visit the Singapore Seen column, where contributors (or "Stompers") place their feet and mononyms (such as "Forceofgood") firmly on the ground with observations of the things around them.
Most of these are accompanied with the sort of tactic a nine-year-old would employ when he sees someone doing something wrong: tell mummy about it and announce to the whole world. The website earned the Gold standard for original content at the 2014 Mob-Ex awards; that has to speak for something.
The petition to close down STOMP states that the website has not set "simple, sensible guidelines" for story submissions. The process is simple: enter your name and contact details, upload photos and videos and write a report with a 2,000-character limit. (That is a bit more than 14 tweets.)
There is no precursor on ethical guidelines while submitting stories. Is it in the Terms and Conditions page? I do not know, because that page is wiped off from the sitemap. A shame indeed, for a site that picked up a gold for Best in Online Media at last year's Asian Digital Media Awards.
Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) hit back at petition organiser Robin Li for his medium's loophole of allowing users with fake emails to act as signatories. Astroturfing aside, SPH digital media editor Felix Soh called netizens -- his audience, mind you -- "sad" for championing Internet freedom as well as the closure of a website "they don't like".
How can there be responsible Internet freedom when STOMP's latest campaign is to expose the idiocy of Singaporeans' photo and status updates online? When there is little intention to educate citizen journalists over ethics or fact-check stories (remember Samantha Ann Francis?), does that not tarnish the duty of responsibility a free Internet must carry?
Cropping NSmen out of the picture
The back-and-forth over the petition's tipping point brings a seemingly trivial but key point up front. A photo of a National Serviceman not giving up his seat for the elderly is the latest in a string of posts targeting Singaporean sons for their sweat, stench and heavy bags even as they defend their country and are reminded by their superiors not to sit in the train for fear of Stompers.
While Felix Soh defended STOMP by saying that a photo in the gallery after the article's text did show that the reserved seat was empty and the old lady did not take it up, the unfortunate crop on the post's lead-in image is irresponsible, untruthful reporting unto itself.
It also brings another point into question: if this had been an erroneous report by a website reader, then why did STOMP's editors publish the story? Publishing is not an objective move: it is a subjective choice by an information controller who decides when to press the red button.
While The Straits Times responded by assuring its worth in awards and statistics, the wisest approach was taken by REACH by kickstarting a discussion in a bid to question what constitutes "responsible online behaviour". But that is too simplistic a topic.
We need to question the ethics of journalism in Singapore and what it means when a story is angled a certain way, is led by a particular photo and is not factual or representative. The quality of citizen reports will increase once STOMP lays down an ethos to meaningful, accurate reporting.
If the statistics ring true, SPH will clearly not close a cash cow like STOMP. But a tainted impression will definitely need a fix-up.
Already, in the redesigned Straits Times homepage, STOMP's grid of stories is given a much smaller space than before. The new STOMP page relegates complaints to a new Etc column while adding wacky world stories to the Singapore Seen column.
STOMP, however, is in a good position to signal its demographic towards more responsible journalism that has more perspective than the flash-in-the-pan, sensationalist laziness that permeates Singapore journalism.
Think of the fact-digging that bloggers such as Yawning Bread's Alex Au and The Heart Truths' Roy Ngerng does. Think of the many accident reports that can help remind motorists to be careful on the roads. Think of the admirable attempts to weave in courtroom reporting (not of the Serina Wee kind) for STOMP's audience.
Once STOMP can focus on what matters the most, maybe it will decide that a report lambasting onlookers for not helping is better than a video of a man lying down on the train floor.
