-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
ST’s Rachel Chang accuses Singapore government of being polarised
- Thread starter Watchman
- Start date
Re: ST’s Rachel Chang accuses Singapore government of being polarised
PAP and SPH getting cold feet over the rise of the new media: they still don’t get it!
February 5, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
OPINION
In a lengthy commentary published in the Straits Times yesterday, ST journalist Rachel Chang launched an uncharacteristic tirade against “anti-People’s Action Party personages” on the Internet for “lynching” netizens who do not share their views. (read article here)
She expressed her concern that the lack of self-censorship prevailing in cyberspace has led to the rise of “ugly impulses” like “a blanket racism towards all foreigners” in some forums.
“The urgent task for the online community in Singapore is to build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now – the ones who hide behind nicknames and prefer personal attacks to policy discussion,” she wrote.
Miss Chang’s views probably embodied that of both PAP and SPH as well. Unfortunately, they have demonstrated once again their utter ignorance of how the new media works.
For far too long, the PAP has been so used to a controlled media environment such that they are now clueless on how to deal with the sudden explosion of information on the internet which lies completely beyond their control.
Though no names were mentioned, it is quite obvious that Temasek Review belongs to the sites “who dominate the Web” now for we are the only socio-political blog in Singapore with a readership exceeding that of a few sites belonging to the mainstream media such as TODAY Online, Divaasia and Razor TV.
Miss Chang’s statement betrayed her lack of understanding of how the new media operates – no individual site can ever control or dominate the internet.
We may have a sizable readership now, but even if our readership were to double in the future, we still cannot control the flow and dissemination of information in cyberspace and how netizens think.
Netizens are generally quite sharp, knowledgeable and astute to begin with. No sites will be able to pull a wool over their eyes and “dictate” their views if that is what Miss Chang meant.
The internet is a jungle and only the fittest will survive in it. We are born and bred in this jungle and we know very well that in order to thrive in it, we have to constantly win our readers over with superior intellect, logic and persuasion which is unlike the environment which SPH journalists are working in where they are expected to produce nothing more than pure propaganda to please their political masters.
Had SPH not enjoyed a complete monopoly in the Singapore market it would have folded up a long time ago with its lackluster, bland and shallow style of journalism.
Perhaps SPH can try publishing a Straits Times-style newspaper in Hong Kong, Taiwan or South Korea and see if it can survive even a year.
With due respects to Miss Chang, her version of “credible and respected” website will never take off in Singapore’s blogosphere as the PAP’s own P65 blog has shown.
As a matter of fact, The Temasek Review did try to adopt a balanced approach in its articles in the beginning, but it just doesn’t work out.
Being an amateur site run on a shoe-string budget, the number of views per article is of utmost importance to us - the more clicks it receives, the more revenue we get from google advertising.
Based on experience, the articles which get the most clicks are almost always hard-hitting critiques of the PAP. They sell like hot cakes and also garner the most number of comments as well.
To give an example, we paid a known freelance columnist to write a well researched article on housing policies for us which is pretty fair, balanced and objective. Another article only half its length and consisting no more than empty rants against the PAP with no author attributed to it was published a few hours later. This article garnered twice the number of views than the earlier article at the end of the day.
Now if you are a businessman selling news, which type of news will you sell more often to maximize your returns?
The conventional “wisdom” that “credible and respected sites’ producing objective, balanced and unbiased articles written by known (not anonymous) writers will become popular and widely read is an illusion. We have been proven wrong time and again.
Readers flock to our site not because we report the unvarnished “truth”, but because we are able to articulate their innermost thoughts, feelings, concerns, worries, fears, frustration, resentment and anger clearly, succinctly and so thoroughly that they feel they have found a listening ear. This is what kept our readers coming back for more.
Temasek Review is a reader-oriented site. We cater to the needs of the majority of netizens which are not met by the mainstream media.
Most of our articles revolve around important issues like immigration, foreign talent, housing policies, education, political rights, democracy and social justice because they are grossly neglected by the mainstream media which tends only to present half-truths, spins and lies to cover the flaws of the PAP.
Miss Chang should stop and ponder why certain views deemed “extreme” by her standards are gaining so much traction among netizens.
The majority of Singaporeans are not xenophobic, they just feel threatened by the large number of foreigners living in their midst and it is a natural reaction that they should express their discomfort, displeasure and anger against it, not because they are against any particular race or nationality per se.
By putting all sorts of labels on them just because they do not share your views, you are only going to turn more people off.
The PAP should be worried by the rising chorus of disapproval of the way it is running the country on our site because we now belong to the mainstream. It is not the voice of a vocal minority but that of a silent majority who will become the kingmakers in future elections.
At the present moment, the PAP’s internet strategy is to rely only on the mainstream media to get its message across while ignoring the new media altogether so as not to lend any credibility to it.
Such a narrow approach will only work if the new media has a limited reach, but with our present readership, it will be foolhardy for them to continue swinging their sledge-hammers to demolish us. The last time SPH tried to demonize us a few months ago, it ended up boosting our readership unwittingly.
Every now and then, we will receive a hate mail from some PAP member and supporter castigating us for being biased against the government, but when we ask them to write a rebuttal to our articles, they refuse to do so.
If you think what is published here is unfair, inaccurate and prejudiced against the PAP, then you should try to convince readers and win them over to your side instead of complaining, whining and screaming away.
This is an open forum. We have stated many times that we welcome diverse views from across the political spectrum, be it pro or anti-establishment. If you refuse to engage us, then you cannot blame us for misinterpreting you or portraying you in a bad light.
To borrow a quote from Voltaire: “We may disagree with what you say, but we will defend to the death your right to say it.”
PAP members and supporters should understand that the reality on the ground is that you need us more than we need you. We can continue wacking you for all we care and our readership will not suffer a bit. You are the ones who need a platform in cyberspace to make yourselves heard and you should be grateful to us for offering space on our site for you to do so.
We have been very fair to PAP leaders and members who bother to write to us such as Madam Halimah Yacob and Sear Hock Rong. We will make sure your views get aired adequately here on our site, but if you continue to treat us with contempt, then you cannot blame us for being “unfair” to you because we will have to close shop if we were to adopt the same editorial stance and style as the mainstream media.
The urgent task for the online community is not to build up “credible and respected” websites as defined by the standards of the establishment, but to have as many “Temasek Reviews” as possible to achieve a combined readership higher than that of the state-controlled media.
Malaysia has Malaysiakini, Malaysia Today, The Malaysian Insider, Malaysian Mirror, Merdeka Review etc, but Singapore only has Temasek Review and one other site. It is not healthy for the new media to be dominated by only one or two major voices in the long run.
We prefer to have a wide variety of sites, each offering a different perspective and slanted towards different parties to complement one another rather than to have one single “credible and respected” website.
In a free and open media landscape, readers will be able to judge for themselves the news sites they can trust. If we have been publishing only hogwash all along, our readership will not have reached this size now.
Both PAP and SPH should just let go and trust Singaporeans to reach an informed decision themselves. There is no way you can control the New Media. Wake up from the idea and engage us on our own terms and turfs now before it is too late!
We bear no animosities against the PAP or SPH. If you are keen to talk to us, just drop us an email at [email protected]
PAP and SPH getting cold feet over the rise of the new media: they still don’t get it!
February 5, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
OPINION
In a lengthy commentary published in the Straits Times yesterday, ST journalist Rachel Chang launched an uncharacteristic tirade against “anti-People’s Action Party personages” on the Internet for “lynching” netizens who do not share their views. (read article here)
She expressed her concern that the lack of self-censorship prevailing in cyberspace has led to the rise of “ugly impulses” like “a blanket racism towards all foreigners” in some forums.
“The urgent task for the online community in Singapore is to build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now – the ones who hide behind nicknames and prefer personal attacks to policy discussion,” she wrote.
Miss Chang’s views probably embodied that of both PAP and SPH as well. Unfortunately, they have demonstrated once again their utter ignorance of how the new media works.
For far too long, the PAP has been so used to a controlled media environment such that they are now clueless on how to deal with the sudden explosion of information on the internet which lies completely beyond their control.
Though no names were mentioned, it is quite obvious that Temasek Review belongs to the sites “who dominate the Web” now for we are the only socio-political blog in Singapore with a readership exceeding that of a few sites belonging to the mainstream media such as TODAY Online, Divaasia and Razor TV.
Miss Chang’s statement betrayed her lack of understanding of how the new media operates – no individual site can ever control or dominate the internet.
We may have a sizable readership now, but even if our readership were to double in the future, we still cannot control the flow and dissemination of information in cyberspace and how netizens think.
Netizens are generally quite sharp, knowledgeable and astute to begin with. No sites will be able to pull a wool over their eyes and “dictate” their views if that is what Miss Chang meant.
The internet is a jungle and only the fittest will survive in it. We are born and bred in this jungle and we know very well that in order to thrive in it, we have to constantly win our readers over with superior intellect, logic and persuasion which is unlike the environment which SPH journalists are working in where they are expected to produce nothing more than pure propaganda to please their political masters.
Had SPH not enjoyed a complete monopoly in the Singapore market it would have folded up a long time ago with its lackluster, bland and shallow style of journalism.
Perhaps SPH can try publishing a Straits Times-style newspaper in Hong Kong, Taiwan or South Korea and see if it can survive even a year.
With due respects to Miss Chang, her version of “credible and respected” website will never take off in Singapore’s blogosphere as the PAP’s own P65 blog has shown.
As a matter of fact, The Temasek Review did try to adopt a balanced approach in its articles in the beginning, but it just doesn’t work out.
Being an amateur site run on a shoe-string budget, the number of views per article is of utmost importance to us - the more clicks it receives, the more revenue we get from google advertising.
Based on experience, the articles which get the most clicks are almost always hard-hitting critiques of the PAP. They sell like hot cakes and also garner the most number of comments as well.
To give an example, we paid a known freelance columnist to write a well researched article on housing policies for us which is pretty fair, balanced and objective. Another article only half its length and consisting no more than empty rants against the PAP with no author attributed to it was published a few hours later. This article garnered twice the number of views than the earlier article at the end of the day.
Now if you are a businessman selling news, which type of news will you sell more often to maximize your returns?
The conventional “wisdom” that “credible and respected sites’ producing objective, balanced and unbiased articles written by known (not anonymous) writers will become popular and widely read is an illusion. We have been proven wrong time and again.
Readers flock to our site not because we report the unvarnished “truth”, but because we are able to articulate their innermost thoughts, feelings, concerns, worries, fears, frustration, resentment and anger clearly, succinctly and so thoroughly that they feel they have found a listening ear. This is what kept our readers coming back for more.
Temasek Review is a reader-oriented site. We cater to the needs of the majority of netizens which are not met by the mainstream media.
Most of our articles revolve around important issues like immigration, foreign talent, housing policies, education, political rights, democracy and social justice because they are grossly neglected by the mainstream media which tends only to present half-truths, spins and lies to cover the flaws of the PAP.
Miss Chang should stop and ponder why certain views deemed “extreme” by her standards are gaining so much traction among netizens.
The majority of Singaporeans are not xenophobic, they just feel threatened by the large number of foreigners living in their midst and it is a natural reaction that they should express their discomfort, displeasure and anger against it, not because they are against any particular race or nationality per se.
By putting all sorts of labels on them just because they do not share your views, you are only going to turn more people off.
The PAP should be worried by the rising chorus of disapproval of the way it is running the country on our site because we now belong to the mainstream. It is not the voice of a vocal minority but that of a silent majority who will become the kingmakers in future elections.
At the present moment, the PAP’s internet strategy is to rely only on the mainstream media to get its message across while ignoring the new media altogether so as not to lend any credibility to it.
Such a narrow approach will only work if the new media has a limited reach, but with our present readership, it will be foolhardy for them to continue swinging their sledge-hammers to demolish us. The last time SPH tried to demonize us a few months ago, it ended up boosting our readership unwittingly.
Every now and then, we will receive a hate mail from some PAP member and supporter castigating us for being biased against the government, but when we ask them to write a rebuttal to our articles, they refuse to do so.
If you think what is published here is unfair, inaccurate and prejudiced against the PAP, then you should try to convince readers and win them over to your side instead of complaining, whining and screaming away.
This is an open forum. We have stated many times that we welcome diverse views from across the political spectrum, be it pro or anti-establishment. If you refuse to engage us, then you cannot blame us for misinterpreting you or portraying you in a bad light.
To borrow a quote from Voltaire: “We may disagree with what you say, but we will defend to the death your right to say it.”
PAP members and supporters should understand that the reality on the ground is that you need us more than we need you. We can continue wacking you for all we care and our readership will not suffer a bit. You are the ones who need a platform in cyberspace to make yourselves heard and you should be grateful to us for offering space on our site for you to do so.
We have been very fair to PAP leaders and members who bother to write to us such as Madam Halimah Yacob and Sear Hock Rong. We will make sure your views get aired adequately here on our site, but if you continue to treat us with contempt, then you cannot blame us for being “unfair” to you because we will have to close shop if we were to adopt the same editorial stance and style as the mainstream media.
The urgent task for the online community is not to build up “credible and respected” websites as defined by the standards of the establishment, but to have as many “Temasek Reviews” as possible to achieve a combined readership higher than that of the state-controlled media.
Malaysia has Malaysiakini, Malaysia Today, The Malaysian Insider, Malaysian Mirror, Merdeka Review etc, but Singapore only has Temasek Review and one other site. It is not healthy for the new media to be dominated by only one or two major voices in the long run.
We prefer to have a wide variety of sites, each offering a different perspective and slanted towards different parties to complement one another rather than to have one single “credible and respected” website.
In a free and open media landscape, readers will be able to judge for themselves the news sites they can trust. If we have been publishing only hogwash all along, our readership will not have reached this size now.
Both PAP and SPH should just let go and trust Singaporeans to reach an informed decision themselves. There is no way you can control the New Media. Wake up from the idea and engage us on our own terms and turfs now before it is too late!
We bear no animosities against the PAP or SPH. If you are keen to talk to us, just drop us an email at [email protected]
