"... From the dawn of blogging it's been tempting for established professionals to reject blogging as trivial and unreliable.(see also: TodayOnline,8 Sept 2007)
... Most journalists' understanding of the nature of blogging has been circumscribed by a focus on how it might affect our profession. We write articles about whether blogging can be journalism, we worry about whether bloggers can or will replace journalists, and we miss the real stories.
... So what, exactly, are Wolfe and other blogging detesters worried about? We're not going to run out of web space. And each of us still decides how to spend our time. What price is the world paying for the existence of blogging's universal soapbox? Unless someone has figured out how to make you read a blog when you don't want to, I don't see one. Is there a benefit? Ask Miller. Ask millions."
I'm no Blog-crusader. I've got nothing to defend about blogging. It's not a medium for everyone (as a reader or writer).
It's also not about Ms. Ong or any individual journalist.
What I take issue is when Mainstream Media writers, who are respected by many readers, make sweeping statements that are misleading. Something's not right when readers, who aren't exposed to New Media, take at face-value what Mainstream Media says (wrongly) about New Media.
There cannot be an "informed public" when the public -- who are still great consumers of Mainstream Media -- are misinformed.
If the maxim that "Information is power" is true, then for Singaporeans (who are fond of saying that our only natural resource is People), we cannot afford to stay misinformed or worse, ignorant of what's happening out there.
New Media -- not only blogs -- are a reality.
Just consider news like these:
"Blogs sweep Vietnam as young push state-run media aside"
"Casio to launch digital cameras for YouTube"