"I HAVE never, nor will I ever, read blogs" (Part 2)

Following the Ong Sor Fern's "I have never, nor will I ever, read blogs" article, I'm happy to say that I've found a more enlightened view from Scott Rosenberg, writing for The Guardian (a Mainstream Media publisher, no less):

"... From the dawn of blogging it's been tempting for established professionals to reject blogging as trivial and unreliable.

... 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."

(see also: TodayOnline,8 Sept 2007)

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"

• MSN news (6 Sept '07)
• Inquirer.net (6 Sept '07)
• TodayOnline.com (7 Sept '07)

"Casio to launch digital cameras for YouTube"

• Yahoo News (5 Sept '07)
• TodayOnline.com (5 Sept '07)
  

"I HAVE never, nor will I ever, read blogs"

I keep getting distracted from completing my IFLA series.

Like today.

Ong Sor Fern's piece in The Straits Times (Life! section, page 6, "Clearing away the cobwebs: Andrew Keen's The Cult Of The Amateur is a refreshingly brusque critique of how culture is being cannibalised in the brave new Internet world").

For reasons of copyright, I'm not allowed to reproduce the article. Here are some main points:

• The article starts with "I HAVE never, nor will I ever, read blogs."
• Later added that blogs are "a welter of undifferentiated information that blends fact with opinion with merry disregard for consequences".
• She acknowledges that there are "intelligent bloggers out there. But trying to find them is akin to looking for a single brainy needle in an exceedingly large and, mostly dumb, haystack".
• Then a substantial part that was a book review of sorts, for Andrew Keen's The Cult Of The Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture And Assaulting Our Economy.
• The writer qualifies that "Of course, my love of old media could be seen as springing from vested interest. After all, I work in the print media, about as old school as you can get".
• And near the last part, she wrote: "... consumers of culture need to draw a line in the sand. They have to commit to paying for legitimate content, because if there is anything Web 2.0 has proven, it is that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys."

Well...

We were discussing about this in the Media-socialist group. Generally a sense of "here we go again". But no angry words. More of tired resignation.

The Straits Times writer is free to express her personal opinion of course. In a mainstream medium, no less. Wish I could express my personal opinions in a mainstream newspaper too.

But what I took issue were the linkages being drawn in the article.

For one, what has "not reading blogs" have to do with the final conclusion of "you have to pay for quality information"?

It costs nothing to read blogs. And it costs nothing to publish blogs (not counting the time, but at least we don't have to pay to get published). I'd say most bloggers don't set out to be credible or authoritative sources. For most, their primary intent is to express their personal opinions and share personal anecdotes (stuff that Mainstream is unwilling or unable to publish, for various reasons).

That's the whole point. Blogs allow people to have their say.

And two, it's absolutely wrong to generalise that bloggers write with "merry disregard for consequences".

I consider the consequences all the time. And so do the responsible bloggers I know. If I don't, I'd lose my job.

Three, there's the part that essentially says because good blogs are hard to find, then most -- if not all -- blogs are of poor quality.

That's like saying, because I can't find a good restaurant in Singapore, therefore all restaurants in Singapore are bad.

But the most telling was the opening statement -- where the writer proclaims she has never read blogs.

I'm asking myself this: "If one has never read blogs, then how would one know that the quality is poor?"

Hear-say? Third-party information?

I thought part of verifying information was to check facts for ourselves.

But what do I know?

I'm just a librarian. Who blogs (double whammy!)

[Updates:
- Siva said he fell for it, i.e. the article was a ploy for him to read ST felt he had to respond.
- Google Blog search results for "nor will i ever, read blogs" (hat-tip to Siva again)]

Bernard Leong, on Two Medias

Bernard Leong posts this article about the Two Medias. He reflects and observes on some events and issues that spanned the past two years or so, that involved the "clash" of the 'new' and 'traditional media'.

It made me revisit some of the more notable posts/ events that were significant to me:

• Death threats to blogger Kathy Sierra (see: SFgate.com 27 Mar 2007; Kathy's own blog posts here, here and here)
• Cherian George, on One Country, Two Systems
• The Nexus 2007 conference (a comprehensive summary here)
• BlogOut 2007 (here's a cheeky post-event summary by Kevin)
• The controversy surrounding the remarks made by teenager Wee Shu Min (yup, there's even a Wikipedia article)
• The resurfacing, and hopefully a final close-out, of the Philip Yeo Vs. Acid Flask incident

Bernard believes that (1) an informal mechanism of criticism and feedback would be established between the New Media and the Mainstream Media, (2) controversy would be unsustainable in new media, and (3) the rise of "Specialist Bloggers" in the SG media landscape. He concludes that the future relationship between the two medias would be a balance that has positive and optimistic outcomes.

I've no doubt there would be a balance between the "two medias". The question is really 'when' (I made a similar point in this iChat conversation with Kevin and Brennan in October last year).

If you understand the concept of economic equilibrium, then it's easy to view the relationship of the New Media and the Mainstream Media as one influenced by price, demand and supply, with "News and Information" as the commodity.

And as in economics, what's less easy is to be able to predict and determine how much influence one variable has over the other.