“The man who reads nothing at all is better than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” (Thomas Jefferson) To what extent is the statement a reflection of journalism in Singapore?

Breaking down the quote by Thomas Jefferson, we see that the implications of his statement is that if you read newspapers alone, you are misinformed and this has dangerous consequences for yourself and society. While I agree with this part of the quote, I feel that his assertion that one should choose not to read newspapers at all rather than read solely newspapers is too extreme and simplistic. While journalism in Singapore undoubtedly has its faults, misinforming us through its pro-government stance, I feel that this does not warrant Jefferson’s derisive sweeping aside of the usefulness of newspapers in general. Therefore I feel that the statement is a reflection of journalism in Singapore only to a small extent.

Journalism in Singapore deserves the readership of Singaporeans because it does provide a wealth of information – both local and international, which helps to broaden our minds. The commentaries and opinion pages by the Straits Times “Insight” and “Review” sections also deepen our thoughts by introducing us to a vast array of perspectives that provide us with a more balanced point of view on issues. For instance, the past few days have been rife with the discussions about giving skilled foreign immigrants easier access into Singapore. Instead of merely stating the government’s intentions and measures, The Straits Times has aired perspectives from welcoming as well as hostile Singaporeans and even the thoughts and anecdotes of foreigners already residing here. Such a spectrum of perspectives would have been lost had one decided to read “nothing at all”, perhaps even leading (in extreme cases) to bigoted, unsympathetic and unbalanced views about the issue. As for international views, the manner of writing by journalists here does nothing to erode their credibility in providing us with a true picture of events in the world. Having regularly read international journals and newspapers like The Economist and the International Tribune, I have found it reassuring that the reports by our journalists are as (if not more) balanced than theirs. As such, we see that majority of the reports by journalists in Singapore are unbiased and accurate, and thus are worthy of our time.

Moreover, journalists pride themselves on the accuracy of their work and do not deliberately try to sensationalise the news or push their own agendas. This is especially apparent when we juxtapose our journalists besides those in more extreme countries like China or even liberal countries like America whose First Amendment of the Constitution prides itself on the freedom of the press. For instance, Chinese newspapers are explicitly the mouthpiece of the communist government and unabashedly produce propaganda. Even at the other end of the spectrum, America’s press is often biased towards corporations or political parties. For example, Fox News has a clearly conservative slant, making it difficult to fully trust the news it presents. In contrast, Singapore’s press tries to a large extent to maintain neutrality. Singapore’s Press Holdings (SPH) also avoids sensationalizing the news in its more serious newspapers, tabloids not included. This is clear from the objective tone of its reports, void of any opinions by the journalists.

However, I must concede that the small but admittedly present slant towards the government is a fault of Singapore’s press. Many have griped at the incomplete picture the press presents due to its wariness of offending the government. The chummy nature of the relationship between SPH and the People’s Action Party (PAP) is apparent from the regular dialogues they have together, dialogues which are meant to help the heads of SPH understand the crucial nature of PAP’s policies and the great care they must take to ensure that everything is said in a nice tone and presented in just the right manner. Along with this is the carrot of government funding. Careful not to bite the hand that feeds it, SPH may forgo journalism ethics in order to operate according to what business sense deems fit. This careful following of the will of the government may also stem from the early days of Singapore’s independence, when the press was bluntly against the PAP. It could now be trying to maintain its favour by providing so much more election coverage during the recent General Elections and painting the government in a good light. Then again, while that seems undeniable, we must accept that it is only a minor part of our newspapers which does not merit our complete forgoing of useful information from the large proportion of it.

Then again, besides the obligation to conduct self-censorship described above, newspapers in Singapore are threatened with the stick of government censorship too. The extent of this is evident from our ranking by Journalists without Borden, in which we were placed just one rank above Iraq. Most recently, a satirist by the moniker of Mr. Brown had his column in the Today newspaper suspended on charges that he was undermining respect for the government. A survey by the blogger bulletin tomorrow.sg found that 76% of the respondents felt that the government was “oversensitive”. Thus, it is apparent that censorship chips away the credibility of our newspapers, causing some to feel that they should not even be read. However, it is reassuring to note that such cutting away of unwelcome information is and will continue improving with the advent of participatory media where “citizen journalists” can hold the press accountable for its omissions, thus implying that the censorship knife would be severely blunted and that the government may have to give the press freer reign in the face of such new developments, or risk alienating its population and especially its youths.

From the discussion above, we see too clearly the faults of our press, especially its fear of offending the government. This might give readers a false sense of security when actually they are taking in a skewed perspective. However, this is not severe to the extent that one should completely forgo reading newspapers, because the merits of being informed outweigh its limitations. To alleviate some of the problems of the pro-government stance, we as readers should take responsibility by becoming more discerning and by supplementing the news presented in the various local newspapers with that of international publications. Hopefully, the revolution of new media will further improve the scales by blunting the tools of censorship and the more insidious self-censorship.

Read More

Should the mass media always tell the truth?

Theodore Roosevelt once commented on the mass media and journalism specifically – “The power of the journalist is great, but he is neither respected nor admired for it, unless it is used right.” The former president of the United States aptly summed up what the mass media should aim to do: to tell the truth and not abuse their power of massive influence. However, the recent spate of terrorist events tailored for the media seems to propose that the media should not always tell the truth, and that there are circumstances that do not require the whole and absolute truth. That, however, does not imply lying, but instead the telling of a partial truth.

The mass media represents the specific body of the media envisioned for a large scale dissemination of information. Therefore, it is understandable that the mass media wields immense powers of influence over society. As it is, we depend on the media for coverage on the events taking place around us and for information on important global events. As Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore once commented, the mass media has a “moral and social responsibility”, and possesses powers of influence “greater than executives and corporate leaders”. Therefore, the mass media has to wield its responsibility and use its position of mass influence wisely – and this suggests a constant, steady, unwavering adherence to the truth. The extent of the mass media’s influence means that its every coverage of events would be eagerly lapped up and absorbed by members of the public, and the media has a social responsibility to cover and report events in a truthful, forthcoming light. Society depends on the mass media or factual reporting and unbiased recounts, and the mass media should live up to this dependence and expectation, and be held accountable.

Moreover, it is important for the media to tell the truth, especially when it pertains to a nation’s welfare, or is in relation to important political affairs that concern a country’s well-being. This function of the media in which it exposes misdeeds and misdemeanor is one that clearly entails a telling of the truth. The media’s whistle-blwoing and expose on the Watergate scandal for example, shows the need for telling of the truth and journalistic integrity despite possible opposition and backlash. The media is commonly regarded as the fourth estate to judge a government’s efficiency, and there is therefore a significant reliance of a nation on the media to check and report factually, the truth on affairs big and small. Therefore, the media’s actions should always be guided by the truth as they have to live up to a societal need for the truth, and non-slanted, unbiased and factual reporting.

Besides its ability to disseminate information on a large scale, the mass media also has the power to shape mindsets, create opinions and mould thought processes. For example, media coverage on the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky extramarital affair created widespread disapproval of the former American president with females worldwide frowning on the adultery of Clinton. The media therefore shaped an opinion on a global scale. Thus, the media should adhere to the truth, as opinions and mindsets are governed and influenced by the media’s coverage on events; dishonest or slanted and untruthful reporting would lead to opinions and reactions based on lies. Not only is this socially harmful, it is also unfair to the parties these lies are built upon.

However, there are instances in which the truth will not set one free, and there is a gap between what society needs and what society should get. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong commented at Today newspaper’s anniversary celebration that a media’s interest should converge with a nation’s goals of order and stability. Therefore, there are several circumstances in which the media, in order to move in tandem with a nation’s goals, has to avoid revealing the truth.

An obvious instance is when the phenomenon of terrorism is tailored for the media. Instead of simply bombing an obscure enemy village without injecting widespread fear, terrorists nowadays are known to specially tailor their terrorist actions for media coverage, so as to fulfill the more insidious objective of sparking off panic, pandemonium and distress on a large scale. This can be seen way back during the 1972 Munich Olympics in which Palestinian terrorists massacred Israeli athletes. The Olympic event was specially selected by the terrorists as there would be global coverage, and their acts of brutality and slaughter would be broadcast on an international scale, injecting distress across not only one country – but globally. Other instances include the execution of American Nick Berg and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings. Terrorists who captured Nick Berg purposefully filmed the gory and grotesque execution process and circulated I on the Internet to spark off distress to all who chanced upon the film, using the large scale influential power of the Internet to publicise their terrorist activities. In the Oklahoma City bombings, the bomber Timothy McVeigh picked his bombing destinations as he knew it would be a good spot for maximum coverage. During such deliberate, depraved acts of using the media, and exploiting its influence, the media should not succumb or fall prey to such schemes, and should hide some of the truth of the matter, in order to oppose this manipulation of the media.

Moreover, such terrorist acts purposefully attempt to spark off pandemonium using the mass media, and by reporting the full unadulterated and undiluted truth, the media would be a complicit in these acts of trying to destabilize and threaten the public. Therefore, this is a significant instance in which the complete truth is not expected of the media. In the aforementioned Nick Berg execution, media moguls CNBC, CNN and ABC refused to air the execution videos to avoid causing distress to the public. By not fulfilling the supposed talk of reporting the absolute truth, these media stations saved America from further panic and pandemonium, allowing a quicker recovery from the attacks, and helping to salvage the remnants of American national security. Another good example of how the media should be allowed to not reveal the whole truth, is the recent London Tube bombings. Instead of airing unedited and therefore completely truthful footage of the bomb-scene, the news stations decided to air edited still footage, to not further upset the already distressed nation. Therefore, it is pivotal to acknowledge that in such instances, the media should cover up the truth, in a bid to maintain stability and for the welfare of society, and to also prevent itself from getting exploited due to the influence it holds.

At times, to not report the full truth in the interest of national stability is what the media has to do. When Jemaah Islamiah terrorists were arrested in Singapore, the media had to have the discernment and perspicacity to dilute certain information so as not to ignite racial tensions in Singapore’s unique multi-racial social fabric. Therefore, this is another instance in which the absolute truth would not be the necessary truth, in order to protect and maintain a country’s welfare.

Therefore, the media should always tell the truth, but at times, it is required of the media to tell half-truths in order to converge with the primary concerns of a country’s security and stability. Although backers of complete press freedom and seekers of pure, unadulterated truth like non- governmental organization “Reporters Without Borders” might say that half- truths are equivalent to partial lies, I believe that “partial lies” are at times what is truly required instead. It is far too absolute to say that the mass media should “always” tell the truth, as there are precarious situations in our world that make truth-telling an amorphous affair. Roosevelt’s quote on the power of the journalist and it being used right should probably apply to telling “partial lies” for the greater good as well.

Read More

To what extent do you agree that the media has been a liberating force?

The number of media portal that an average person today has access to is astounding. Cable televisions boast up to 800 channels in countries like Singapore and the United States, and there are countless magazines and informative newsletters available in almost every bookstore, not forgetting the hundreds of newspapers across the globe available to us both in print and online versions. In today’s world, the media plays a vital role in providing information, entertainment and most importantly, shedding light on lesser- known issues. I feel that media, being an extremely important tool that has the capability to free people from oppression, voice concerns of the public and enlighten them on issues that are larger themselves, acts as a liberating force.

Critics always argue that one of the biggest constraints of the media is that it is often censored and manipulated to act as a mouthpiece to promote certain agendas. This is seen in authoritarian governments all over the world that systematically sieve out all potentially controversial or anti- government content from the news and other media forms such as movies and sometimes even music. Due to this, in some instances, the media fails to be a liberating tool as it constraints viewers and consumers to only one possible viewpoint, restricting the knowledge of the people to solely what the government chooses to make available to its people. For example, the “Great Firewall” of China blocks out all pro-democratic websites and even search engines such as Google, replacing them with its own censored versions such as Baidu. In this manner, all the exposure that the people receive about events are restricted to what the authorities allow, leaving the people with misconceptions and incomplete information as seen in the Chinese Xin Hua News Agency’s minimal coverage of the devastation caused by the Sichuan Earthquake, which the government sought to downplay. Hence, it is somewhat fair to say that in such instances, the media can misrepresent information when censored, and hence restricts people’s knowledge rather than liberates them with access to a range of viewpoints.

However, to a larger extent, the media has become an essential tool that serves to free many people across the globe from oppresion by being a voice that sheds light on their predicaments. This comes in the form of new media. New media, with its global outreach and lighting fast speech of information dissemination, has made possible the rise of a phenomenon known as citizen journalism. Given that everyone with Internet access and the ability to type can now partake in the news dissemination process, new media has given a voice to the common people who are now able to raise issues and garner support and help. From recent uprisings in Arab nations such as Tunisia and Yemen to the Saffron Revolution in Myanmar, the Internet has been highly effective in bringing global attention to the plight of the oppressed. The protests and riots on the streets of Tripoli against Gaddafi’s regime were first made known to the international community through amateur footage uploaded by Facebook and Twitter users, which went on to enlighten the world about the injustice that was ongoing in the region. This even prompted a NATO air raid led by France on Gaddafi’s troops, as a sign of support for the people of Libya and their plight. This exemplifies the media’s power to liberate the common people from injustice and grant them the freedom to express their opinions.

Furthermore, the media has also played an important role in uncovering the truth that is often intentionally, or not, hidden from the general public. By exposing the truth of many such issues and providing sound and factual representations of situations through the news and documentaries, the media is capable of liberating the masses by enlightening them and equipping them with the truth of the matter. News corporations have the resources and the incentive to carry out undercover reporting and investigations to get to the roots of the problems and find answers. In the cases of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prison scandals, the media was able to uncover footage of American soldiers abusing the prisoners and hence spark fierce debate and a government investigation of the issue to preserve the rights of prisoners. Many documentaries such as Discovery Channels “Air Crash Investigation” also do the same thing and uncover truths about past and present events in an objective way and hence are capable of extracting the truth behind conspiracies and cover-ups and can equip people with this knowledge, freeing them from deceit and fraudulent theories.

In the realm of the arts, the media has liberated people from both geographical and economic constraints and boundaries and has successfully immersed them in the appreciation of the arts. In the past, the arts, in the form of music, plays and films, were restricted to the rich and wealthy or could be appreciated only by those physically close to a theatre, museum or cinema. But with media coverage in the form of television shows, radio and magazines, these art forms are accessible to anyone with a television or a computer. One no longer has to travel to Cannes to see the year’s winning entries because there is an entire channel dedicated to playing art films on cable television. Music is no longer confined to certain regions or countries as iTunes and Billboard magazines is an excellent presentation of how, even with regard to the arts, the media has freed people from geographical and physical boundaries and allowed them access to an entirely new world and countless different cultures through something as accessible as MTV or a Bollywood movie.

Hence, it can be concluded that although in certain instances where censorship is practised, the media can possibly be an oppressive force that has the potential to mislead the masses, in many other instances, the media actually serves to liberate the masses and free them from their ignorance, misconceptions and oppressions. Thus, I strongly feel that in our world today, the media might possibly be one of the most powerful liberating force available.

Read More

Is it true to say that nowadays the choice offered on television is little more than a wide selection of trivial rubbish?

The advent of cable television has ensured that at the click of a button, the average viewer quite literally has hundreds of programmes to choose from, widening the latter’s range of viewing options to a hitherto unprecedented extent. Paradoxically, this phenomenon has served to restrict the choices of the more discerning viewers among us. The pressing need for profit maximisation felt by the television networks in this age of increased competition in the media arena has resulted in the flooding of the market with mass produced spin-offs of the same formula, churned out, factory style, at a decidedly alarming rate. The trite banality of the bulk of these programmes renders them unappealing viewing, as not only do they lack any form of aesthetic originality and creative input which genuinely enhance the enjoyment of the viewer’s experience; at a more insidious level, the sheer inanity of such sorry specimens of programming can actually lead to a mind- numbing mental atrophy of sorts.

The first genre which comes to mind in any discussion of the “trivial rubbish” that is aired on television would be the drama, fondly known by legions of housewives (and husbands) as their soap opera. While some might argue that the ever expanding range of soap operas is growing wittier in terms of plot and dialogue in comparison to its rather trite predecessors, it is also evident that due to the more permissive moral standards of our day, there is more sex explicitly depicted on screen than ever before. This writer has no puritanical objection to the barest hint of flesh in terms of the moral degeneration that television coverage of sexual content will undoubtedly cause; rather, the concern is that the contrived manner in which modern soaps tend to portray sex actually trivialises the very act itself. The OC, an abbreviation for the Orange Country, depicts the lifestyle of a group of favulously wealthy mobile and physically flawless young adults who frolic in one of America’s most up-market counties. These Adonises and Aphrodites while away their seemingly endless hours by indulging in a languid, amorous game of musical chairs in each other’s beds. After the third or forth episode, the view becomes somewhat inured to the constant, mindless switching of partners; and one is left quite unfazed, even ambivalent during the denouement when the strapping male protagonist saunters into his own bedroom to find his newly wed wife taking a gambol between the sheets with their next door neighbour – it is difficult to truly care for his plight when one knows all too well the details of his own bed rendezvous with the same neighbour’s finance. Sex sells, a principle that network markets are adept at exploiting; but when overdone, the sheet inanity of it evokes a response in the viewer which comes close to repulsion.

In the late 1990s, the reality television genre made its debut on the screen with the much touted series “Survivor”. The emergence of this genre was (purportedly at least) in large part as a protest against the affected melodrama of the abovementioned soap opera viewers wanted to see real people in real life situations. Ironically, the genre seems to have degenerated into a host of miniature soap operas, which if not completely scripted, are very much edited and doctored to present a more dramatic and often unreflective piece of the actual reality that goes on during filming. This selection process has made reality television perhaps an even more fitting subject for the criteria in the question. The standard formula of cat-fighting, sex and romance, which has the additional advantage of low cost production, has resulted in endless spin-offs of this successful prototype. The popular programme, “The Bachelor”, has spawned “Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire?”, “Joe Millionaire” and “Average Joe”, to name a few. After watching the hundredth nameless blue-eyed blonde with perfectly coiffured tresses, and the acrid tongued brunette with a slick bob, polishing their nails while figuratively digging their claws into their competitors for the impossible suave male prize’s attention, one becomes rather desensitised to the predictability of the endless stream of catty gossip, and can only wonder at the rapid evanescence of the initial attraction the programme’s novelty held. This fact is clearly recognised by the producers of The Bachelor, who have introduced the concept of a plant amongst the contestants in a desperate attempt to heighten the tension and woo viewers back.

Contrary to the assertion, quality programming is surprisingly available on television – consider scientific documentaries on National Geographic channel. However, programmes with such academic content are often dull and dry.

Is it possible, one might ask, to combine economic interests and popular entertainment with genuine art, something full of impact and originality? The answer must be a resounding “Yes”. As a welcome breath of fresh air in this age of stale programming, the Star Trek Voyager Series manages to encapsulate both seemingly contradictory ends. The space age setting of phases, starships and exotic aliens satisfy the visceral demands of television programmes, television being an inherently visual medium. The plot transcends being simply action-packed by being refreshingly original as well. It ropes in scientific concepts and phenomena and builds a storyline which extrapolates from them, making for intelligent viewing. Above all, into each episode is woven serious moral questioning about the fundamental human dilemmas. The producers take pains to avoid being didactic, and the storylines challenges, provoking reflection, rather than simply dishing out a neat, easy answer. This, perhaps, is television at its best one’s enjoyment of the engaging programme is deepened and prolonged by the intellectual and emotional satisfaction acquired in responding to its theme and issues.

In conclusion, although the prospects of the television scene today in general appear bleak, with a little bit of effort, if one searches persistently enough, programmes worth watching are perhaps not quite as extinct a species as one might originally have though.

Read More

Is it true to say that nowadays the choice offered on television is little more than a wide selection of trivial rubbish?

Nowadays, with the availability of satellite television and cable, we are confronted with a wide gamut of choices, many times expanded from what we had before. In the past, all one could obtain on television was the news and some local channels. We are no longer limited and restricted to a handful of channels on the goggle box, but a myriad of exciting, interesting programmes.

With that said, this “wide selection” has been criticised as being more than “trivial rubbish”. I find this assessment rather harsh and underserving. Trivial though this slew of new shows may be, they are certainly not rubbish. When one calls something trivial, he means to say that they are not serious, and that they are light or even light-hearted in nature, with no serious bearing on our existence. I concur with that judgement. However, devaluing something to the point of rubbish is too extreme, deeming it totally worthless when it does have its merits and benefits.

Perhaps the main culprit to blame for this quick and unjust accusation is the reality television genre. From big names like Survivor and The Amazing Race to smaller ones like Fear Factor and The Apprentice – these shows have had a major impact on the television scene. Reality television shows appeal to both the producer and the consumer. Mark Burnett, whose brainchild was Survivor, remarked that his series was essentially “unscripted drama”. This was a boon for cost savings, without needing to hire scriptwriters, directors, make- up crew and so on. This was an innovative yet intelligent way of filming which soon spawned many other mutations of the premise of taking ordinary people from their lives and giving them fifteen seconds of fame without having to worry about actors’ salaries. Such a revolution in the television industry can hardly be considered “rubbish” and not worth noticing.

The genre is quickly dismissed because apparently it shows “the bad side of human nature”, sometimes celebrating moral dubiousness, as in the case of Survivor. It is also trivial because frankly, nobody cares if someone can stuff a mouthful of mealworms in their mouth for two minutes. It is entertainment that preys on human weakness and iniquities, magnifying for the world to see (literally).

However, this is of value to the watchers as well. It is typical of humans to be voyeuristic, but few people laugh at others’ inadequacies to make themselves feel better. If these people willingly put themselves up for shame and humiliation, then who can be blamed for this generation of shows? This is us, after all. It is part of our pop culture, so ingrained in our consciousness. It may be “rubbish” by ethical standards of exploitation, which are relative in the first place, but it is surely worth something for defining our age and being a reflection of this era’s psyche.

Furthermore, to focus on only the negative aspects of reality television is not giving it a fair chance. The Amazing Race, though displaying shades of conniving with the recently incorporated “Yield” rule that lets one team stop another team from racing through no fault of their own, is a much better alternative to the traditional travel documentary. It is a new and improved version, with humour and adrenaline to boot. Positive qualities are also championed, like good navigational and physical skills as well as the ability to adapt to foreign customs and culture, not allowing xenophobia to shock and stop. In the bigger picture, does this not help raise greater awareness for an international community where everyone is linked? Rubbish does not educate and enlighten like reality television does.

In the past, drama shows were mostly melodramatic and veering towards being termed as soap operas. Plots were contrived clichéd and rehearsed. This made them not only trivial, but rubbish too. These days though, we get to enjoy smart, witty shows that are engaging and intriguing.

Besides that, they no longer just revolve around the scandals of feuding families over the decades, but actually do bring up some pertinent issues whilst cavorting in make-belief and fantasy for an hour every night. This is clearly evident from the suppression and desired emancipation of the Desperate Housewives that live on Wisteria Lane, as well as the forensic detectives who allow us to vicariously solve murder mysteries in Crime Scene Investigation.

Although the television dramas are not real, inspiration was gleaned from everyday life and we can all learn a thing or two about the character sand their situational plights, applying whatever epiphanies we gain to our lives. If we gain from this, it cannot be considered rubbish.

Following a similar train of though for the production of reality shows, we should consider the example of Channel NewsAsia’s creation, Get Real. This new show follows host Diana Ser as she delves into underground Singaporean issues like prostitution, homosexuality as well as teenage self- inflicted harm. Granted, these are not new problems and thorny issues, but to actually surface and bring to light taboo topics in a relatively conservative environment such as Singapore with a slanted local context is a breakthrough. This gungho attitude to confront societal matters and teach the populace about what they would rather hide and conceal is laudable and commendable. Never before has there been a show that attempts to be acute in its discussion. Even though it does not always provide clear-cut solutions, it clears up misunderstandings and dispels misconceptions, hardly qualifying it to be rubbish or trivial.

In fact, the only kind of programme that could arguably be defined as “trivial rubbish” would be Music Television or MTV for short. It is essentially people moving to music – nothing really serious there. It also champions buxomy babes and the revelry in plenty of flesh that is more than could be considered normal. Thus it sets itself up for the argument that moral decadence and the like is glorified, what with the smoking and heavy bumping and grinding in videos that reek of pulsating sexuality. To encourage such behaviour that pushes the standards (and cleavage) of our society even lower is surely rubbish. However, even this is tempered by songs and videos that buck the trend and appeal for transnational solidarity in terms of disaster such as the 9/11 tragedy which spurred many artistes to come together to say “what’s going on”, the video which filmed them unwrapping black binds emblazoned with different kinds of prejudice from around their eyes.

In conclusion, television’s choices have been raised, allowing people in Singapore to access CNN, BBC, and Discovery Channel, for example. Though some depravity is magnified, it does not destroy the inherent worth of the onslaught of shows nowadays, for they do allow us to reflect and see ourselves and others in a different manner, even whilst entertaining us.

Read More

“New forms of the media have made mainstream media redundant”. Discuss.

The advent of the Internet has brought about radical change in the media industry. No longer are people confined to reading the newspapers for news, or watching the television for entertainment. Nowadays, with just one click of the mouse, people can access instantaneous information and news online, and the proliferation of online blogs and social networking sites such as Twitter threaten to make mainstream media such as the aforementioned newspapers and television a thing of the past. However, even as newer forms of media such as blogs continue to sprout and grow, I feel that mainstream media will not become increasingly redundant. This is due to the fact that mainstream media are adapting to suit the taste of consumers and that they are still an integral part of their lives, despite the introduction of new media.

Admittedly, the Internet has caused mainstream media to seem comparatively slower in its dissemination of news. For example, the Chicago Tribune has an official website, chicagotribune.com, where it posts instant news coverage before the newspapers hit the newsstands with the same information the following morning. The relatively faster speed of new media has caused many newspaper readers to instead rely on new media for the latest news. Thus, mainstream media could become redundant if the criterion for redundancy was solely based on speed.

However, that is not the case. New media rely heavily on citizen journalism for “on-the-ground” reports; mainstream media, on the other hand, use professional journalists, reports tasked with the sole purpose of uncovering each and every piece of information related to the news article they are writing. Herein lies the advantage: that mainstream media have a wider and deeper coverage than those of new media. In addition, mainstream media have connections to a wider spectrum of professionals that can give greater insight into the issue at hand, rather than just posting a factual account of the events that transpired. For example, during the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections, many bloggers only provided their personal opinions of both candidates, and their opinion on who was likely to win the election. In contrast, the New York Times invited experts to do a state-by-state analysis of the entire election, presenting the results in a full-page spread of the U.S. elections, culminating in a detailed map of the United States of America, showing which states the Democrats were likely to win, and which the Republicans were likely to win. Such an in-depth and broad coverage cannot be found in new media, when they do, they offer a much wider scope and more detailed analysis of the event, instead of merely a factual account. This definitely shows that mainstream media are still relevant today.

Another point to consider is that new media have a rather limited scope in terms of the information reported. For example, bloggers tend to report more on celebrity gossip and sports, which led to the setting up of sites such as perezhilton.com, Perez Hilton being a blogger who only focussed on reporting entertainment-based news. In comparison, mainstream media offer coverage on a wide area of fields, ranging from political, economic and scientific news, to entertainment news, sports news and even the quirky. In this respect, mainstream media have an inherent advantage over new media in the sense that they cover news on every conceivable area of interest, rather than just focussing on one specific field, like new media tend to do.

Also, mainstream media are adapting to take advantage of the Internet. In some cases, mainstream media are actually integrating themselves with new media to make them more relevant in today’s context. One example of this is the citizen journalism site STOMP, in which newspaper readers are invited to post news and pictures that they have uncovered. Every week, myPaper has a column specifically dedicated to STOMP, in which the column lists the top 10 newsworthy stories posted on the site. This shows that, rather than becoming redundant, mainstream media are actually embracing the Internet as an alternative platform to share news reports with their readers. The introduction of TODAYonline and Newslink shows that mainstream media have not become redundant; they have just changed to suit the growing importance of the Internet to people worldwide. Thus, mainstream media actually cater to both newspaper readers and people who prefer online content.

This integration of mainstream and new media does not only apply to news coverage, but also to the entertainment aspect of media. Shows that are currently showing on the television are frequently uploaded onto video- sharing websites such as YouTube and Hulu, showing that there is still a surging demand for mainstream shows shown on television. In fact, mainstream television shows still garner a high number of views, despite the growing surge of new media. The recent Nielson index shows that the just- concluded finale of “American Idol” was watched by over 50 million viewers in the U.S. alone. In fact, during the regular broadcasts of “American Idol”, Ryan Seacrest, the host of the show, frequently urged viewers to log on to fox.americanidol.com, the official site of the show, for “never-before-seen exclusive content, including behind-the-scenes coverage of the contestants”. This shows that new media can be a supplement to mainstream media, and that mainstream media are actually bolstered by the introduction of new media, not hindered. In fact, American Idol even has a Twitter and YouTube account, posting updates and key performances of each episodes of the show. This clearly shows that mainstream media have not become redundant by the introduction of new media, bur rather, are using the new forms of media to generate attention and interest for the television shows shown and covered by mainstream media themselves. If mainstream media are made redundant, why are people all across the globe still interested in whether Kris Allen or Adam Lambert becomes the new American Idol, a supposed “mainstream television show”? Why do people still discuss the death of Edie Britt, a main character on the hit ABC television show “Desperate Housewives” on blogs, Internet forums and Twitter? The reason is simple: mainstream media are still very much an integral component of their lives, and while they might embrace the relatively newer forms of media such as blogs, they are still accessing the content of mainstream media and posting their thoughts online.

In conclusion, mainstream media and new media actually coexist in the world today, and with the growing content of new media, mainstream media are actually capitalising on this growing trend to their advantage by collaborating and integrating themselves with new media to make them still relevant in this increasingly virtual-based world. Hence, new forms of media have not made mainstream media redundant; they have just caused mainstream media to adapt to the rising trend of Internet usage, and use this trend to their advantage.

Read More